Abstract
There is a high prevalence of historic sexual abuse in institutions and organisations that have a duty of care towards children. Through a qualitative, abductive analysis of the evidential material submitted to the Religious Organisations and Settings investigation within the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) I theorise value frames for understanding how the perpetrators of child abuse may be privileged over victim-survivors within organisational contexts, contributing towards their protection. Value judgements are intersubjectively co-constructed and, in relation to the abjection of victim-survivors, perpetrators are framed as having higher worth. Three contextually relevant value frames are embedded into everyday processes and practices to protect perpetrators: intrinsic value – denoted by unquestioned, unconditional esteem; holy value – denoted by reverence of the edicts of faith and religion; and kinship value – denoted by the idea of the religious organisation or setting as ‘family’ and ‘community’. I extend existing research by showing that the dynamic relationship between protection and abjection produces and maintains a fairly stable, though contingent, value hierarchy in which perpetrators are positioned above and better than victims, further enabling abuse to go unreported or unremarked.
Introduction
Research into institutional child abuse has a long history from the 19th century, with greater legitimisation for the accounts of victim-survivors 1 from the 1990s onwards through increased voice, activism and investigative media coverage (Wright and Henry, 2019). Studies have associated the role of perpetrator status, hierarchy and authority embedded in opportunity and organisational structures (White and Terry, 2008) with the capacity to inflict abuse with impunity (Muniz and Powers, 2022; Weiss, 2002).
Extant research illustrates that alleged perpetrators of violence in organisations are protected by organisational processes and practices in a range of ways. These can be grouped firstly by direct protection, for example, through perpetrators’ social networks (Hershcovis et al., 2021), via their status and authority in the organisational hierarchy (Way, 2023), and/or through systems/structures that enable behaviours to go undetected (Duffy et al., 2023). Second, by silencing, discrediting and/or devaluing the victim-survivors, for example, retaliatory actions (Honorée et al., 2024), negative career impacts (Hart, 2019), exclusionary practices (Hershcovis et al., 2021) and/or invalidation of complaints (Fernando and Prasad, 2019). Specifically in relation to child abuse, Kenny (2016: 943) found positioning children in a state of abjection, that which is ‘distasteful, disgusting and frightening’, as in-valid, unvalued nonentities also serves to allow abuses to take place (see also Linstead, 1997).
Religious organisations and settings have additional processes and practices that serve to position those who work within them as different and evaluated as ‘special’. These are connected to calling (Madden et al., 2015), sacredness (Righetti, 2014), divinity (White and Terry, 2008) and ritual (Death, 2013; von Scheve, 2015). In relation to child sexual abuse perpetrated through these organisations, forgiveness (Death, 2013), scriptural law (Marotta, 2021), protection from persecution (Seiple and Hoover, 2021) and obedience (Tishelman and Fontes, 2017) have each been found to play a part in the protection of perpetrators. Safeguarding in religious organisations and settings also remains a challenge to implement with, for example, in the United States, the revocation of the duty to report laws (Dodds, 2025) and in the United Kingdom, institutional resistance to external scrutiny and oversight that could again serve to protect perpetrators (Sherwood, 2025).
All of this work offers vital insights into how the protection of perpetrators of abuse and the abjection of victim-survivors in religious organisations and settings may occur. At present, the literature treats the processes that protect perpetrators and blame victim-survivors separately, giving important space to the implications of each of these. However, we know little about the dynamic between protection and abjection, and how it happens in organisations of this type. Such an intersubjective analysis recognises that understandings and meaning-making emerge between and through social actors’ experiences and relational practices within organisations (Cunliffe, 2022). I extend existing research by showing that the dynamic relationship between protection and abjection produces and maintains a fairly stable, though contingent, value hierarchy in which perpetrators are positioned above and better, with victim-survivors positioned below and lesser. I examine how this positioning is maintained in the face of child abuse, drawing on a qualitative, abductive analysis of the evidential material submitted to the Independent Inquiry into Child Sexual Abuse (IICSA) undertaken in England and Wales between 2015 and 2022 (IICSA, 2023a). The Inquiry investigated institutional failures to look after children in the care of institutions. I look specifically at the empirical material produced by this Inquiry in the form of first-person accounts of experiences in written form and as transcribed oral testimony, as well as document submissions from those representing particular organisations and settings within the investigation into Child Protection in Religious Organisations and Settings (IICSA, 2022a).
I use the concept of value frames to explore the production and maintenance of a value hierarchy. A frame brings together a collection of social processes and practices, expectations and taken-for-granted assumptions that influence understanding and sensemaking. Theorised by Goffman (1974) and taken up by Gamson (1975), frames ‘provide meaning, determine what is relevant and irrelevant when considering certain actors, issues or events and suggest appropriate behaviour’ (Vliegenthart and van Zoonen, 2011: 103). I define value as a socio-emotional ascription of worth bestowed on organisations and their actors from relevant audiences (Stark, 2004; Todd, 2014). Value is imputed by different actors to different actors in relation with one another, in and through social processes (Lamont, 2012). Emergent from and embedded in social practices, value frames therefore ‘promote and distribute conceptions of importance and influence the implicit and explicit rules that guide the functioning of social groups’ (Brosch and Sander, 2015: 401). I argue that members of religious organisations and settings including victim-survivors, families and colleagues, are socialised into and co-construct contextually relevant value frames. Ascriptions within and through these frames distinguish between value in the secular world and the sacred world, which contributes to positioning these organisations and settings as separate from and superior to civil society. These value frames serve to position those who work in these organisations and settings as being worth more, to be of greater importance, than congregants and followers. This may protect perpetrators from being condemned as abusers and prevent them from being held to account for the harm they bring to victim-survivors, who are concurrently ascribed lower worth.
The article is structured as follows: It begins with a review of literature; the methodology explains the research context and empirical material, as well as the analysis undertaken, with the findings discussed in relation to the ways in which three contextually relevant value frames are embedded into everyday processes and practices to protect perpetrators: intrinsic value – denoted by unquestioned, unconditional esteem; holy value – denoted by reverence of the edicts of faith and religion; and kinship value – denoted by the idea of the religious organisation or setting as ‘family’ and ‘community’. The article concludes with a discussion of theoretical contributions.
Value, perpetrators and victim-survivors
Child abuse and religious organisations
Although to many it would seem obvious that children should be valued, the prevalence of child abuse in institutions and organisations that have a duty of care towards them illustrates the fragility of this assumption. For example, with respect to religious organisations and settings which are, in theory, held to the highest standards of conduct (Scheitle and Dougherty, 2008), child abuse is nevertheless demonstrable. For example, 3.1% of adult respondents to a survey in Germany reported experiences of abuse as children (Witt et al., 2019). In a recent Australian study, 0.4% of respondents (approximately 1 in 250) reported being sexually abused as a child by an adult in a religious organisation (Hunt et al., 2024) and a study in Spain also found 1.1% of respondents reported having experienced religion-related sexual abuse (Pereda et al., 2025). There have been important inquiries and associated research into child abuse in and through such organisational contexts as a matter of significant public concern (Gleeson and Ring, 2020; Swain et al., 2018; Wright, 2017; Wright and Henry, 2019).
In the particular contexts of religious organisations and settings, there are entanglements of organising, individual, family, community, faith and deity/ies, which serve to create distinctiveness. For example, in comparison to secular organisations, there is a lack of employment rights and responsibilities (UK Government, 2023) and organisational actors are ‘working in a domain to which [they] feel called’ (Sturges and Bailey, 2023: 1256). Additionally, ‘the authority of a clergy member is not only in relation to the victim, but also over people to whom the victim might disclose to as a form of help-seeking’ (Muniz and Powers, 2022: 554). That is, those who work within religious organisations are often perceived differently, perhaps with additional deference, within wider communities. Signifiers of paternalism within religious organisations and settings may also be present, for example, with ‘father’ referring to either or both (a) deity and office holders and other references to ‘brother’ and ‘sister’ additionally creating a familial type of connection (Greene et al., 2020). However, despite their connection with sacredness, spirituality and forces beyond humanity (Righetti, 2014), there are nevertheless secular laws and governance requirements for legal compliance in relation to safeguarding and child protection (in the United Kingdom, e.g., Charity Commission, 2021; The Crown, 2003, 2004). There can also be concerns that any study of religious organisations and settings may threaten religious freedom and be perceived as persecution, given current and historical evidence of this (Seiple and Hoover, 2021). These characteristics make these organisations complex but significant to research.
Protecting perpetrators of sexual violence in organisations
Extant research on sexual violence in organisations has illustrated that perpetrators may be protected to the detriment of victim-survivors. For example, status and authority in the organisational hierarchy in relation to perpetrators’ perceived business-critical importance have been found to offer protection from accountability (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008). Hart (2019) found women who reported sexual harassment were less likely to be recommended for promotion and Fernando and Prasad (2019) explain how victim-survivors in academic workplaces were reluctantly silenced by the persuasion of colleagues invalidating their complaints. Hershcovis et al. (2021), in their review of research on sexual harassment and organisational silence found the centrality of perpetrators within social networks contributed towards their protection and to the persistence of sexual harassment. Duffy et al. (2023) explored how the failure to follow suspension policy in an Australian workplace characterised by complex power relations, and a police order intended to restrain the perpetrator, instead resulted in the victim-survivor of sexual harassment and assault being excluded from workplace activities. Additionally, Honorée et al. (2024) found retaliatory actions in US workplaces against victim-survivors of sexual harassment including termination of employment, change in role and reduction in salary. All of this research demonstrates how processes and practices in and through organisations can: (1) privilege perpetrators; and (2) discredit victim-survivors. However, this research focuses on adult–adult violence in secular organisational contexts. Where the victim-survivors are children, and the organisational contexts are religious, different, additional dynamics of silencing and discrediting are present.
Positioning children as lesser within organisations
Where studies of child abuse have considered organisational contexts, it is possible to see children positioned as less important and/or valued compared with perpetrators. Weiss (2002: 31), for example, investigated child abuse by those in positions of authority, finding that ‘because authority figures are probably the most likely to go unnoticed and their victims are probably the least likely to report, the abuse is almost certain to perpetuate’. In her research into child abuse in industrial schools, Kenny (2016: 945–947) identifies the construction of the ‘abject child’, an active process of continual devaluing, through ‘awareness: the child as vulnerable to violence . . .; silence: the vulnerable child as inconsequential . . .; distaste: the child as impoverished and hence a criminal . . .; and exclusion: the child as impoverished and hence invisible’ (Kenny, 2016: 945–947). Way (2023: 577) also found ‘violence was intentionally deployed as an organizing strategy’ in USA Gymnastics – achievement at any cost enabled abusive practices towards young women and girls to be normalised and unquestioned. In religious organisations and settings, the theologically influenced concepts of forgiveness (Death, 2013) and obedience (Tishelman and Fontes, 2017) have been found to impact upon the propensity of victim-survivors to report and/or be believed. Mendes and Pinskier (2021) found a shift in focus from a commitment to improve child safety protocols towards blaming a failure in legal systems to prosecute perpetrators effectively. Scriptural law may be prioritised (Marotta, 2021) such that child sexual abuse is ‘treated as a sin, rather than a crime against a child’ (Rashid and Barron, 2023: 118).
In summary, all of this important work offers vital contributions to our understanding of how perpetrators are protected and the positioning of children as lesser or worthless. The studies foreground the impact on victim-survivors with good reason, but what has not yet been fully addressed in the literature is the relationship between these two sets of processes. This limits our understanding of how abusive practices are perpetuated, perpetrators protected and victims blamed. This is because in religious organisations and settings a hierarchy of value is produced and maintained in which perpetrators may be privileged above victim-survivors, with the latter concurrently ascribed lower value/actively devalued. I use the concept of value frames to theorise this situation.
Value frames
In the context of child abuse, Wright and Henry (2019) note the role of injustice frames which refer to assembled discourses of justice and rights, enabling victim-survivors to express their experiences of harm. I propose that value frames refer to the contextual and contingent basis on which interpersonal judgements are made. Value judgements are not fixed or inherent to a particular person or position but emerge and are shaped by and within specific cultural and institutional contexts. Setting aside its economic roots, value is ‘the emergence and effects of valuations’ (Haywood et al., 2014: 78) as a ‘process of giving worth’ (Kjellberg et al., 2013: 20) and through lived experiences, it is perceived, sensed and felt (Vendrell Ferran, 2022). Value is ascribed through affective relationships, communicative and ritual practices (von Scheve, 2015) as they ‘enable us to notice what is of value, to make judgments about value, and to support our moral motivation’ (Stark, 2004: 360; see also Todd, 2014). Lamont (2012: 205) describes ‘establishing value in a relational . . . process involving distinguishing and comparing entities’. As such, the legitimacy of value ascription is dependent upon the position that groups occupy in a given social order, it is a relational and dynamic process which temporarily fixes individuals in the social space relative to each other (Batavia and Nelson, 2017; Zimmerman and Bradley, 2025) and there are ‘acts of interpretation that establish hierarchies of concern and senses of what is good’ (Ames and Hershock, 2015: 4).
Processes and practices around the judgement of value within religious organisations may be multiple and multiplicative, creating exaltation for the perpetrator while victim-survivors may be ‘in the condition of constant devaluation’ (Skeggs and Loveday, 2012: 488). This happens because value ascriptions are dynamic and relational – that is, value is ascribed to individuals in relation to other individuals but this shifts and changes dependent upon the specific context of the evaluation – so the relational process in one frame is different to what happens in another frame. Within religious contexts, for example, ‘attitudinal or dispositional valuings, [are] informed by one’s religion’ (Pelser and Roberts, 2015: 375) and, by extension, the processes and practices within religious organisations and settings. Valuing comprises ‘an emotional aspect (the feeling of awe and deference experienced in the presence of sacred things), a cognitive aspect (the absolute, non-negotiable value and the inviolability of sacred things) and a behavioral aspect (the ritual adopted to approach sacred things)’ (Righetti, 2014: 135). Value is ‘inscribed and recognised on bodies, on persons and in practices’ (Skeggs, 2011: 509) within religious organisations and settings through beliefs, traditions, rituals, artefacts and language. Evaluations are made of those who lead and those who follow by: other organisational members (in standard organisational terms, their colleagues and superiors); their followers (e.g. congregations, fellowships, brethren); societies and communities in which these organisations exist (e.g. religious belief continues to be important to over half the population in England and Wales (Office for National Statistics, 2021) and to nearly 70% of the US population (Pew Research Centre, 2025)); and by ‘god’, who calls them to the work (Madden et al., 2015). For example, the value judgement of someone considered to be God’s representative on earth means more than the value judgement of a mere member of a congregation or community, creating and maintaining a value hierarchy.
In summary, value frames emerge through accumulated social processes and practices that serve to continually organise experiences within these religious organisations and settings in relation to sacred worth, importance and significance. These influence meanings ‘in processes of interaction, interpretation, and contexualisation’ (Vliegenthart and van Zoonen, 2011: 103), helping to show the relational elements of the perpetrator/victim-survivor dynamic by positioning one party as being of greater worth than the other. I argue that this relational perspective of value is conducive to the protection of abusers and abjection of victim-survivors, and this study examines how this is dynamically produced through value frames that are used to make sense of child abuse in religious organisations and settings.
Methodology
Research context and empirical material
In England and Wales, serious incidents involving public organisations, government bodies or other institutions offering public services may be subject to public inquiry. The purpose of such inquiries is to offer accountability, learn lessons and ensure improvement for the future in a way that is transparent and open to all concerned. Non-statutory inquiries have fewer procedural requirements whereas statutory inquiries are subject to management and delivery under the procedures required of the Inquiries Act (The Crown, 2005), which gives them grounds in law to oblige people to participate as witnesses and/or provide other forms of evidence. Inquiries may be ‘a mechanism that provides social recognition’ and may be considered as ‘moral rituals’ (Wright and Henry, 2019: 4).
The IICSA in England and Wales began as a non-statutory inquiry and was then established as statutory in 2015 with early actions including the issuing of a Retention Order to organisations to protect documents held therein from destruction, and a commitment from the Attorney General for protections for whistleblowers (IICSA, 2023b), for example, the Public Interest Disclosure Act (The Crown, 1998). The Inquiry had a Chair and Panel of three members, comprising the central membership and working with a Victims and Survivors’ Consultative Panel comprising seven members. A secretary and a legal team additionally supported the work (IICSA, 2024a). It undertook 15 investigations to November 2022, producing 19 investigation reports (IICSA, 2024b) and a final overarching report (IICSA, 2024c), with an underpinning research programme and Truth Project (IICSA, 2023c) to centre victim-survivor voices, recognising the permeation of violence over a long time period (Linstead, 1997). Across the whole inquiry, there were 325 days of hearings, with 725 witnesses and nearly 2.5 million pages of written evidence considered, along with over 6000 victim-survivor accounts given to the Truth Project (IICSA, 2023d). For this article, I have considered material within the Investigation into Child Protection in Religious Organisations and Settings, the definition of scope to examine:
‘The management of child protection within religious organisations and/or settings, including: Training and the understanding of child sexual abuse; Policies and procedures; Vetting and barring and regulated activity . . . The arrangements in place to respond to allegations of child sexual abuse, including the provision of pastoral support. Internal processes for auditing, inspection or oversight of the child protection practices and procedures.
The existing statutory framework for the protection of children from abuse and its application to religious organisations or settings.
The existing framework for auditing, inspection or oversight of the practices and procedures by either state or non-state institutions.
Whether there needs to be additional and/or different practices, processes or oversight (whether by way of internal oversight or external oversight by a non-state or state body) to ensure that children are protected from child sexual abuse within religious organisations or settings’ (IICSA, 2022b).
The Inquiry defined religious organisations and settings as shown in Table 1.
Inquiry definitions of religious organisations and settings (IICSA, 2019).
This investigation involved the collection of documentary evidence and public hearing days, which included the giving of oral evidence as well as written witness statements. The hearing days were transcribed and video recorded, by the Inquiry administrators. The first-person accounts of lived experiences are therefore sometimes written, sometimes spoken testimonies of experiences of processes and practices. The content of the written submissions is curated by the account giver, whereas the spoken testimonies are led by questions from the inquiry panel and legal advocates. The account givers are victim-survivors, religious leaders, victim-survivor advocates and others working in relation to protecting children in these organisational contexts. It is religion and its organisation that offers connection across the accounts. Table 2 summarises the material.
Empirical material (IICSA, 2023e).
The management of material for the research was supported through an NVivo project operating as an electronic repository in which material is stored, with a central record of the manual codes, enabling quick access and some searchability. The findings below include verbatim quotations from the oral, written and documentary evidence described above. These are identified according to numbers and descriptors assigned by the inquiry administrators to the submissions to enable readers to locate the empirical material in its full context should they wish. All of the material is archived and available through the UK National Archives (IICSA/National Archives, 2024). In this article I will not share accounts of abuses specifically, rather the organisational practices around them. The aim is to be sensitive, but I recognise that these still may cause some distress to readers. More details on my approach to analysis are provided in the following section.
Analysis
There is an established body of research analysing reported and testimonial material produced through and around public or other forms of inquiry. Some analyses show how accounts are taken up to reach conclusions and/or make sense (Brown, 2005; Mueller et al., 2023; Whittle and Mueller, 2012). Others analyse participation in and impact of inquiry processes, whose voices are present and/or heard, and the extent to which restorative justice may be delivered (Frandsen et al., 2024; Pagan, 2021, 2023, 2024). There are also a number of important studies of the effects of inquiries into historic institutional child abuse (Gleeson and Ring, 2020; Swain et al., 2018; Wright, 2017). I undertook an abductive process of analysis of this material in a non-linear and reflexive manner. Figure 1 summarises this.
Summary illustration of the process of abductive analysis (following Cunliffe, 2018; Gorichanaz and Latham, 2016; Reissner, 2019).
As illustrated in Figure 1, my analytic connections initially emerged as ‘empirical provocations’ (Ashcraft and Muhr, 2018: 206) and this work began with some earlier research undertaken in relation to understanding silencing and misconduct within organisations. This included engagement with #NDAFree, ‘a global movement with a vision to see individuals, Christian organisations and local churches free from the misuse of Non-Disclosure Agreements’ (#NDAFree, 2022). The descriptions of their campaign and the experiences of those supported by and participating in the movement led me to explore violence in these organisational contexts. The IICSA Inquiry was receiving media attention at the time as it published its final reports, which inspired me to explore its material. The vulnerability of the victim-survivors and the violence they had experienced made it feel an important dataset to interrogate further.
I began with a detailed reading and manual highlighting of printed copies of the Inquiry submission accounts as narratives of lived experiences, noticing, recognising and responding to the material with which I engaged (Earl Rinehart, 2021; Gorichanaz and Latham, 2016) and ‘wayfaring’ around the material and the literature to resist linearity (Cunliffe, 2018: 1429). At the same time, I was looking for and reading extant research in the broadest sense to begin understanding the extrinsic context of the research (Gorichanaz and Latham, 2016). The literature included empirically related studies, for example, inquiries with organisational and/or workplace connections, studies of religious organisations and research into child abuse in organisational settings. The review at this stage also included consideration of theoretical pieces, for example, exploring value, accountabilities and silencing. Concurrently, emerging from the empirical material and echoing in the literature, I was identifying how role holders and/or their practices were evaluated as of high worth, ‘good’, within religious organisations and settings. I noticed that there were accounts that seemed to signal varying perceptions of worth of the narrator of the account either in terms of their own position or the position of the religious organisation or setting. This included expressions of care, family, community, authority and sacredness. I was also seeing comparative relations of value from victims of abuse, their families and advocates including vulnerability, shame, not being believed, not being able to speak up. The emotional aspects of the expressions were particularly powerful and led me to consider the role of value. For example, the authority of a role holder can be accepted and respected, following rules, guidance and instruction, but authority on its own is not necessarily grounds for value. I began to operationalise ‘value’ in relational terms as being the worth ascribed to particular organisational actors by others within the religious organisation and its community.
The analysis progressed through re-reading relevant elements of the extant literature, with a focus on the main theoretical concept of value. I also continued to deepen my engagement with the empirical material, particularly in relation to the emotions and feelings expressed (Gorichanaz and Latham, 2016). I did not make an interpretive distinction between the type of accounts because I analysed all of the material as documented written submissions and transcriptions of oral accounts. In each, I was ‘seeing’ emotions and feelings in the text including fear, respect, awe and deference. These were in relation to the spiritual (connection to a deity) and the human (family, community). The place of memory and history also surfaced (Gorichanaz and Latham, 2016). The historic nature of the abuses was apparent with victim-survivors, their families and advocates sharing memories. Religions and associated faiths have a longevity and institutional establishment stretching back centuries, with those who work within them being called to (a) divinity that is outside of time and humanity, and I became aware of how this historic significance impacted ascriptions of value seen in the texts. At this stage, practices associated with value framing also began to emerge, including ritual, recruitment, leadership and role naming.
A tapering of the analytic journey began as conclusions emerged, with a summary of implications. A return to consider existing analyses of value, accountability and silencing of abuses within organisations was helpful to mark a boundary for this work. Further time spent with the accounts provoked a deepening of the engagement with iterative re-reading of the literature alongside the empirical material to draw connections. Value frames as a useful analytical lens emerged where a phenomenon was seen more than once in the accounts given: (1) intrinsic value – unquestioned, unconditional esteem; (2) holy value – reverence of the edicts of faith and religion; and (3) kinship value – the idea of the religious organisation or setting as ‘family’ and ‘community’.
The following section discusses the findings in relation to the extant literature and the value frames identified in the analysis. The management, query and report tools offered by the NVivo project, as well as my own manual reading, have enabled some quotations to be identified and included verbatim as examples of key points. The quotations shown include examples from the voices of victim-survivors, victim advocacy groups, regulatory bodies and representatives of the religious organisations and settings themselves. These must be understood as partial and illustrative, and not as representative or generalisable. My interpretations and analysis are not intended to condemn the religious organisations and settings involved in the Inquiry, nor to critique religion and its organising more generally. It is for this reason that particular settings are not named in the quoted empirical material in the findings, although I have offered an indication of voice, that is, whose words are represented. Readers may find the specific identity information should they wish to locate it in the archive using the identifiers given.
Findings: Value frames
I discuss three contextually relevant value frames in the following sections: intrinsic value – denoted by unquestioned, unconditional esteem; holy value –denoted by reverence of the edicts of faith and religion; and kinship value – denoted by the idea of the religious organisation or setting as ‘family’ and ‘community’.
Intrinsic value – Unquestioned, unconditional esteem
The examples below illustrate how unquestioned and unconditional intrinsic value is ascribed to those who work in these religious organisations and settings by followers or congregants of these organisations (Stark, 2004; Vendrell Ferran, 2022). For example, [Parents] did not doubt his honesty because of his standing in the congregation (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors). Value here is ascribed to the perpetrator through his eminence (‘standing’) within the social group of the congregation (Brosch and Sander, 2015). ‘Honesty’ is also a high value attribute (Ames and Hershock, 2015) especially in religious contexts (e.g. Thou Shalt Not Lie) and ascribed to the perpetrator without question because of intersubjective agreement within the community (‘congregation’; Lamont, 2012; von Scheve, 2015).
Descriptions of interactions in which the importance of developing ‘a good association’ with reputable religious persons is constructed as valuable additionally contribute to a situation where abuse could take place, as illustrated in the following quotation from the empirical material.
Our association with [name] was so frequently because of the edict of faith that we were bound by. As [participants in the faith] were only encouraged to associate with folks who were ‘good association’, spending time with [role holders] and their family was looked upon as a good decision . . . I was glad my daughters were seen around men who had a good reputation in the faith. (JWA000014_022, parent of victim-survivor)
The worth of the perpetrator is indicated by their ‘good reputation in the faith’ and the ‘good decision’ to spend time with them. Such evaluations are unquestioned and arguably unconditional given their basis in ‘faith’ as an ultimate signifier of value (Righetti, 2014).
A further example offers additional detail: [Victim] did not feel able to tell anyone what was happening because of [perpetrator’s] position in the community. She did not want to be labelled as ‘bad’ or ‘dirty’ (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors). In this account, the perpetrator’s ‘position in the community’ directly protects him because this position indicates value as judged by the community (Lamont, 2012). This results in the victim ‘not feeling able’ to disclose her experience of abuse (Vendrell Ferran, 2022). There is a direct hierarchical account of herself as fearing potential abjection (‘labelled as bad or dirty’) against his more valued position (Kenny, 2016). In another instance, the [senior role holders] told [victim] that she had misunderstood and encouraged her to continue to see [perpetrator] (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors), suggesting that the victim-survivor was incorrect (‘had misunderstood’) and that engaging with the perpetrator was important (‘encouraged her to continue to see’). In these examples, the legitimate judges of value (senior role holders) (Lamont, 2012) attribute greater value to the perpetrator than to the victim-survivor. Her account of the experience was dismissed as ‘misunderstanding’ and therefore interpreted as of little, if any, value (Kenny, 2016).
In the following example, it can be seen how the judges (‘family and community’) draw on their set of referents (‘tradition and custom’) to create intersubjective agreement on the higher value of the perpetrator (religious leader) distinguished against the victim-survivor being to blame (‘capable of enticement’).
The [religious leader] was very well respected in the [organisation]. It was part of community tradition and custom to respect men who had ‘given their lives to [deity]’ . . . [Victim] understood that her family and community saw women and girls as essentially capable of ‘enticing young men to rape’. As a result of those messages, [Victim] never felt comfortable enough to tell her family or anyone in the [organisation] about how the [religious leader] was behaving. (SBS000001, director of organisation supporting abuse survivors)
Those ascribing value are highly legitimate collectives (‘family and community’) with respect to their emotional importance to victim-survivors, whose framing of both perpetrator and victim carries a lot of weight, more so than the victim-survivor’s judgement (Lamont, 2012). The perpetrator is constructed as intrinsically valuable (Batavia and Nelson, 2017, Zimmerman and Bradley, 2025) and beyond reproach, with the victim seen as more likely to be at fault.
Further extending the emotional, embodied aspect of valuing (Stark, 2004), the unquestionable virtue of the perpetrator may also be sensed, ‘felt’, in an emergent, embedded manner (Todd, 2014) as illustrated in the following: The [role holders] informed me that I had to think about the consequences of my actions . . . I wanted to go to the police but the message I felt I was receiving was that police involvement was not the appropriate thing to do. I fully accept that this was not what was being said to me but this is what I was feeling. (INQ004963, mother of abuse victim-survivor)
In the above, others in the organisation (the role holders) have effectively argued that this person was not to be questioned by saying to the victim they had to ‘think of the consequences’. The victim-survivor is being discouraged from reporting the abuse perpetrated by someone of more value as a public accusation to the police will have consequences that are implied as being unacceptable for someone of unquestionable virtue. Additionally backgrounded is what the consequences might mean for the victim-survivor and their distress. Reporting to the police could be a form of questioning of the perpetrator’s value with ‘consequences’ that could, along with other lived experiences, imply a form of threat to the victim. This participant recognises that there was no direct instruction, but a ‘feeling’ based on their social, lived experiences within the organisation/setting (Drummond, 2018; Kjellberg et al., 2013) that elevated the value of the perpetrator above their own value. This is further illustrated in another account as follows: the [role holder] told her that [perpetrator] was ‘valued’ and that he must be considered ‘innocent until proven guilty’ . . . there would be no serious sanction but that the [role holder] should apologise, with both sides agreeing an acceptable form of words for the apology. (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors)
In the above example, the innocence of the perpetrator appears to be a settled matter with ‘no serious sanction’ applied, and an expectation that the victim-survivor should be involved in confirming the wording of the perpetrator’s apology. This implies that the social value of the perpetrator is such that they are not to be held accountable: they are not writing their own words of apology hence neither owning nor articulating their own accountability. Also implied is the idea that the apology on its own is a sufficient response (‘no serious sanction’) to the victim.
Similarly, a further example describes how a [role holder] was convicted on charges of sexual assault . . . He was allowed to retire on compassionate grounds and this has caused great offence to his victims and those who have supported them (MST000019, case study from past cases reviewers). In this case, even when there was a strong legal consequence of the abuse (‘conviction’), the organisational consequence was minimal (‘retirement on compassionate grounds’) as positioned (‘allowed’) by those in the organisation with the power to ascribe value to role holders (Lamont, 2012). The value of the perpetrator is connoted through the ‘compassion’ they received in consequence of their abusive behaviour which caused ‘great offence’ to the victims and their supporters (Skeggs, 2011; Skeggs and Loveday, 2012).
Two final examples illustrate how the ascription of intrinsic value may facilitate further opportunities for abuses to continue. First, a celebration of their reintegration: A couple of the people connected to the [organisation] tried to organise a barbecue after . . . he pleaded guilty after the court case . . . to celebrate it all being over now. I didn’t go. Other people went. But for me, it wasn’t over. (Public Hearing Transcript 16-03-20, abuse victim-survivor)
In this case, the situation is considered ‘over’ without recognition of guilt and potential for further abuses to be committed. Second, an account illustrating reintegration of the perpetrator with reward: The offender . . . Most of the time, they will find a pocket in the community where they can still become either more powerful than before because they have survived prison or survived this, you know, infliction that was put upon them from no fault of their own, so they will be even – you know, more higher, more power, but they are, most of the times, accepted back into regular life as if nothing has happened. In fact, as heroes. (Public Hearing Transcript 11-05-20, founder of organisation to support abuse survivors)
In this account, perpetrators may be reintegrated with ‘more power’ or ‘as heroes’. The perpetrator’s punishment is framed as an endurance ‘survived’ and uncoupled from their own culpability: it was ‘no fault of their own’ implying that they have been wrongfully accused by the victim-survivor or the victim-survivor is at fault. Also notable here is how courage and endurance – highly emotive and valued personal attributes – are implied by the perpetrator’s ‘survival of infliction’ (Drummond, 2018) an idea that works, simultaneously, to blame the victim-survivor (Kenny, 2016).
Holy value – Reverence of the edicts of faith and religion
This frame illustrates how the relative value of perpetrators and victim-survivors is produced through collective practices that revere the edicts of faith and religion. I describe this value as ‘holy’ in relation to framing people, materials (e.g. scriptures, artefacts, texts and/or books), rituals and deities in relation to the sacred or purity as value attributes.
Accounts from within the Inquiry illustrate how those who work in these religious organisations and settings are ascribed holy value through their appointment or calling by a deity (Madden et al., 2015). In one organisation/setting, an account illustrates how this translates into a justification for not following safer recruitment in the form of obtaining checks for those working with children (UK disclosure and barring service (DBS) checks): For the time being, the [organisation] does not routinely undertake DBS checks because they are not mandated in law and because the [organisation] considers that its clear, robust and well-managed policies, procedures and arrangements for safeguarding children . . . minimise the risk of abuse . . . Examples . . . include: . . . members of the [organisation] are not ‘recruited’ either by word of mouth, personal recommendation or sought by advertisement but are ‘called’ to serve from the [area] in which they live and where they worship, after thorough searching interview with the [senior role holder] and after their name has been presented and sustained by the entire membership of the congregation of that [area]. (CJC000001, solicitor for religious organisation)
In this example, there is intersubjective agreement within the community (‘congregation’; Lamont, 2012; von Scheve, 2015) and secular good practice is set aside. Religious work may channel the divine and thus be sacred with the value ascribed to this work resting on the idea that those responsible for its execution are ‘called to serve’. This is further illustrated as the [senior role holders] are perceived, or it's communicated that they are appointed by [deity], and effectively . . . what they direct from the platform and the counsel that they give is to be followed (Public Hearing Transcript 10-08-2020, survivor and member of organisation supporting abuse survivors). Such sacred appointment is a high value attribute, inviolable (Righetti, 2014) and this further translates into the holiness of their action and direction (‘what they direct from the platform’, ‘the counsel they give’). One narrator further relates their experience that: the perceived reason for placing responsibility on victims and survivors is more – in my experience, more about the need of individuals to protect the reputation of the [organisation or setting] and maybe even [deity themselves] . . . to speak out on this issue . . . you are damaging [deity’s] reputation . . . So rather than victim blaming – although I acknowledge that happens – in my experience, it’s more about, ‘Don’t speak up, because the consequences are probably wider than you imagine and you really don’t want to go there, do you?’. (Public Hearing Transcript 18-05-2020, chief executive officer for religious safeguarding organisation)
In this account, in addition to victim blaming as a form of abjection (Kenny, 2016), the protection of the reputation of an organisation and a deity is of paramount value. If victim-survivors ‘speak up’ there may be ‘wider consequences’. The ritual practices, for example, prayers and forgiveness rites (illustrated below) in these organisations and settings are intersubjectively agreed as being imbued with value in and of themselves, their sacredness and connection to a higher deity is what furnishes these practices with this holy value. This also extends to those who enact these practices, enabling them to occupy a higher position in a value hierarchy. The following example illustrates the implications of this: . . . they will take an offender’s word and face value of, ‘Well, actually, I apologise for doing that and I won’t do it again’, when there is no major intervention, there are no professionals getting involved in managing this alleged offender, just taking it on their word of goodwill of, you know, repentance. . . . There was talk of him having a bit of this inkling to behave in this way. He was moved from several points of work. It only resulted in coming to light because the two victims had spoken to the police and reported it, and then, afterwards, it came out that actually he’d also apologised and told to these [religious leaders] that he needed help and so on. (Public Hearing Transcript 11-05-20, founder of organisation to support abuse survivors)
In this account, the perpetrator is valued to such an extent that their ‘word’ is taken at ‘face value’ and a surface-level apology (‘I won’t do it again’) is accepted. The ritual of ‘repentance’ is a further high value attribute, with the perpetrator ‘moved from several points of work’ to potentially continue their abuses (‘two victims’ having made reports to police). In the following account, the victim-survivors are positioned as lacking in their ritual practices (lower holy value) and needing to undertake them (‘forgive’, ‘pray’) to preserve the value hierarchy: [victims] were told to forgive, told to pray or told it was [deity’s] will or [deity] alone would judge. Then, if there was a proven allegation . . . If they said they were sorry, they would say, well, it's repentance, reconciliation, and be accepted back . . . Even people that had been convicted and sent to prison we know were welcomed back . . . and into another leadership role. (Public Hearing Transcript 19-05-2020, representative of organisation supporting abuse survivors)
Here, the victim-survivors are ‘told to forgive’ their abusers, or that their abuse was the ‘will’ of a deity, such that their position as lower in the value hierarchy is maintained (judge by a deity) with the higher worth position of the perpetrator preserved. In this instance, the account suggests that practicing the religiously sanctioned holy rituals (‘repentance’) can also protect the perpetrator’s higher value position. Abusers have also invoked their deity as justification within the abuse and foregrounded the ‘obedience of elders’ (Mendes and Pinskier, 2021), for example, [Perpetrator] would quote scripture . . . and tell her that it was normal, that [deity] wanted them to spend time together and that it was important to be obedient and respect her elders (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors). The holy ritual of prayer has also been described as incorporated by certain perpetrators into their abusive acts. For example, after the abuse, [perpetrator] would often say a prayer, during which [victim] was expected to sit quietly and join in with ‘amen’ (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors).
Holy materials are valued as more than objects, with belief in their divine ordinance and therefore, those who work in religious organisations and settings are ascribed value according to the practices they espouse as expected/required by these sacred texts. For example: we shall not diverge in the slightest degree from our faith, nor from the traditional [holy book] method of education handed down to us from earlier generations. Under no circumstances shall we adapt to accept any ideas that are contrary to our faith and our [holy book], or contrary to the traditional form of education handed down to us by our ancestors. (OFS012596, representatives of religious organisation)
The comment ‘we shall not diverge’ ascribes ultimate value to the ideas and teachings within these texts (Pelser and Roberts, 2015), with referents of value through scriptural materials also ascribed to those who teach it (‘education handed down to us by our ancestors’). A further example notes members of the congregation do respect the [senior role holders]. Their submission to the arrangement is influenced, of course, by the [holy book] (Public Hearing Transcript 11-08-2020, representative of religious organisation). Here, the relationship between the congregation and senior role holders is conferred by the ‘holy book’. The written content may also be used to justify limiting reports of abuse to outside authorities in relation to speaking ill of those valued, for example, [Senior role holders] began by sharing a passage from the [holy book] about slander, explaining that because they are under a particular oath they are unable to speak to the police (JLE000051_003-004, abuse victim-survivor).
The engagement with the holy material additionally represents a ritual aspect of framing value (Righetti, 2014) in relation to the investigation of abuses. For example, we would still go through the scriptural process to establish whether they [perpetrator] should remain in the congregation or otherwise (Public Hearing Transcript 11-08-2020, representative of religious organisation). The ‘scriptural process’ is privileged in value above any secular process, making a distinction between sin and crime where sin is positioned as worse than crime (Rashid and Barron, 2023) in the value hierarchy. Those who work within the organisations may also teach protection from abuse offered by the holy writings, for example, [a witness] describes. . .children are taught that they can protect themselves from ‘wrong sex acts’ by reading scripture (2020-08-19 Ofsted Closing Statement). Practicing these valued texts also ascribes value to those who teach through them and contributes to the abjection of victim-survivors by positioning them as having some responsibility for their own abuses (perhaps not having ‘read scripture’ sufficiently).
Kinship value – Absolute protection and privileging of the family-community
The framing of the value of those who work in these religious organisations and settings in relation to community and family is strong in the accounts of those participating in the Inquiry. I use the term ‘kinship’ to bring together a collection of social processes and practices, expectations, and taken-for-granted assumptions associated with ‘family’ and ‘community’. The first example below illustrates how the community of this religious organisation/setting is privileged in value over the victim-survivor: I quote from a [religious leader] that said it to me, their aim is to protect the face of the community as a collective whole, not of the individual that might have been abused . . . if they’re focused on one agenda, then the needs of this one person are almost null and void. (Public Hearing Transcript 11-05-20, founder of organisation to support abuse survivors)
In this account, differential value is ascribed through the ‘face of the community’ being protected over the victim-survivor, who is ‘almost’ abjected as ‘null and void’ (Kenny, 2016). Direct abjection by those supporting the perpetrators is also present in the accounts. For example, [Victim] suffered harassment from others in the community and was called a ‘dirty tart’ or a ‘slag’ (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors). By stigmatising victim-survivors, the deep social order is protected with the value hierarchy reproduced as inviolable. In another example, He told her ‘not to rock the boat’ given the dishonour and shame this could cause. She was warned that there may be reprisals from the alleged perpetrator’s supporters in the community (INQ005151, Inquiry summary of accounts received from complainants, victims and survivors). Here, ‘dishonour and shame’ in addition to potential retaliation from within the community (‘risk of reprisals’) (Honorée et al., 2024) frame the higher value of the perpetrator with ‘supporters in the community’, encouraging the silencing of the abjected victim-survivor. Also within the Inquiry accounts, a value distinction is produced and maintained in which the higher value position of adults within certain communities is taken-for-granted as inevitable and natural, concurrently devaluing children. For example, as commented during one of the Public Hearings, we are very much a culture in which children are told to listen to adults, follow instructions from adults (Public Hearing Transcript 11-05-20, founder of organisation to support abuse survivors) and a document submitted by senior role holders in one of the participating religious organisations states It is proper that adults compel the young (OFS012283_001-003-005-018-020-032). In these instances, adult voices are imbued with more value than those of children, communicated through edicts about who must ‘listen’ and ‘follow instructions’ and through documentation that frames ‘properness’ as a form of goodness whereby adults force (‘compel’) children to do their bidding.
Another way in which the community of certain religious organisations/settings is privileged as high value is in relation to the secular community. This is seen in Inquiry accounts to influence the extent to which incidents of abuse would be reported. For example, all the complainants at various stages were reluctant to speak out, due to feeling that they would be shunned by the community (CPS004865, representative of Crown Prosecution Service). In this account, the risk of the religious organisation/setting collectively excluding (‘shunning’ as a form of abjection) the victim-survivors seems to be seen as worse than ‘speaking out’ for accountability and justice (Haywood et al., 2014). Victim-survivors may thus see themselves, and be seen by others, to be of lesser value in the religious community and in relation with those who work in its offices – of such little value that they do not deserve accountability and justice. In these accounts, certain religious organisations or settings are constructed as ideologically distinct from secular society (Scheitle and Dougherty, 2008) and the appeal to community derives its value from this distinction. For example: We are brought up with this almost non-verbal understanding that the police are very much ‘them’, and then there is ‘us’. We don't integrate – mix with them. We don't report to them. (Public Hearing Transcript 11-05-20, executive director of training organisation for religious organisations)
It is recognised that this concern regarding the police as ‘them’ may stem from experiences of religious persecution, where religions and those who are religious are subject to prejudice, making them suspicious of those who represent the secular world. They may also have concerns about covenantal pluralism (Seiple and Hoover, 2021), that is, how variations in interpretations of edicts of faith may disadvantage certain people (e.g. divisions regarding the position of LGBTQ and/or women) leading to disapprobation from such groups. Therefore, setting apart their religious organisation or setting as higher value, justifies the idea that ‘we don’t report to them’, which not only others secular groupings but also legitimises the idea that they are not accountable to them.
In the accounts to the Inquiry, it is possible to see collective processes and practices that produce and maintain the organisation-as-family within the associated value hierarchy. Families are complex social structures in relation to child abuse. For example, ‘abuse in the family environment accounts for almost half of all child sexual abuse offences reported to the police in England and Wales’ (Scott, 2023: 3, see also Greene et al., 2020). Yet, the use of the idea of family to frame these edicts is also used to privilege the value of adult perpetrators above that of child victim-survivors in certain organisations and settings. For example, encouragement to call [perpetrator] ‘uncle’, although there was no familial relation at all. In doing so engendered a sense of authority this man had over me from a very young age (JWA000002_003-004-, abuse victim-survivor) and preventing reports being made, there was a mantra of ‘do not take your brother to court’ (JFS000019, representative of organisation supporting abuse survivors). Certain religious organisations or settings are constructed as familial. For example, it was hard to see the [organisation] as other than a large loving family (MST000019, case study from past cases reviewers). The following extract illustrates how this metaphor adds further protection to perpetrators: I think particularly when [certain organisations] operate with a notion of family, it is also difficult to unpick sometimes exactly who is playing what role and the understanding of those who are in leadership positions and will have particular responsibilities, how those sometimes cut across and blur the boundaries that might otherwise be in place for a family structure. (Public Hearing Transcript 18-05-2020, chief executive officer for religious safeguarding organisation)
In this account, the instrumental structures of organising (‘roles’, ‘leadership’) are ‘blurred’ with the emotional structures of family (Ames and Hershock, 2015). A deity may also be positioned as a family (possibly parental) figure, for example, some people of faith appear to think that their faith . . . ‘inoculates’ others against abusing someone, and that ‘nothing bad can happen because we are all part of [deity’s] family’ (NSP000147, representative of National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children). This can serve to prevent any abuses being either reported or even acknowledged as possibly taking place.
The metaphor also positions the organisation-as-family as being superior in the value hierarchy to the blood family. For example, nothing was done legally at the time as their mother wished to keep everything in-house to protect the [organisation] (NNP000029, summary of complaints about abuses within religious organisations). In this account, the suggestion is that the mother of the victim-survivor placed more importance on protecting the religious organisation than seeking justice for her child. A hierarchical differential of value (Skeggs and Loveday, 2012) may be interpreted between the organisation-as-family (mother wishing to protect the organisation) and blood family (responsibility of mother to centre the value of their child). The example following shows a similar differential.
My [organisation] did not want a scandal, my parents did not want a scandal. I was left to feel worthless and devalued, while the man was left to get on with his life and for all I know repeat the crime with someone else. (MST000019, case study from past cases reviewers)
In this account, the victim-survivor describes feeling ‘worthless and devalued’ (Kenny, 2016) as well as juxtaposing the value ascribed to the perpetrator (‘left to get on with his life’). The protection of the perpetrator stems from both the organisation and the victim-survivor’s own parents ‘not wanting a scandal’.
Discussion and concluding thoughts
This study has found that in certain religious organisations and settings there is a dynamic relationship between the protection of perpetrators and the abjection of victim-survivors that produces and maintains a value hierarchy. Value is ascribed relationally with judgements emergent from and shaped by value frames, the accumulated social processes and practices that organise experiences, in these contexts, in relation to sacred worth. Three contextually relevant value frames from the findings are discussed here. Whilst they are presented as distinct and separate for the purpose of emphasising the dominant message conveyed, it is possible to see multiple, intersecting frames conveyed within the accounts.
First, in certain religious organisations and settings, perpetrators’ value is co-produced and maintained by them, their colleagues and superiors, their followers, and by ‘god’. This value is ascribed initially through their appointment from where the inviolability of their reputation and position in the organisation is established. Any questioning of the perpetrator (and/or the religious organisation/setting) may be considered questioning of a deity because of their value as called to be an earthly representative, serving to further protect them from secular accountability and constructing them as more valuable than victim-survivors. Their honesty is not doubted and, following any secular sanctions that may occur outside of the control of the organisation/setting, they may be reintegrated and/or rewarded at the same time as the victim-survivor is blamed. This illustrates the value frame of intrinsic value, denoted by unquestioned, unconditional esteem for perpetrators. Their intrinsic value is constructed in their positioning as conduits to, and chosen by, the sacred, simultaneously positioning victim-survivors as lesser.
Second, the relationship between perpetrator and victim-survivor may be framed as holy, sanctified by a deity given the perpetrator’s calling, and so encouraged or condoned, preventing abuse from being reported. The holy value of perpetrators and their practices is ascribed as, for example, they (1) may be called to the work by a deity; (2) may be constructed as a representative of a deity; and (3) deliver the scriptural, organised rituals and activities of faith. All of this simultaneously positions victim-survivors as being of less value. With regard to rituals, this study compliments existing research on child abuse in certain religious organisations and settings that have also identified the capacity to inflict abuse linked, for example, to apology and forgiveness. What this study additionally shows is that these rituals are differentially valued according to perpetrator and victim-survivor, that is if perpetrators apologise, this is valuable enough to expect earned forgiveness from victim-survivors. The victim-survivor may be devalued because they do not practice rituals appropriately enough to protect themselves from abuse. This illustrates the value frame of holy value, denoted by reverence of the edicts of faith and religion.
Third, the attribution of community and particularly family is a way of ascribing elevated value to those who work within religious organisations and settings, contributing to the protection of perpetrators and abjection of victim-survivors. For example, framing activities as familial with meanings including safety, security, shared ties and bonds, love and care. These are deeply emotional, constituting value judgements that privilege these people and relationships above all others. Adults are frequently constructed as more valuable than children, with victim-survivors subject to blame, dishonour, shame and/or exclusion. Adult perpetrators and a deity may be referred to with family signifiers, for example, ‘father’, ‘brother’, ‘sister’ and the organisation-as-family may be framed as more valuable than blood family in certain contexts. This illustrates the value frame of kinship value, denoted by the idea of the religious organisation or setting as ‘family’ and ‘community’. Kinship value serves to contribute to the maintenance or sustenance of existing congregations, protecting and privileging them as well as proselytizing for growth.
Theoretical contributions
This study makes the following contributions. First, by showing that value is culturally contingent. As noted above, a number of existing studies identify specific processes that work to separately protect perpetrators and abject victim-survivors. For example, with regard to perpetrators, positions of authority (Weiss, 2002), business-critical importance (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008) and endorsement of social network members (Hershcovis et al., 2021) all contribute to their protection. With regard to the abjection of victim-survivors, constant devaluing (Kenny, 2016), the invalidation of complaints (Fernando and Prasad, 2019), exclusion (Duffy et al., 2023) and retaliation (Hart, 2019; Honorée et al., 2024) all work as practices which further harm victim-survivors. This study offers an intersubjective analysis to further contribute to our understanding of how these processes emerge from every day and taken-for-granted practices that position individuals in relation to each other within specific contexts of activity. Moving from consideration of these processes separately to relationally enables an understanding of protection and abjection less as purposeful or intentional acts and more as products of broader cultural influences, embedded in everyday routines and practices, whose acceptance and familiarity explains their persistence in a variety of occupational and cultural contexts.
Second, this study shows how different evaluations are produced within different frames and which can result in such evaluations of relative worth becoming multiplicative. While existing studies, for example, those by Lamont (2012), Kjellberg et al. (2013), Haywood et al. (2014) and Brosch and Sander (2015), demonstrate valuation as social processes in collaborative, collective and relational contexts, this study additionally shows the intersection of multiple frames, with multiplicative impact on the relative valuation. This helps us understand the complexity of the evaluation process and how, the emotional nature of value judgement (Stark, 2004; Todd, 2014) is always anchored with specific spheres of organisational activity. Perpetrators are additionally and multiplicatively ascribed value that further protects them, with victim-survivors additionally and multiplicatively abjected. These multiplicative value frames produced and maintained by multiple participants in the hierarchical social order may minimise the chances of reporting and subsequent punishment.
Third, frames also contribute an explanation of how and why individuals respond differently to abuse within different contexts. Developing from Goffman (1974), Gamson (1975), Vliegenthart and van Zoonen (2011) and Wright and Henry (2019), this work takes up frames as having significance in relation to sense and meaning-making in specific organisational contexts. The context of religious organisations and settings in this study finds echoes with the work of Scheitle and Dougherty (2008), Righetti (2014) and Pelser and Roberts (2015), who note distinctiveness positioned in relation to religious and sacred value against the secular (see also Seiple and Hoover, 2021). Similarly, this study echoes Marotta (2021), who found prioritisation of scriptural law, and Death (2013) and Rashid and Barron (2023), who found a focus on forgiveness in relation to sin rather than justice for a crime against a child. All of this work shows how scriptural processes may also define the mode of investigation as they are framed as higher value than secular processes (see also Mendes and Pinskier, 2021). This study additionally contributes by illustrating how these frames emerge from what is considered pertinent to the events and what is appropriate for responses to them. Contextually relevant collective social processes and practices, expectations and taken-for-granted assumptions influence understanding and sensemaking in relation to the perpetration and reporting of child sexual abuse. A value lens, which illustrates relational aspects of the perpetrator/victim-survivor dynamic constructing how both perpetrators and their work acquire ‘special’ status alongside devalued victim-survivors, helps us understand more about why perpetrators are able to continue their abuse and how they are able maintain their positions and/or reputations in spite of it.
Conclusion
In conclusion, based on the written and oral evidence given to the Religious Organisations and Settings Investigation of the IICSA, I argue that there is a dynamic relationship between the protection of perpetrators and the abjection of children. This is important because it recognises that the intersubjectivity between perpetrators and victim-survivors produces and maintains a fairly stable, though contingent, value hierarchy in which perpetrators are positioned above and better, with victim-survivors positioned below and lesser. I argue that social value is a hierarchical and relational construct, through which the sanctity of higher order social value is privileged and juxtaposed with the abjection of lower order social value in situations of child abuse. By exploring how this happens in situ, I aim to contribute to conversations about how perpetrators are protected by focusing on the processes that create and maintain a hierarchy of social value. The appeals to intrinsic value, holy value and kinship value emergent from and embedded in practices within religious organisations and settings serve to protect perpetrators through convincing rationales for leniency, prioritisation and reluctance to threaten or disrupt the organisational order couched in terms of the sacredness of religion.
Footnotes
Acknowledgements
Thank you for comments on early drafts of this emerging work from participants at the critical management studies stream of the British Academy of Management Conference 2023, participants in SCOS 2023, and from Writing Club colleagues. I am particularly grateful to Professor Andrea Whittle, Dr Dean Pierides, Dr Ewan Mackenzie and Dr Kristina Humonen for their key input as critical friends during the drafting process. Thank you also for the detailed support and engagement from Professor Penny Dick, and comments from the anonymous reviewers, the care and attention given is much appreciated.
Funding
The author received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
AI usage declaration
The author acknowledges that they have followed Human Relations’ AI policy. Accordingly, AI was used only for proofing the manuscript.
