International Review of Victimology, 2004, Vol.ll, pp.

295-311
0269-7580/04 $10
A B Academic Publishers -Printed in Great Britain

CONSTRUCTING THE VICTIM: THEORETICAL

REFLECTIONS AND EMPIRICAL EXAMPLES l

RAINER STROBL

University ofBielefeld, Interdisciplinary Institute for Conflict and Violence Research, Bielefeld,
Germany

ABSTRACT

This article discusses the social construction of the victim and analyses conditions for ascription
of the victim role. As a neutral point of reference a scientific construction of the victim is presented.
It is agued that for the concept of victimisation to apply within the realm of victimological research
and practice five minimum criteria should be fulfilled. Suffering directly or indirectly from
victimisation, as defined in this way, is regarded as a precondition for ascription of the victim role.
Additional conditions in given social contexts are discussed and a theoretical model for the
successful communication of victimisation introduced. Results from interviews with Thrkish men
and women living in Germany are presented in order to illustrate the model.

INTRODUCTION

It seems obvious that people who have been robbed or beaten up or who have
suffered from other forms of crime are victims and should be treated as victims.
However, neither are all forms of norm violations unanimously considered as
victimisation nor are all harmed persons equally treated as victims. Nevertheless,
traditional victimology has by and large shared the conventional perspective of
objectively constituted victimisation and victims. But beside this victimological
mainstream there have also been less common and challenging approaches.
Even in the 1970s, Quinney (1975) was urging victimologists to see the term
'victim' as a social construction that emerges in interactional and discursive
practices. In this sense Miers (1990) pleads for 'critical victimology' that is able
to analyse both the social process of labelling individuals as victims and the
impact of such labelling on the individual.
The crucial point of such a constructivist perspective is that the term 'victim'
- like the term 'criminal' - is conceived as a social status that is ascribed to a
person according to formal and informal rules. Without this status a person will
not be regarded as a victim and in fact will not be a victim in the social world.
He or she will not obtain emotional support from his/her family and friends or
material support from compensation schemes. In order to acquire this status it
seems to be important that a person first identifies himself or herself as a victim
and then presents his or her suffering in a way that complies with the social
296

TABLE I
Recognising the victim

Self-identification as a victim

yes no

Social recognition as yes actual victim designated victim

a victim
no rejected victim non-victim

definition of victimisation (Miers, 1990, p. 221). However, logically, the combi-

nation of self-identification and social recognition as a victim has four possible
outcomes (see Table 1).
No problem arises if both the person who has suffered the harm and those who
have learnt about this incident categorise the event in the same way (actual
victim or non- victim). However, it may happen that a person sees himselflherself
as a victim but is denied victim status or is even ascribed offender status by
important others (rejected victim). This outcome can have several reasons. First,
the sufferer's personal characteristics or the circumstances of the harmful inci-
dent may disqualify him or her from the victim role (Miers, 1990, p. 222).
Another important reason is involvement in illegal activities, which makes a
successful claim for victim status very difficult. Furthermore, the need to react
to the norm violation may lead to arbitrary justice and other forms of norm
violations (Black, 1983; Fattah, 1992; Miers, 2000). Norm violating behaviour
may also result from a strong feeling of injustice as a result of having been denied
the victim role. However, it is also possible that the victim status is ascribed to a
person who does not see himself or herself in this role (designated victim). Apart
from ignorance (e.g. young children who have become victims of sexual assault)
or differences in norm and value orientation (e.g. migrants), this might also result
from a rejection of the victim role and its obligations (see below). Thus depend-
ing on varying degrees of knowledge, cultural values, attitudes, and beliefs,
self-labelling as a victim can be relatively easy, relatively hard, or nearly
impossible (Burt, 1983, pp. 264-265). The discrepancies between self-identifi-
cation and social identification demonstrate a theoretically important point.
Obviously not only the harmed individual but also his or her social surroundings
show coping reactions in view of disturbing incidences such as victimisation. In
this context a focus on the interaction between the coping strategies of individ-
uals and those of social systems could become a highly interesting research
topic. If the outcome of individual coping strategies is contingent on social
reactions and vice versa then a better understanding of this relationship would
 297

shed new light on the long-term costs and benefits of reactions to victimisation
(Greve and Strobl, forthcoming).

RULES FOR THE ASCRIPTION AND WITHDRAWAL OF THE VICTIM

ROLE

We can understand the social construction of the victim as a typical social

reaction to victimisation. This process assigns the harmed person a special role
that includes certain rights and duties (Miers, 1989, p. 4). A closer look at this
role reveals strong similarities with the sick role that Parsons (1968, pp. 428-
479) described as a temporary medically sanctioned form of deviant behaviour
for which the actor is not responsible. In this sense, the victim also deviates from
his or her everyday obligations in order to cope with irritating and frightening
experiences that have shaken trust in a just and secure world (Janoff-Bulman,
1985). In modem societies the social role of the victim comprises a set of
expectations that can be abstractly described as (1) universalistic, (2) function-
ally specific, (3) affectively neutral and (4) collectively oriented. The expecta-
tions are universalistic in so far as the 'ideal victim' is expected to choose the law
as the decisive frame of reference and to refrain from individualistic ideas of
justice. Secondly, in this context, expectations are confined to the sphere of norm
violations and 'complaints' within the code of law. Thirdly, it is expected that the
victim should refrain from immediate satisfaction of his or her needs in order to
help with the prosecution of the offender. Fourthly, cooperation with the police
and other institutions is a central element of the victim role. The victim is
expected to put self-interest last and to accept costs (e.g. time) and trouble (e.g.
embarrassing questioning) to meet the requirements of the police and the justice
system. Like the sick, the victim is seen in need of professional services, because
neither the victim him- or herself nor their relatives or friends are entitled to any
kind of law enforcement. Therefore, the socially defined situation of the victim
is characterised by helplessness and professional incompetence. There is emo-
tional engagement on the part of the victim's social environment but also an
expectation that the victim will fulfil his or her duties, overcome the trauma and
resume former life after a certain time. If the victim is not able or willing to meet
these demands there is a high chance that emotional support from the social
environment will fade.
However, this victim role is not indiscriminately assigned to everyone. Only
people who meet certain criteria have a chance to be categorised in this way.
Suffering from a norm violation is of course a necessary condition. But not every
violation of a social norm entitles one to a widely accepted victim status. Ethnic
minorities, in particular, may adhere to certain norms that are not accepted by the
majority. A person who suffers from a violation of those norms may thus have
difficulties in obtaining support from institutions like the police and the courts.
But even a person who suffers from a violation of. a legal norm may have
298

difficulties gaining social support if he or she does not match the social image of
a victim. Several years ago Nils Christie (1986, p. 19) speculated that in Western
societies the 'ideal' victim (1) is weak, sick, old or very young, (2) was carrying
out a respectable project when the victirnisation occurred, (3) cannot be blamed
for his presence at a particular place during a certain time, (4) is physically
harmed by a big and bad offender (5) to whom he or she has no personal
relationship. Referring to our own data from qualitative interviews with Turkish
men and women (Strobl, 1998) I would suggest two additional criteria. The
'ideal victim' (6) did not behave provocatively towards the offender and (7)
cooperates perfectly with the police and the courts.
It is interesting to note that the German victim compensation law names many
of these characteristics (Villmow and Plemper, 1989, pp. 45-58; Tampe, 1992,
pp. 188-189). The law is restricted to victims of violence (cf. criterion 4) and
compensation is rejected if the victim contributed to his or her victimisation (e.g.
by insulting the person subsequently designated the offender; cf. criterion 6).
Compensation is also rejected if the designated victim was able to foresee the
victimisation but did nothing to prevent it (e.g. a wife did not leave her brutal
husband; cf. criterion 5). Another reason for rejecting compensation is insuffi-
cient cooperation with the police (cf. criterion 7).
In a recent article Ezzat Fattah (2003) argues that those persons who are in a
marginal social position have both a high risk of being victimised and also
difficulties being recognised as victims. Hindelang et at. (1978) explained the
high victimisation risk of these groups as a result of their lifestyle and the kinds
of social contacts they have. A similar explanation is the routine activity ap-
proach by Cohen and Felson (1979), which stresses the elements 'opportunities
for the offender', 'contacts between victim and offender' and 'facilitating factors
for the offence'. In addition, stereotypes and prejudices designate certain indi-
viduals and groups as appropriate targets for victimisations. In this context it is
noteworthy that hate crimes are directed almost exclusively against devalued,
marginalised and stigmatised groups (Fattah, 2003). However, these factors do
not only increase victimisation risk, but also increase the risk of being denied a
socially accepted victim status that could grant help and social support. An
example is the situation of victimised asylum seekers in Germany. In the early
1990s, especially, many brutal attacks against asylum seekers took place. At the
same time there was a fervent political debate about misuse of the right of
asylum. This debate led to a perception of asylum seekers as spongers and
troublemakers, and this led to doubts as to the victim status of attacked persons
from this group. They were seen as members of a troublesome out-group and
were often rejected from efficient forms of help and support.
Of course, scientific analysis of victimisations should be independent of any
of these kinds of social biases. Hence it is important to find neutral criteria for
the definition of victimisation in victimological research. Even more important,
such a scientific construction could serve as a neutral point of reference for the
 299

analysis of the social processes that facilitate or hamper the social recognition of
victimisation and the ascription of victim status.

A SCIENTIFIC CONSTRUCTION OF THE VICTIM

In victimology there have been two important traditions in relation to defining

victims. The name of Beniamin Mendelsohn, one of the founding fathers of
victimology, stands for the position that victimology should deal with all kinds
of victimisation (Mendelsohn, 1982; also Elias, 1986, pp. 24-25; Zeigenhagen,
1977, pp. 9-10). However, this concept was too broad for empirical research and
a productive theoretical debate (Kirchhoff and Sessar, 1979, pp. 3-4). In contrast
to this conception stands the pragmatic solution of Hans von Hentig (1967
[1948]), who adopted the definition of norm violations from penal law. Although
this position was very influential in victimology, there are important theoretical
arguments against this solution. Relying on definitions from penal law makes
victimological theory indifferent to issues of the social definition of the victim,
which of course influence legal definitions in a given society. A prominent
example is the abolition of laws against induced abortion during the first three
months of pregnancy in many societies. In this connection, leading victimolog-
ists have repeatedly emphasised the shortage of independent theoretical founda-
tions as a major obstacle for further scientific progress in victimological
research:

'Yet, while some claim that we have not collected enough data, the more
frequent (and truer) complaint suggests that our data far outstrip our
theories. Our excessive empiricism without theoretical foundations has
brought a flood of data with which we often can make little sense' (Elias,
1986, p. 22).

Of course the concept of the victim also has practical consequences, e.g. for
the orientation of victim support schemes. A sound theoretical concept could
help to correct a lack of sensibility for and discrimination against marginalized
groups. Minority group members, who adhere to culturally specific values and
norms, can have considerable difficulties in evoking an adequate response to an
experience that they consider a severe victimisation but which is evaluated
differently by the relevant institutions. For example, for a traditionally oriented
member of a collectivistic culture, a norm violation involving the value 'honour'
is something very different from the legal concept of defamation (Strobl, 1996).
Of course we do not suggest that a society should uncritically accept unusual or
problematic norm and value orientations of minorities. In some cases it might
even be problematic to tolerate such orientations. But to understand norm
violations in the light of deviant norm and value orientations can help to explain
300

certain reactions and to find adequate solutions for victims with whom most
people do not sympathise.
The basic requirement in dealing with these issues is a concept of the victim
that is considerably broader than the concept of penal law, but which - in contrast
to Mendelsohn's concept - has theoretically justified boundaries and thus in-
cludes a special class of distinguishable events. Our research team from the
Criminological Research Institute of Lower Saxony has agreed upon five criteria
for a meaningful concept of a victimisation (Greve et aI., 1994; 1997). Individ-
uals, groups or organisations which suffer from an incident fulfilling these five
criteria can thus be called 'victim' (see also Reiss, 1981, pp. 705-710).
(1) Identifiable single event. The first criterion is rather formal. Its purpose is
to exclude structural and latent phenomena. For instance, someone who claims
to be a victim of a xenophobic mood would not be considered a victim if he or
she cannot name identifiable events such as insults, etc.
The following criteria refer to the subjective view of the victim.
(2) Negative evaluation. To consider only a negative, harmful, threatening
event as a victimisation seems to be quite obvious. One would not call the winner
of a lottery prize a victim!
(3) Uncontrollable event. The third criterion is also very close to ordinary
understanding. A victimisation should be an event that is not caused or controlled
by the victim himself or herself. In this connection Holstein and Miller (1990, p.
108) noted rightly that victimisation also means absolving persons of responsi-
bility. So far the definition is not very different from the everyday usage of the
word 'victim'. It still includes victims of earthquakes, flood disasters, etc.
(4) Attribution to a personal or social offender. However, the fourth criterion
restricts the victirnisation to events that can be attributed to individual human
actors or social systems. Similarly Burt (1983, p. 262) names as conditions for
victimisation that 'individuals experience harm, injury or suffering caused by
another person or institution'. Here the important point is the assumption that
human actors - in contrast to physical objects and animals that are determined
by laws of nature or instincts - are free to act in a different, non-victimising way.
(5) Violation ofa socially shared norm. The purpose of the last criterion is to
exclude idiosyncratic normative expectations in the victim's social context that
nobody shares. For example, in a liberal social context of a Western society, a
father would not be considered a victim of a norm violation if his daughter had
sexual intercourse before marriage. However, in a traditional Turkish context
this man would lose his honour and would be a victim of a norm violation.
Harmful events for which neither single human actors nor social systems are
responsible are excluded by this definition. This position is not undisputed. In a
recent theoretical note Dussich (2003) deplores the constraints of penal victimo-
logy and pleads for the broader perspective of general victimology. According
to his definition 'victimisations occur when individuals are impacted by persons
or events that lead to a violation of rights or significant disruption of well being' .
Although this broad definition may be applicable to certain fields of psychologi-
 identifiable single event

2 negative valuation

3 uncontrollable event

4 attribution to a personal or social offender

5 violation of a socially shared norm

victim according to the broad

~ definition

victim according to the definition

of penal law

w
Figure 1. Five Criteria of a Victimisation o
302

cal research such as coping processes or post-traumatic stress disorders, it is not

practical for the delimitation of a special field of victimological research. Unlike
Dussich, I am convinced that harm or damage inflicted by human actors has
some important characteristics that justify specialised procedures of research
and treatment. A crucial difference relating to harm or damage caused by the
natural environment or by animals is that better knowledge of the laws that
govern their behaviour can reduce harmful experiences. Thus we will most
probably benefit from the adjustment of our expectations and our behaviour to
new insights. However, this is not necessarily the case with laws made by human
beings. Human beings can always deviate from formal laws or conduct norms.
For this reason, their existence depends on our willingness to believe in their
universal binding character even in the face of law-abiding behaviour. In other
words, the continued existence of laws and conduct norms depends on our
attitude not to change our expectations after incidents of their violation. In this
sense Miers (1983, p. 211) argues that the principal goal of victim compensation
schemes is a symbolic one: namely the reaffirmation of a set of norms and
values. Contrary to our natural environment our social environment will change
if we learn to accept the violation of norms. Merton (1968) clearly pointed this
out when he conceived deviant behaviour as a form of 'innovation'. Thus
victimisation caused by individuals or social systems is of an especially irritating
nature and endangers our familiar social world (Janoff-Bulman, 1985: p. 20).
Therefore there is good reason for victimology as a social science to concentrate
on this kind of victimisation. In doing so the suggested five criteria can be
understood as a scientific guideline for a limitation of the field of victimological
research. Although the proposed victim concept still includes a broad range of
victimisation and thus allows for subjective interpretations, it nevertheless en-
sures that victimology does not have to surrender to the subjectivistic view that
everyone who defines himself as a victim really is a victim. Thus the five criteria
can also be seen as minimum criteria for the social definition of the victim. They
include a broad range of negative experiences and have proven useful for
scientific analysis of the social consequences of victimisations (Strobl, 1998).
However, for practical purposes such as counselling and professional help this
concept may be too broad. According to these criteria everyone who suffers from
a violation of a socially shared norm can claim victim status. This even holds
true if the socially shared norm conflicts with basic human rights. An example
is the marriage of a Muslim woman to a Christian man, which is not acceptable
according to Islamic tradition. Following our broad definition, the parents of this
woman can conceive themselves as victims of the norm-violating behaviour of
their daughter, which may endanger the honour of the family. On the other hand,
there is the basic human right that men and women of full age are allowed to
marry, without any limitation due to race, nationality of religion. Parents who
force their children into a marriage that is not their choice thus automatically
victimise their children. This example shows that for the practical purposes of
victim aid organisations there should be further restrictions in the definition of
 303

TABLE2
Classification of Victimisation

Was the harm or damage caused by the offence itself?

yes no

direct indirect victimisation

victimisation

Was the
offender yes personal collective
motivated to victimisation victimisation
harm
the victimised
person? no vicarious mediated
victimisation victimisation

victimisation that refer to widely accepted normative standards such as basic

human rights.
At this point in our discussion one additional aspect has to be mentioned.
There is good reason to argue that people can suffer seriously from victimisation
although they have not been the target of the offence themselves (e.g. Riggs and
Kilpatrick, 1990; Boers, 1991: pp. 78-79). These 'indirect' victims should not
be excluded from victimological research. As the terminology used for this issue
in research is quite confusing' I would like to suggest the following classifica-
tion, which takes into consideration both the offender's (assumed) motives and
the cause of the victim's harm or damage.
It is important to note that the classification is based on the perspective of the
victim, because the individual and social consequences depend on his or her
subjective interpretation. In this sense, every victimisation that directly results in
harm to the victim, damage to his or her property or (financial) loss is called
direct victimisation. If the victim is convinced that the offender was motivated
to inflict harm or loss upon him, one can speak of personal victimisation. If this
was not the case and the victim believes that he or she was more or less
victimised accidentally the term vicarious victimisation is used. An example for
a case of vicarious victimisation is a bodyguard who is hit by a stray bullet. Every
victimisation that does not directly result in harm to the the victim, damage to
his or her property or financial loss is called indirect victimisation. Thus we can
define indirect victims as those who 'while not representing the primary target
of the criminal act, nevertheless are in line to suffer the first effects of it' (Gulotta,
1985, p. 714). According to the (assumed) motives of the offender we can make
a further differentiation. If the affected person thinks that the offender did not
304

intend to harm him or her one can speak of mediated victimisation. For example,
in the case of a homicide, family members are victimised in this way. Rock
(1998) impressively describes the severe consequences of this kind of victimi-
sation. Collective victimisation is a result of an attack that is directed against a
social category, i.e. against all people who share certain characteristics. How-
ever, all those who are directly victimised in this way would be classified as
personal victims. Insofar as our notion is resticted to indirect victimisation it is
different from Gulotta's (1985) or Viano's (1985) concept of collective victimis-
ation. But in many cases even those who are not directly victimised see them-
selves as a target of aggression and suffer from fear of possible future attacks.
Uncertainty and serious restriction in the capacity to act freely in society are
possible consequences of collective victimisation. For example, a few years ago
many Turkish men and women living in Germany felt victimised collectively
when they heard about incidents of xenophobic arson and there were even some
people who left Germany because of fear of future arson attacks.

CONDITIONS FOR THE SUCCESSFUL COMMUNICATION OF A CASE OF

VICTIMISATION

As mentioned above, the broad victim concept only provides minimum criteria
for the ascription of victim status. In every social context there have to be
additional criteria which can guide practical action. Of course the police and the
judiciary are especially important institutions in this context. Based on results
from our research we will discuss some conditions for the ascription of victim
status by these institutions. Our main thesis is that the process of labelling a
person as a victim and granting him or her the victim role can be described as a
communication process between the victim and representatives of society.
To describe this communication process, I shall suggest a theoretical concept
based on a communication model by Schulz von Thun (1981). This concept is
more general than a classical labelling approach because it does not conceive
labelling merely as a social reaction but as the result of an interaction process.
The issue that this model focuses on is that of successful communication of
victimisation. This expression means that the report by the victim motivates the
receiver of the message to act in a way that satisfies the victim's needs. Four
aspects are decisive for the success or failure of such a communication.
(1) The actual facts ofthe victimisation. For a successful communication it is
important that the listener comes to the conclusion that a 'real' case of victimi-
sation has occurred. Apart from the five minimum criteria for acquiring the status
of victim, our interview data suggest the following additional criteria for the
police and the court: the violation of an important norm and serious injuries or
considerable financial loss. Furthermore, the ability of the victim to communi-
cate his or her experience in accordance with these criteria can playa decisive
role. Especially if the victim and the receiver of the communication do not
 Facts
kind of violated norms;
: ]kind and extent of damage :..... .
Presen- : or injury, etc. .
tation of [ Call for
I
oneself hpi
Message
.weak ... specific .,.
.strong ,!----------~~ diffuse
Relationship
..................

ingroup ... outgroup

Figure 2. Four Aspects of the Communication of a Victimisation. w

o
Vt
306

belong to the same culture there may be substantial disagreement on the point as
to whether 'real' victimisation has occurred. In this connection our traditionally
oriented Turkish interviewees emphasised how important 'honour' was to them
and how terrible they felt about libel (see Strobl, 1998). Of course they were very
dissatisfied when German institutions regarded these victimisations as more or
less insignificant.
(2) The kind ofpersonal impression the victim makes. The victim's behaviour
and appearance make a certain impression on the receiver. Our data show that
generally persons who give the impression of being shy, weak and vulnerable
have better chances of being considered as victims than persons who seem to be
aggressive, strong or powerful. Similar findings are reported by Vrij and Fischer
(1997). In a controlled experiment observers of videotaped statements of rape
victims assessed the sad women more favourably than the aggressive ones.
(3) The social group to which the victim belongs. Here it is important that the
victim is perceived as a member of the in-group of law-abiding people. Those
who belong to a non-accepted out-group tend to be seen as offenders rather than
as victims. As physical appearance (e.g. colour of the skin, the hair, etc.) can play
a major role in this kind of categorisation, the victim's influence on the outcome
is sometimes quite restricted. In this context Winkel (1991) has demonstrated in
several experiments that culturally determined non-verbal behaviour of migrant
people is often misunderstood by native police officers and interpreted as a sign
of a guilty conscience.
(4) The clarity and distinctness ofthe victim's call for help. Another important
point is that the receiver gets an idea of the kind of help the victim needs. A
satisfactory result is very unlikely if the receiver does not know what can be done
about the victimisation. A victim who can provide accurate information and state
his or her needs clearly has better chances of being helped than a victim who only
utters a diffuse cry for help. .
Although the victim can influence all aspects of the communication to a
certain extent, the success of the communication also depends very much on the
interpretation of the receiver. The following examples from our interviews with
Turkish men and women may illustrate the implications of the model. 3
(l) Mr P. was born in Germany and was 22 years old when the interview took
place. He was involved in a fight and was found guilty of grievous bodily harm
although he considered himself as a victim.

P: 'There was a fight in M., in the discotheque. I was there with my

girlfriend. [... ] Then I turned around and then I pushed him away, pushed
him away and then I thought he would just push me away too, but the first
thump came from him. And then I gave him a bash, and then three people
went for me. And then, my brother was there, some Turkish people were
there. And then there was a fight [... ] there was a fight and it didn't take
long and I wanted to get out and then, we had already called the police, the
police arrived and they took down our names. They didn't put down the
 307

names of the other people, just took down our names. And then I was
charged. There I was, I was on trial.'

Although this young man saw himself as a victim and thus called the police
for help, he was not defined as a victim but as an offender by the police officers.
What are the possible reasons for this outcome? Firstly, the young man was not
seriously hurt. It was not obvious that he was the victim. Furthermore, the whole
situation might have been quite confusing for the police officers because it is
often hard for an outsider to tell who is the victim and who is the offender in a
fight. Whether Mr P. was able to tell the police officers under these circumstan-
ces in what way he expected them to help is not clear from the interview. Thirdly,
strength is an important aspect of the traditional role of a young Turkish man.
Therefore Mr P. might not have presented himself as a weak and helpless victim.
As a member of a Turkish group of young men the police officers possibly did
not categorise him as a member of the in-group of law-abiding people but as a
member of a law-violating out-group. The result of this abortive communication
of a case of victirnisation is an ascription of the offender role.
(2) The experiences of Mrs T. contrast sharply with those of Mr P. Mrs T.
came to Germany at the age of five and was 23 at the time of the interview. She
reported that her father was terrorizing her family, which started after the divorce
of her parents. Obviously Mrs T.'s father could not accept that his children
insisted on living with their mother.

Mrs T: 'And then he [my father] threatened to kill my mother or one of the
children if we would not return to him. We always told the police. Every
time he phoned us we reported it to the police. Usually they couldn't do
anything about it. [... ] Well, the support of the police was very, very good.
They took us to a shelter for abused women. I remember that the police
officers were off duty at about 10 p.m. But they didn't want to go home,
they said that they wanted to wait until we were safely accommodated in
the shelter for abused women. Because they had heard that he ran around
with a gun. There were witnesses who said that he had a gun. [... ] It is true,
the police were very helpful to me, although I heard that there are pretty
bad Nazis [extremely right-wing people] among them. Well, the police
officers in G. district treated foreigners rather badly. But we didn't experi-
ence anything like that. We called them 30, 40 times a year and they never
treated us badly.'

Obviously, the police helped Mrs T. in many situations and some police
officers even looked after Mrs T. and her family when they were off duty. Unlike
the first example, the facts of the victimisation are quite clear in this case. An
unpredictable Turkish man threatens to kill his ex-wife and his children. The
women are weak and helpless and cannot be blamed for the situation. As the
threat comes from a violent man who is a danger to conventional society they
308

are seen as members of the in-group of innocent law-abiding people. The women
frequently ask the police officers for help and are very cooperative. For the
police it is quite clear what has to be done in this situation: they take them to a
refuge for abused women where they know the women will be safe.
Now one could assume that generally a female victim has a better chance of
obtaining help from (male) police officers than a male victim does. However, the
experiences of Mrs D. (born in Germany, aged 25) clearly contradict this
hypothesis. When her husband was knocked down by right-wing extremists in a
pub below her flat she vainly tried to urge the police to help him.

Mrs D. "And I opened the door of the police car and I said: 'Get out you
pigs,' because they saw that he was covered in blood. There was, I don't
know, chaos, catastrophe, and they were still sitting in their car. [... ] Yes,
then they said: 'Yes, keep cool,' then they got out of the car in such a cool
way and went into the pub. Of course I also went back into the pub and this
woman started to attack me again and then, of course, I attacked her too.
[... ] Then the police came up to me and the police told me to let her go [... ],
then he [the officer] lifted his truncheon and hit me and he wanted to hit me
again with his truncheon. [... ] My friend came in and said: 'You pigs, this
woman is pregnant, how can you beat her with a truncheon?' "

Obviously Mrs D. was not regarded as a victim by the police officers. She was
very upset and quite aggressive and even though she was pregnant a police
officer hit her with his truncheon. This example clearly shows that the important
point is not the gender of the victim but self-presentation as weak and helpless.
However, the traditional role of the housewife and mother clearly facilitates this
kind of self-presentation.
On the basis of the complete interview material it is possible to formulate the
following general rule: if the violated norm is important and the victim is weak
and helpless and regarded as a law-abiding citizen who clearly articulates his or
her needs, then the sensitivity of the police and the judicial system for the
victimisation will be high.

IMPLICATIONS FOR VICTIMOLOGICAL THEORY AND RESEARCH

Analysing victim status as the result of a communication process that includes

labelling phenomena opens up an exciting field for victimological theory and
research. A constructivist victimological approach could shed light on the factors
relating to social ascription of victim status and thus could help to reflect the
practices of the institutions of social control. The examples discussed underline
that it is of essential importance to distinguish between the formal identification
of a victim as a person who suffers from a norm violation and his or her social
recognition as a victim (Bayley, 1991). Unlike penal law, victimology can dwell
 309

on this difference. It can analyse the reasons for a denial of victim status and it
can disclose the constructivist nature of social statuses such as 'victim' and
'offender' . Thus one major advantage of the constructivist perspective is that the
question as to under which conditions a person who meets the five minimum
criteria is granted victim role in a given social context becomes an empirical
question. Of course the police and the judicial system play an important role in
this connection and should be thoroughly analysed. But victimological research
need not restrict itself to conventional society and its institutions. It can also
focus on subgroups and subcultures and investigate under which conditions
victim status is ascribed in these social systems. Accepting this relativity of
victim and offender definitions opens up an independent victimological perspec-
tive which can also explain different forms of deviant behaviour (deviant from
the perspective of the social majority). As Black (1983) and Fattah (1992) have
pointed out there are many crimes that can be analysed as reactions to former
victimisation. Thus the crucial question is: 'Who is the victim in a certain social
context?'
Another important issue concerns the conditions for the successful communi-
cation of a case of victimisation. The factors that lead to the recognition of
victimisation and to an ascription of victim status should be analysed in different
social contexts. Two important issues are to be distinguished here:
(I) Problems ofthe sender in communicating his or her victimisation. Accord-
ing to the theoretical framework some of the questions that might be asked in this
connection are: Which problems do individuals have in communicating their
victimisation successfully? Can they express the impact of the norm violation?
Are they able to ask for specific help or specific actions? Can they present
themselves adequately and do they give their partner in the dialogue the feeling
that they belong to his or her in-group?
(2) Problems ofthe receiver/recipient in dealing adequately with the victimis-
ation. Here some of the following questions may arise: Are the dialogue partners
able to understand the victimisation? Do they refuse to grant a person victim
status because of his or her group affiliation? Can they cope with complex
situations and diffuse needs? What can be done to improve the sensitivity of
individuals and institutions?
Further victimological investigation of these questions could be of great value
for the work of victim aid organisations and for the training of professionals from
the police and the judicial system.

NOTES

The empirical material presented is drawn from the research project 'Victimisation of Turkish
Migrants' (Strobl, 1998). The relevance of the communication model was confirmed in the
project 'Dealing with Right-Wing Extremism in German towns' (Strobl et al., 2003). Both
projects were subsidised by the German Volkswagen Foundation. In addition I am very much
310

obliged to my colleagues Werner Greve and Peter Wetzels with whom the broad victim concept
was originally developed.
2 An example is the use of expressions like 'indirect' and 'vicarious' victimisation. Sometimes
these expressions are used synonymously in research (e.g. Ohlemacher and Mecklenburg,
1996), sometimes they are used to describe different phenomena (e.g. Boers, 1991, p. 79;
Wetzels et al., 1995, p. 220, footnote 20), and sometimes different terminologies are employed
(e.g. Pitsela, 1986, pp. 268- 272).
3 The interviews were conducted in German or Turkish. The quoted passages were translated
from German into English by the author.

REFERENCES
Bayley, J.E. (1991). The Concept of Victirnhood. In To be a Victim. Encounters with Crime and
Injustice (D. Sank and DJ. Caplan, eds) pp. 53--62. Plenum Press; New York.
Black, D. (1983). Crime as Social Control. American Sociological Review, 48, 34-45.
Burt, M.R. (1983). A Conceptual Framework for Victimological Research. Victimology: An
International Journal, 8,261-269.
Boers, K. (1991). Kriminalitatsfurcht. Centaurus; Pfaffenweiler,
Christie, N. (1986). The Ideal Victim. In From Crime Policy to Victim Policy: Reorienting the
Justice System (E.A. Fattah, ed.) pp. 17-30. St. Martin's Press; New York.
Cohen, S. and Felson, M. (1979). Social Change and Crime Rates: A Routine Activity Approach.
American Journal ofSociology, 44, 588--608.
Dussich, J. (2003). New Definitions for Victimology and Victim Services: A Theoretical Note. The
Yictimologist, 7,1-2.
Elias, R. (1986). The Politics of Victimization. Victims, Victimology and Human Rights. Oxford
University Press; New York and Oxford.
Fattah, E.A. (1992). Victimization as Antecedent to Offending. The Revolving and Interchangeable
Roles of Victim and Victimizer (president's Faculty Lecture Series). Simon Fraser University;
Halpern Centre.
Fattah, E.A. (2003). Violence against the Socially Expendable. In International Handbook of
Violence Research (w. Heitmeyer and J. Hagan, eds) pp. 767-783. Kluwer Academic Publish-
ers; Dordrecht.
Greve, W. and Strobl, R. (forthcoming). Social and Individual Coping With Threats: Outlines of
an Interdisciplinary Approach. Review of General Psychology.
Greve, w., Strobl, R. and Wetzels, P. (1994). Das Opfer kriminellen Handelns: Fluchtig und nicht
zu fassen. Konzeptuelle Probleme und methodische Implikationen eines sozlalwissenschaf-
tlichen Opferbegriffs (KFN Forschungsberichte Nr. 33). KFN; Hannover.
Greve, w., Strobl, R. and Wetzels, P. (1997). Opferzeugen in der empirischviktimologischen
Forschung. In Psychologie der Zeugenaussage. Ergebnisse der rechtspsychologischen For-
schung (L. Greuel, T. Fabian and M. Stadler, eds) pp. 247-260. Beltz-PVU; Weinheim.
Gulotta, G. (1985). Collective Victimisation. Victimology: An Internationallournal, 10, 710-723.
Hentig, H. von (1967). The Criminal and his Victim. First published 1948. Archon Books.
Hindelang, M., Gettfredson, M. and Garofalo, J. (1978). Victims ofPersonal Crime: An Empirical
Foundation for a Theory ofPersonal Victimisation. Balinger; Cambridge.
Holstein, J.A. and Miller, G. (1990). Rethinking Victimisation: An Interactional Approach to
Victimology. Symbolic Interaction, 13, 103-122.
Janoff-Bulman, R. (1985). The Aftermath of Victimization: Rebuilding Shattered Assumptions. In
Trauma and its Wake: The Study and Treatment ofPost-traumatic Stress Disorder (C.R. Figley,
ed.) pp. 15-35. BrunnerlMazel; New York.
Kirchhoff, F. and Sessar, K. (1979). Einfiihrung. In Das Verbrechensopfer (F. Kirchhoff and K.
Sessar, eds) pp. 3-12. Studienverlag Brockmeyer; Bochum.
 311

Mendelsohn, B. (1982). Sozio-analytische Einfiihrung in allgemeine viktimologische und krimi-

nologische Forschungsperspektiven. In Das Verbrechensopfer in der Strafrechtspflege (HJ.
Schneider, ed.) pp. 60-66. De Gruyter; Berlin and New York.
Merton, R.K. (1968). Social Theory and Social Structure. Enlarged edition. Free Press; New York.
Miers, D. (1983). Compensation and Conceptions of Victims of Crime. Victimology: An Interna-
tional Journal, 8,204-212.
Miers, D. (1989). Positivist Victimology: A Critique. International Review ofVictimology, 1, 3-22.
Miers, D. (1990). Positivist Victimology: A Critique. Part 2: Critical Victimology. International
Review of Victimology, 1, 219-230.
Miers, D. (2000). Taking the Law into their own Hands: Victims as Offenders. In Integrating a
Victim Perspective within Criminal Justice (A. Crawford and 1. Goodey, eds) pp. 77-95.
Ashgate, Aldershot.
Ohlemacher, T. and Mecklenburg, E. (1996). Und dennoch Demokraten? Gastronomen und ihr
Wissen urn Korruption und Schutzgelderpressung. In Forschungsthema 'Kriminalitat'.
Festschrift jUr Heinz Barth (c. Pfeiffer and W Greve, eds) pp. 111-136. Nomos; Baden-Baden.
Parsons, T. (1968). The Social System. 4th printing. The Free Press; New York.
Pitsela, A. (1986). Straffdlligkeit und Viktimisierung ausldndischer Minderheiten in der Bundesre-
publik Deutschland. Dargestellt am Beispiel der griechischen Bevolkerungsgruppe. MPI f. ausl.
und intern. Strafr.; Freiburg.
Quinney, R (1975). Who is the Victim? In Considering the Victim. Readings in Restitution and
Victim Compensation (1. Hudson and B. Galaway, eds) pp. 189-197. Charles C. Thomas;
Springfield.
Reiss, AJ. (1981). Foreword: Towards a Revitalization of Theory and Research on Victimization
by Crime. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 72, 704-713.
Riggs, D.S. and Kilpatrick, D.G. (1990). Families and Friends: Indirect Victimization by Crime.
In Victims of Crime: Problems, Policies and Programs (AJ. Lurigio, WG. Skogan and RC.
Davis, eds) pp. 120-138. Sage; Newbury Park and London.
Rock, P. (1998). Murderers, Victims and 'Survivors'. The Social Cosntruction of Deviance. The
British Journal of Criminology, 38, 185-200.
Schulz von Thun, E (1981). Miteinander Reden I. Storungen und Erkldrungen. Allgemeine
Psychologie der Kommunikation. Rowohlt; Reinbek bei Hamburg.
Strobl, R (1996). 'Fremd' -Verstehen. Zur Interpretation von Interviews mit tiirkischen Mannem
und Frauen. In Wahre Geschichten? Zu Theorie und Praxis qualitativer Interviews (R Strobl
and A. Bottger, eds) pp. 159-181. Nomos; Baden-Baden.
Strobl, R (1998). Soziale Folgen der Opfererfahrungen ethnischer Minderheiten. Nomos; Baden-
Baden.
Strobl, R, Wiirtz, S. and Klemm, J. (2003). Demokratische Stadtkultur als Herausforderung.
Stadte im Umgang mit Rechtsextremismus und Fremdenfeindlichkeit. Juventa; Weinheim.
Tampe, E. (1992). Verbrechensopfer. Schutz, Beratung, Unterstutzung. Boorberg; Stuttgart.
Viano, E.C. (1985). Theoretical Issues and Practical Concerns for Future Research in Victimology.
Victimology: An International Journal, 10, 736-750.
Villmow, B. and Plemper, B. (1989). Praxis der Opferentschddigung. Hamburger Entscheidungen
und Erfahrungen von Opfern von Gewaltdelikten. Centaurus; Pfaffenweiler.
Vrij, D. and Fischer, C. (1997). The Role of Display of Emotions and Ethnicity in Judgements of
Rape Victims. International Review of Victimology, 4,255-265.
Wetzels, P., Greve, W, Mecklenburg, E., Bilsky, Wand Pfeiffer, C. (1995). Kriminalitat im Leben
alter Menschen. Eine altersvergleichende Untersuchung von Opfererfahrungen, personlichem
Sicherheitsgefiihl und Kriminaalitatsfurcht. In Schriftenreihe des Bundesministeriums fUr
Familie, Senioren, Frauen und Jugend; Band 105. Kohlhammer; Stuttgart.
Winkel, EW (1991). Interaction Between the Police and Minority Group Members: Victimization
Through the Incorrect Interpretation of Nonverbal Behavior. International Review of Victimo-
logy, 2, 15-27.
Ziegenhagen, E.A. (1977). Victims, Crime, and Social Control. Praeger; New York.