Marie-France Hirigoyen, a psychiatrist and a psychoanalyst who trained in the United States, is one of France's leading specialists in the problems of moral and sexual harassment. Her first book about the problem ('Le Harcèlement moral, la violence perverse au quotidien' published in1998 by Découverte-Syros) has now sold more than 450,000 copies, and is translated into 24 languages. Her research and campaigning were instrumental in obtaining recognition for the notion of moral harassment in French criminal and labour law in 2001, and she has acted as an adviser on the issue for the European Commission, the Belgian government and the authorities of Quebec.
Following the arrest in New York in May of former IMF chief and French presidential hopeful Dominique Strauss-Kahn, accused of sexually assaulting a hotel maid, France has become gripped by a public debate on what she calls an "incredible indulgence with regard to lies and men in power ". In this interview with Joseph Confavreux, she sets out the reasons why so little attention is paid to the moral and sexual harassment of women in France and why she believes there will be "a before and an after DSK " change in attitudes towards a hitherto taboo.
-------------------------
Enlargement : Illustration 1
Mediapart: Do the people who consult you for problems of sexual harassment file a complaint before the courts?
Marie-France Hirigoyen: When women are harassed by a man in power, they rarely file a complaint because they very well know that they will come under pressure. It will be saidthey are manipulated and attempts will be made to discredit them. Furthermore, in France, the plaintiff runs the risk of being accused of calumny, as was thecase in the Georges Tron affair (1). This is often frightening because the powerful men who are harassing often have good lawyers who won't hesitate to do everything to discredit the testimony against theirclient.
Many women also fear that, if there is a public trial, their private life will become fodder for the media. I had a patient who lived through major sexual harassment by a powerful man but she didn't want to file a complaint soas not to live all that on public display. But the anti-harassment unit in her workplace filed a complaint on her behalf and the man in question filed a complaint against the unit for calumny. Her life was, despite everything, exhibited for public display. It takes a lot of courage to file a complaint, especially since harassment is hard to prove.
Mediapart: Why?
M-F H.: Although the reform ofJanuary 17th 2002 improved matters, it remains vague. In a recent case with an official from the town of Créteil [Editor's note: Paris suburb], three women filed a complaint but only one of the complaints was accepted because it is very difficult to prove this type of behaviour.
In these cases, judges rest more on a European directive than on French legislation. This directive stipulates that "sexual harassment corresponds to a non-desired behaviour with a sexual connotation, which can express itself physically, verbally or non-verbally and can undermine the dignity of the person or create a degrading or offensive environment". This notion of "degrading or offensive environment" is often easier to show than specific behaviour.
But for a woman to dare to file a complaint for rape or sexual aggression, she needs, in most cases, a good support system and the aggressor must not be too close to her. When the aggressor and his victim know each other and move in the same circles, a kind of guilt often weighs on the victim and keeps her from taking the first step.
Mediapart: You've also worked in the United States. Why is it more common to file a complaint inthat country?
M-F H.: In the United States, sexual harassment is better defined. If you touch a woman, the forearm is alright but above the elbow can cause you problems. There are stricter rules for relations between men and women but, mostly, they defend the disadvantaged, chamber maids, blacks, poor people, better than we do.
This probably has something to do with the fact that associations representing minorities play an influential role, also with the fact that the prosecutors are elected and therefore appreciate the voters and protect their reputations.In the United States, the crime is sanctioned no matter who the person is or his hierarchical position. The American system is undoubtedly more brutal, but clearer. Concerning rape, it's estimated that ten percent of victims file a complaint in France whereas that reaches forty percent in the United States.
_________________________
1: French Secretary of State for the Public Sector, George Tron, was forced to resign in May following accusations against him of sexual harassment were filed by two former female employees of the town of Draveil, near Paris, where Tron remains mayor. He has said he will file a complaint for calumny against the women.
Mediapart: What are the common denominators between moral and sexual harassment?
M-F H.: It's important to note that the prime goal of harassment, be it sexual or moral, is to show one's power and superiority. Sexual harassment isn't necessarily aimed at obtaining sexual favours or to directly satisfy a sexual appetite. It is first and foremost a form or domination.
There are other links because we often note that when a woman refuses to respond to sexual harassment, it soon turns into moral harassment along the lines of ‘if you refuse, you'll pay for it'. A certain number of complains for moral harassment are un-avowed sexual harassment cases. This is notably the case with Muslim women that I see, who have been sexually harassed, resisted, yet still risk being discredited with their family.
On the legal front, unlike with moral harassment, in sexual harassment there is no need for the act to be repeated in order to qualify as a violation. One time can be enough.
The law on moral harassment was imprecise because it mentioned abusive behavior with consequences to physical or mental health or to the dignity of the person without defining what this behaviour might be, and it was legal case precedents that defined what constitutes moral harassment. Since the the law on moral harassment was passed in 2002, the legislation has changed a lot and now, even management methods can be considered disrespectful of a person's dignity or of putting their physical or mental integrity in danger.
The sexual harassment law is even vaguer and there is less jurisprudence because there are fewer complaints, women victims are for the most part too isolated to go to court. The trade unions are more sensitive to the issue of moral harassment than to sexual harassment because it affects everybody while sexual harassment is primarily aimed at women and, often, women in a position of weakness.
Formal proof isn't required for either violation but rather a body of evidence proving the consistency of the complaint. Here again, this is subject to interpretation.
Mediapart: Is there a difference between sexual harassment in the private sector and in the public sector?
M-F H.: One could be led to believe that, for sexual harassment as with moral harassment, there are proportionally more cases in the public sector than in the private sector. In fact, in the private sector, the management, if it is not the source of the harassment, will quickly try to set things straight because the law requires employers to be preventive. But it's difficult to be more precise regarding sexual harassment because there are no specific studies on the issue. But the cases I've encountered most recently concerned a local government official who was harassing one or more municipal employees.
One can also note that, in the private sector, there is more likely to be a negotiated agreement, with a financial dimension. When administrations or local governments are concerned, the situation more quickly turns to threats, blackmail and violence, covert or otherwise.
Mediapart: Is harassment particularly present in political spheres?
M-F H.: There are undoubtedly among politicians a lot of narcissistic personalities, even perverse personalities with all that this implies including outsized ego, lack of respect for others and opportunism. It's the product of natural selection because politics is a tough world with ruthless rivalries, where the strongest dominates and with a constant call to please and for quick results.
But it's also the mirror of a society that is more and more narcissistic. In my psychiatric sessions I run into more and more narcissistic personalities and less and less neurotics. Politicians are both the representatives and the cutting edge of this narcissistic society.
Mediapart: Do you think that the Dominique Strauss-Kahn affair will change things?
M-F H.: Yes. Whatever the verdict of the courts, I think this public affair will change mentalities. There will be a before and an after DSK. Sexual issues, like intimate violence, often work this way, with spotlight moments. It takes a major event, an electroshock, to get things to change.
I hear people every day, and, as I'm a victimologist, I see more victims than aggressors. And what I hear is that it has affected many women who felt in a position of helplessness in face of men of power.
We all have our share of violence within us, inadmissible fantasies, but some act on them others don't. And I think that many men must be asking themselves questions. On the other hand, this will probably give many women the courage to denounce cases of harassment, to shed light on all those situations where one was unable to defend oneself because the acts seemed too minimal. This is all a problem of boundaries.
Mediapart: Will we ever be able to set fair limits which avoid turning a blind eye or puritanicalness and violating the presumption of innocence?
M-F H.: We'll never be able to set precise limits, but we can make sure that people get more respect and are listened to. Currently in France, because of certain errors that got media attention, judges are wary of victims' claims. They are afraid of being wrong and of being manipulated. This vigilance is necessary because it is possible to discredit someone by accusing them wrongly of moral or sexual harassment. But from what I see on a daily basis, that's really the exception, but it does exist so we have to remain cautious.
I think we can compare what is happening now to what happened with domestic violence. One case causes a noise and an awareness, especially when it takes place in a milieu which is thought, wrongly, to be closed off to this type of event. It helped to change the law on domestic violence, which, since last January includes psychological violence, that is acts of violence with no physical proof such as bruising or broken bones.
This is a step towards greater sanctions for acts which seem minimal. It's true that the acts are less serious, but these types of acts often escalate into more serious ones. If the more minor acts are sanctioned early, we'll probably avoid, in the long-term, that women die at the hands of their spouses.
On the sexual front, I think also that, the more one is strict at the first slip up, the more we will reduce the number of serious cases. I know it can be shocking that the Americans can be so excessive, as when, for example, two people of the opposite sex can't be in the same lift together, but our society is too lax. It's about respect for the other person, respect for people in general and not just for privacy, that is at stake.
_________________________
English version: Patricia Brett(Editing by Graham Tearse)