Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) is a fabricated and widely discredited "disorder" used by victimologists to reinterpret a variety of child testimony (disclosure, non-disclosure, sustained denial, retraction) as evidence of CSA.[1] It was a critical propaganda tool in the Day-care hysteria of the 1980s and 90s, and was first proposed by Roland Summit - a pioneer in victimological literature, in 1983.
Proposed mechanism
Summit believed children "learn to accept the situation and to survive", fostering the shamed secrecy thought to typify CSA at the time. "There is no way out, no place to run", he adds; "the healthy, normal emotionally resilient child will learn to accommodate to the reality of continuing sexual abuse."[2]
He posited five stages through which the child attempts to cope with this:
Secrecy
Helplessness
Entrapment and accommodation
Delayed disclosure
Retraction
Discredit
CSAAS belongs to a long list of false diagnostic tools related to the CSA panics of the 1980s and 90s - often resulting in absurd statements by professionals. Similar fallacious circulars have been used in setting up professional discourses on "cognitive distortion", for example. Practitioners and theorists continue to blame "lack of awareness", or "flawed cultural beliefs" for the prevalence of sexual behaviors they deem to be aberrant.[3]
Several states have prohibited testimony regarding CSAAS, based on evidence that it is not accepted generally by scientists, except for delayed reporting.[4] Summit himself has subsequently identified that the concept has been abused for scientific and legal reasons,[5] and neither the American Psychiatric Association nor the American Psychological Association has recognized CSAAS.
References
↑De Young, Mary (2004). The day care ritual abuse moral panic. Jefferson, N.C: McFarland. ISBN 978-0-7864-1830-5.
↑State v. J.L.G., Docket Number A-50-16(N.J. Sup. Ct. July 31, 2018). See also State v. Ballard, 855 S.W.2d 557, 562 (Tenn. Sup. Ct. 1993); Hadden v. State, 690 So. 2d 573 (Fla. Sup. Ct. 1997)
↑R. v. K (A.), (1999), 1999 CanLII 3793 (ON CA), 45 O.R. (3d) 641 (C.A.) at paras. 125