(An excerpt from: Kalugampitiya, Nandaka Maduranga. "Resistance and Reinforcement: Rethinking the Underclass Commercial Sex Worker Discourse in Sri Lanka." Sri Lanka Journal of the Humanities. 2012, Vol. 38 Issue 1, p25-41.)
The study uses the term ‘sympathy-story’ to refer to the set story in terms of which almost every CSW discusses and justifies her involvement in commercial sex work. This story is primarily aimed at arousing sympathy in the listener towards the CSW’s “plight.” They vary from one another in terms of specific details; however, all stories share a common, even predictable, narrative structure/story line. The study identifies two areas that the CSWs discuss in their sympathy-stories: (1) the factors that made them become CSWs and continue in the commercial sex work profession and (2) their attitude towards commercial sex work. The study recognizes the sympathy-story as one of the few possible ways, if not the only way, in which the female CSW can discuss her “predicament,” especially with a person whom she considers an outsider. It is a story not so much in the sense of a factually inaccurate account as in the sense of a conscious re-presentation of her situation with the specific aim of earning the listener’s sympathy and justifying her case.
In a context where the illegality of the practices that define the concerned underclass discourse requires CSWs to maintain the secretive nature of their practices, it would be a mistake to assume that the CSWs’ sympathy-stories are factually accurate accounts. In this sense, exclusive reliance on the sympathy-stories would only result in a distorted understanding of the discourse of sex work. However, the obvious uncertainty regarding the factual accuracy of these stories does not undermine their validity as “research data.” Stories may not always present factually accurate data; nevertheless, irrespective of whether they are true or false, they provide important insights into how people perceive the world. Given that the highly disadvantageous position that CSWs occupy in society requires them to justify their position as CSWs in some way for their survival and that the sympathy-story is the best way, if not the only way, in which they could strive to do that, the sympathy stories arguably provide important insights not only into the way the CSWs perceive the world, but also into how they practically go about the difficult task of justifying their case. In this sense, these sympathy-stories provide ideal research data for discourse analysis studies.[1]
The CSWs cite dire poverty as the primary factor that made them join the commercial sex work profession. The CSW projects herself as the primary, if not the only, bread-winner of her family, which is usually bigger than a nuclear family unit (one that includes not only the CSW and her children but also her parents, siblings, and other adults in the family) and characterized by the absence of a “protective” male figure. They claim commercial sex work to be the only means of income that enables them to “feed” their families. Irrespective of whether it is valid or not, the dominant argument that they do not have “proper” educational qualifications and “skills” to obtain “respectable” jobs enables them to justify, on sympathetic grounds, their claim that commercial sex work is the only option that is left open for her. This aspect of the sympathy-story indicates a tendency on the part of the CSW to justify her involvement in the illegal profession of commercial sex work on humanitarian grounds. Interestingly, she does this using the values and standards defined and upheld by the mainstream discourse, like providing for helpless family members. She subscribes to the dominant notions of “skill” and “education” when she cites the absence of those to justify her involvement in sex work. Her failure to acknowledge, if not her conscious decision not to acknowledge, that she possesses a different kind of “education” and a different set of “skills” that are necessary for her to operate as a CSW creates a space in which she could ignore the intense pressure from the hegemonic mainstream discourse and make her case in a convincing manner.
Ten out of the twelve CSWs cited sexual abuse by a male figure (the husband, the lover, a male family member, or an outsider) and/or willful abandonment by the husband or lover as factors that pushed them towards commercial sex work. Their narratives implied the idea that the incident(s) of sexual abuse and abandonment “tainted” their character forever and made them “damaged goods” and denied them the opportunity to continue as “normal” women in society. According to them, the only option that is open to women like them is commercial sex work. This argument indicates a tendency to subscribe to the dominant social conceptions regarding the “vulnerability” and “helplessness” of women and use these dominant conceptions to justify their position as CSWs on sympathetic grounds. Two CSWs in the first category said that their involvement in commercial sex work was, among other things, their way of taking revenge from the men who “violated” them and made them “impure.” At the same time, they challenged, and did so consciously, the patriarchal value structure, which held the idea of “sexual purity” in high regard, when they expressed their decision to continue to be “impure” and use “sexual impurity” as a weapon against the violators. However, the fact that this decision is based on the assumption that the act of sexual abuse “violated” them and pushed them to a point where they could no longer function as “respectable” women in society indicates an acceptance of the patriarchal values of “purity,” “respectability,” and “womanhood” at a fundamental level.
Their dislike towards the profession they are involved in and their express desire to quit the “job” are essential features of the CSWs’ dominant sympathy-story. All the CSWs involved in the present study viewed commercial sex work as a “shameful,” “disgraceful,” “evil,” “bad,” “immoral,” and “sinful” act/profession that resulted in “social deterioration.” They claimed that they were involved in commercial sex work only because they did not have any other option and expressed their willingness and readiness to quit the profession if they got different, preferably “respectable,” jobs. Their confession that they had not been able to be “good mothers” to their children, their emphatic claim that they would never allow their children to “fall” into the commercial sex work profession, and their express determination to raise their children in such a way that they would enter society as “good” and “respectable” citizens reaffirm the CSWs’ tendency to project their profession as a necessarily “evil” one.
Their attitude towards their profession indicates their acceptance of the mainstream social and religious values of “grace,” “goodness,” “morality,” “motherhood,” and “social correctness.” It also indicates the extent to which the CSWs who appear to resist the dominant discourse are controlled and influenced by the hegemonic structures of that dominant discourse itself. In the context of the sympathy-story, this acceptance of the mainstream social and religious values and affirmation of the mainstream understanding of commercial sex work could be read as a discursive strategy that the CSWs use, if not have to use, in order to project their story as one that is in line with, or, at least, not completely outside of, the dominant value system, hence a story that is worth listening to. The acceptance of the “ground rules” or the “rules of the game” through this initial alignment of the sympathy-story with the dominant value system is a necessary prerequisite for the CSWs’ justification of their case.
Although the dominant sympathy-story accepts the mainstream social and religious values, it would be misleading to see it as passive acceptance. This acceptance is followed by an attempt to redefine these mainstream values. The CSWs’ argument that they render an indispensable “service” to society could be seen as a case in point. According to their view, CSWs render an important service to those who are not in a position to gratify their sexual desires in a socially acceptable manner. They also claim that their service benefits the whole society because the availability of this service prevents sexual exploitation and abuse of family members and other powerless individuals who are mainly women. This claim, which projects CSWs as the saviours of the “womankind,” calls for a radical reevaluation and redefinition of the mainstream social and religious values such as “service,” “goodness,” “morality,” “motherhood,” “womanhood,” and “social correctness.” However, the fact that the call is more for a redefinition of the existing mainstream values than for a complete rejection of those values shows that the CSWs’ resistance entails a certain reinforcement of the existing hegemonic structures at a fundamental level.
A couple of subsequent discoveries that the study made confirmed that the CSWs’ initial sympathy-stories could not be considered “accurate” representations of their life/style. Certain “insider details” that the CSWs revealed in the second and third rounds of interviews contradicted their initial sympathy-stories. The sense of amusement with which some CSWs described certain sex acts and certain “weird” forms of behaviour of certain clients, and certain slips-of-the-tongue that indicated that they enjoyed engaging in certain sex acts with certain types of clients clearly contradicted their initial claim that they completely disliked their profession. At the same time, the study identified two street women who operated as CSWs while being employed in a town cleaning service, and this shows that the availability of alternative means of livelihood does not necessarily make them give up commercial sex work. The fact that they did not return to their initial sympathy-stories in the subsequent interviews shows that they were largely “stories” that served specific discursive purposes. In this sense, it is logical to view these “stories” as a discursive strategy that enables CSWs to discuss their “predicament” with outsiders, without revealing the insider information regarding their life/style, while elevating themselves to a position where they could expect to gain the sympathy of the listener. They could be seen as a necessary façade that CSWs are constrained to use in order to protect themselves, at least to a certain extent, from the massive pressure from the dominant hegemonic discourse. Any understanding that fails to recognize this discursive nature of the sympathy-stories would lead to a misunderstanding of the underclass CSW discourse.
[1] Describing what he means by discourse analysis, Foucault says, “I do not question discourses about their silently intended meanings, but about the fact and the conditions of their manifest appearance; not about the contents which they may conceal, but about the transformations which they have effected; not about the sense preserved within them like a perpetual origin, but about the field where they coexist, reside and disappear” (“Politics and the Study of Discourse” 60). He also argues, “discourse is constituted by the difference between what one could say correctly at one period (under the rules of grammar and logic) and what is actually said. The discursive field is, at a specific moment, the law of this difference” (“Politics and the Study of Discourse” 63).
The study uses the term ‘sympathy-story’ to refer to the set story in terms of which almost every CSW discusses and justifies her involvement in commercial sex work. This story is primarily aimed at arousing sympathy in the listener towards the CSW’s “plight.” They vary from one another in terms of specific details; however, all stories share a common, even predictable, narrative structure/story line. The study identifies two areas that the CSWs discuss in their sympathy-stories: (1) the factors that made them become CSWs and continue in the commercial sex work profession and (2) their attitude towards commercial sex work. The study recognizes the sympathy-story as one of the few possible ways, if not the only way, in which the female CSW can discuss her “predicament,” especially with a person whom she considers an outsider. It is a story not so much in the sense of a factually inaccurate account as in the sense of a conscious re-presentation of her situation with the specific aim of earning the listener’s sympathy and justifying her case.
In a context where the illegality of the practices that define the concerned underclass discourse requires CSWs to maintain the secretive nature of their practices, it would be a mistake to assume that the CSWs’ sympathy-stories are factually accurate accounts. In this sense, exclusive reliance on the sympathy-stories would only result in a distorted understanding of the discourse of sex work. However, the obvious uncertainty regarding the factual accuracy of these stories does not undermine their validity as “research data.” Stories may not always present factually accurate data; nevertheless, irrespective of whether they are true or false, they provide important insights into how people perceive the world. Given that the highly disadvantageous position that CSWs occupy in society requires them to justify their position as CSWs in some way for their survival and that the sympathy-story is the best way, if not the only way, in which they could strive to do that, the sympathy stories arguably provide important insights not only into the way the CSWs perceive the world, but also into how they practically go about the difficult task of justifying their case. In this sense, these sympathy-stories provide ideal research data for discourse analysis studies.[1]
The CSWs cite dire poverty as the primary factor that made them join the commercial sex work profession. The CSW projects herself as the primary, if not the only, bread-winner of her family, which is usually bigger than a nuclear family unit (one that includes not only the CSW and her children but also her parents, siblings, and other adults in the family) and characterized by the absence of a “protective” male figure. They claim commercial sex work to be the only means of income that enables them to “feed” their families. Irrespective of whether it is valid or not, the dominant argument that they do not have “proper” educational qualifications and “skills” to obtain “respectable” jobs enables them to justify, on sympathetic grounds, their claim that commercial sex work is the only option that is left open for her. This aspect of the sympathy-story indicates a tendency on the part of the CSW to justify her involvement in the illegal profession of commercial sex work on humanitarian grounds. Interestingly, she does this using the values and standards defined and upheld by the mainstream discourse, like providing for helpless family members. She subscribes to the dominant notions of “skill” and “education” when she cites the absence of those to justify her involvement in sex work. Her failure to acknowledge, if not her conscious decision not to acknowledge, that she possesses a different kind of “education” and a different set of “skills” that are necessary for her to operate as a CSW creates a space in which she could ignore the intense pressure from the hegemonic mainstream discourse and make her case in a convincing manner.
Ten out of the twelve CSWs cited sexual abuse by a male figure (the husband, the lover, a male family member, or an outsider) and/or willful abandonment by the husband or lover as factors that pushed them towards commercial sex work. Their narratives implied the idea that the incident(s) of sexual abuse and abandonment “tainted” their character forever and made them “damaged goods” and denied them the opportunity to continue as “normal” women in society. According to them, the only option that is open to women like them is commercial sex work. This argument indicates a tendency to subscribe to the dominant social conceptions regarding the “vulnerability” and “helplessness” of women and use these dominant conceptions to justify their position as CSWs on sympathetic grounds. Two CSWs in the first category said that their involvement in commercial sex work was, among other things, their way of taking revenge from the men who “violated” them and made them “impure.” At the same time, they challenged, and did so consciously, the patriarchal value structure, which held the idea of “sexual purity” in high regard, when they expressed their decision to continue to be “impure” and use “sexual impurity” as a weapon against the violators. However, the fact that this decision is based on the assumption that the act of sexual abuse “violated” them and pushed them to a point where they could no longer function as “respectable” women in society indicates an acceptance of the patriarchal values of “purity,” “respectability,” and “womanhood” at a fundamental level.
Their dislike towards the profession they are involved in and their express desire to quit the “job” are essential features of the CSWs’ dominant sympathy-story. All the CSWs involved in the present study viewed commercial sex work as a “shameful,” “disgraceful,” “evil,” “bad,” “immoral,” and “sinful” act/profession that resulted in “social deterioration.” They claimed that they were involved in commercial sex work only because they did not have any other option and expressed their willingness and readiness to quit the profession if they got different, preferably “respectable,” jobs. Their confession that they had not been able to be “good mothers” to their children, their emphatic claim that they would never allow their children to “fall” into the commercial sex work profession, and their express determination to raise their children in such a way that they would enter society as “good” and “respectable” citizens reaffirm the CSWs’ tendency to project their profession as a necessarily “evil” one.
Their attitude towards their profession indicates their acceptance of the mainstream social and religious values of “grace,” “goodness,” “morality,” “motherhood,” and “social correctness.” It also indicates the extent to which the CSWs who appear to resist the dominant discourse are controlled and influenced by the hegemonic structures of that dominant discourse itself. In the context of the sympathy-story, this acceptance of the mainstream social and religious values and affirmation of the mainstream understanding of commercial sex work could be read as a discursive strategy that the CSWs use, if not have to use, in order to project their story as one that is in line with, or, at least, not completely outside of, the dominant value system, hence a story that is worth listening to. The acceptance of the “ground rules” or the “rules of the game” through this initial alignment of the sympathy-story with the dominant value system is a necessary prerequisite for the CSWs’ justification of their case.
Although the dominant sympathy-story accepts the mainstream social and religious values, it would be misleading to see it as passive acceptance. This acceptance is followed by an attempt to redefine these mainstream values. The CSWs’ argument that they render an indispensable “service” to society could be seen as a case in point. According to their view, CSWs render an important service to those who are not in a position to gratify their sexual desires in a socially acceptable manner. They also claim that their service benefits the whole society because the availability of this service prevents sexual exploitation and abuse of family members and other powerless individuals who are mainly women. This claim, which projects CSWs as the saviours of the “womankind,” calls for a radical reevaluation and redefinition of the mainstream social and religious values such as “service,” “goodness,” “morality,” “motherhood,” “womanhood,” and “social correctness.” However, the fact that the call is more for a redefinition of the existing mainstream values than for a complete rejection of those values shows that the CSWs’ resistance entails a certain reinforcement of the existing hegemonic structures at a fundamental level.
A couple of subsequent discoveries that the study made confirmed that the CSWs’ initial sympathy-stories could not be considered “accurate” representations of their life/style. Certain “insider details” that the CSWs revealed in the second and third rounds of interviews contradicted their initial sympathy-stories. The sense of amusement with which some CSWs described certain sex acts and certain “weird” forms of behaviour of certain clients, and certain slips-of-the-tongue that indicated that they enjoyed engaging in certain sex acts with certain types of clients clearly contradicted their initial claim that they completely disliked their profession. At the same time, the study identified two street women who operated as CSWs while being employed in a town cleaning service, and this shows that the availability of alternative means of livelihood does not necessarily make them give up commercial sex work. The fact that they did not return to their initial sympathy-stories in the subsequent interviews shows that they were largely “stories” that served specific discursive purposes. In this sense, it is logical to view these “stories” as a discursive strategy that enables CSWs to discuss their “predicament” with outsiders, without revealing the insider information regarding their life/style, while elevating themselves to a position where they could expect to gain the sympathy of the listener. They could be seen as a necessary façade that CSWs are constrained to use in order to protect themselves, at least to a certain extent, from the massive pressure from the dominant hegemonic discourse. Any understanding that fails to recognize this discursive nature of the sympathy-stories would lead to a misunderstanding of the underclass CSW discourse.
[1] Describing what he means by discourse analysis, Foucault says, “I do not question discourses about their silently intended meanings, but about the fact and the conditions of their manifest appearance; not about the contents which they may conceal, but about the transformations which they have effected; not about the sense preserved within them like a perpetual origin, but about the field where they coexist, reside and disappear” (“Politics and the Study of Discourse” 60). He also argues, “discourse is constituted by the difference between what one could say correctly at one period (under the rules of grammar and logic) and what is actually said. The discursive field is, at a specific moment, the law of this difference” (“Politics and the Study of Discourse” 63).