Description
Political theory surrounding human trafficking and “modern slavery” has long been contested. In the 17th century, it was debated whether African people brought to Europe as sexualised “ethnographic displays” were slaves or willing participants fleeing greater hardship. In the 19th century, women who financed travel across Europe through sex work were controversially labelled victims of “white slavery”. Today, women coerced into sex work are often described as victims of “modern slavery”. Critical scholars dispute this terminology, arguing that slavery was systemic and institutionally embedded, and that abuses by individuals outside legal frameworks are not comparable. They also forewarned that “modern slavery” narratives would be used to justify stricter border controls and maintain criminalisation of sex workers.
Debate persists over who bears responsibility for such exploitation. Governments typically focus on criminal justice and border enforcement, while critical scholars highlight structural inequalities that drive people to enter exploitative situations as survival strategies.
Across history, those labelled as slaves or victims have rarely been included in these debates. We know almost nothing of the political views of women displayed in 17th-century “freak shows,” those who travelled Europe funded by sex work, nor women described as “modern slaves” today.
My research brings survivors into this conversation—not as passive victims, but as theorisers and political agents.
To record in-depth political views of South African survivor activists, I adopted a methodology underutilised in international studies: collaborative autoethnography. These methods place control in the hands of participants, encouraging deep self-exploration, shared reflexivity, and group analysis. It is a storytelling method that enables participants to direct both the narrative and its interpretation.
