Holding the harasser responsible: Implications of identifying sexual harassment that includes abuse of power and quid pro quo elements as sexual corruption

This article argues that a perpetrator‐based definition of sexual harassment that highlights corrupt aspects of sexual harassment may contribute to a shift in focus from the experience of the harassed, to the actions of the harasser. This argument is based on an analysis of testimonies of sexual harassment from the #metoo call by the Swedish police in 2017, which reference abuse of power and quid pro quo elements. By introducing the recently developed analytical framework of ‘sexual corruption’, we show how a perpetrator‐based definition of sexual harassment may contribute to attributing responsibility to harassers. Identifying sexual harassment that includes the abuse of power and quid pro quo elements as corruption centers on the role of the abuse of power and, thus, the responsibility of the person abusing their position of power. Moreover, this shift bypasses discussions of whether or not the situation was experienced as ‘unwelcome’ by the harassed, the severity of the act, and questions of coercion and consent. Identifying instances of sexual harassment that include the abuse of power and quid pro quo elements as corruption also closes off attempts to portray it in terms of ‘jokes’ or banter, which is common in the police context. The article contributes with analytical tools that enable a shift from tracing the experience of the harassed to centering on the actions and responsibility of the harasser.