**3. A new model of analysis and an attempt at a definition**

The starting point for the present considerations was the observation that the interest in forced labour continues to be low and the progress in eradicating it—negligible [50]. On the other hand, we have ascertained that forced labour, in contrast to sexual exploitation, is less visible and successfully avoids recognition. Next, it has turned out that the knowledge we collect translates into concrete actions and increased effectiveness of prosecuting perpetrators only to a limited degree.

In my opinion, the solution to this problem should be sought on the side of collecting data about the phenomenon and the absorption of knowledge by public services, which demonstrate either insufficient determination or incompetence. Possibly, we need to look at the other side, as well, and ask about the quality of forced labour's image that we have. Perhaps the description and interpretation of the phenomenon are faulty and therefore incapable of convincing the authorities to change the state policy. Perhaps what we know fails to motivate society to act so that it can better identify victims and successfully support them. Thus, we draw attention to issues such as the limits of scientific cognition, the reconciliation of meanings of social phenomena in the communication process, and the intensity and style of the public debate on forced labour.

In this sense, it is well founded to ask: is the situation of a corporate employee who, under the pressure of their environment, takes out a loan to buy a flat in a 'better neighbourhood' and then works for 12–13 hours a day to pay it back essentially different from that of a Vietnamese who arrives in Europe and is exploited by their compatriots? Certainly, a question like that has a purely scholarly value, because, from the legal perspective, the answer is obvious. Yet is the legal perspective sufficient? I argue that it is not, which is why I am taking the liberty to outline a new perspective and propose a model of analysis that might be helpful in further studies.

It will be a five-element model of description and analysis of forced labour, which will make it possible to deepen the reflection on this phenomenon. When developing this tool, I departed from classic, legal definitions [3, 5] in order to approach the issue from a theoretical perspective I outlined in the introduction to this chapter, which is referred to as the humanistic perspective. Thus, rather than examine whether specific conduct of the perpetrators was human trafficking within the meaning of the Palermo Protocol [27] or forced labour pursuant to the ILO Convention [10], we will define the situation of the victim based on established social meanings. We will bear in mind, however, that these meanings are modified in the course of interpretation carried out by individuals in specific social situations [35].

In order to test the diagnostic value of the model, I will again juxtapose forced labour and sexual exploitation, but I will add forced begging to expand the area of analysis. These are namely the most popular forms of modern slavery.

The construction of my model begins with specifying what we understand by 'exploitation'. Aware that this concept raises considerable doubts and controversies [51], for the purposes of this argumentation, I will limit the issue to answers to two questions. First is the goal of the perpetrators to exploit the vital forces, body or intellect of the victim for their own benefit? And second, do the perpetrators take into account the deterioration of the victim's health and physical condition? These two questions reflect the evaluation criteria with regard to a specific situation. Those who have children work in a quarry exploit them consciously, but also take into account that the work will ruin their frail health. The goal of a corporation which forces a young person to work 12 hours a day is not to wreck their health, but to maximise its own profits. Regarding all three tested forms of human trafficking (sexual exploitation, forced begging and forced labour), the answer to both questions is positive.

The second element of the model is the phenomenon I call the 'façade'. What I understand by that is the existence or non-existence of a cultural curtain that conceals the analysed conduct, and in practice, not the conduct itself, but its negative manifestations. No such façade exists in the case of sexual exploitation, because work in the sex industry is culturally rejected regardless of whether it is legal or not. As for forced begging, the situation is similar. Civilisation-wise, a level of destitution that forces people to beg is difficult to accept. In turn, forced labour effectively hides behind the curtain of labour as such. A forced labourer wears no symbolic attributes of their status. Furthermore, work is the most expected and pro-social activity of the modern human [52].

As the third element of the model, I propose to use the phenomenon of 'cultural taboo', which removes some types of behaviour from society's and authorities' line of sight and brings out others. In almost all cultures, regardless of the model of legal regulations, paid sexual services are taboo based on moral judgement and social norms [53]. Yet that was not always so. In antiquity, in countries, such as Babylon, Phoenicia, Persia, Greece and India, widely respected sacral prostitution existed [54–56]. In some cultures and mythologies (Egypt and Japan), it was treated as a form of hierogamy, that is, sacral marriage [57]. The contemporary moral taboo has the consequence that individuals who provide such services completely openly, treating it as a way of life, are in the minority.

Begging, in turn, has the hallmark of extreme poverty, of which modern society is ashamed, and perhaps even afraid. The taboo against begging is a mixture of shame, sympathy and rejection of deviation [58]. Even if according to some religions, people are obligated to give alms, a beggar remains an evident sign that something has gone wrong in the construction of social equality.5

Work is not only free from any taboo; it is something noble, and in many cultures perceived as the most commendable way to achieve financial success. In some periods, it was even considered a condition for full membership of society [60]. Yet that was not always the case. In antiquity, work was something shameful, and even disgraceful. As a result, people who worked professionally were at the bottom of the social ladder. In the period of slavery, labour—as a burden and hardship—was offloaded on the

<sup>5</sup> This thought is excellently put in words by Sandra Martyres in the poem 'The Silent Beggar' since 2007, see [59].

### *Perspective Chapter: Defining Forced Labour – A Real Challenge for the World in the Twenty-First… DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.109996*

slaves, who were treated in some cultures (Greece) like talking tools [49]. It is only recently that work became a noble activity.

The construction of the model is completed with a fourth element, one which I refer to as the 'symbolic visibility' of the behaviour. It means its accessibility to the common perception of others and a specific openness of the behaviour to giving it meanings. We could say that symbolic visibility is an aggregate of the 'façade' and the 'taboo', where a lack of a 'façade' paired with a strong 'taboo' renders a type of behaviour clearly visible. It is fairly easy to accurately interpret forced prostitution and begging as types of behaviour characterised by a high degree of visibility and at the same time burdened with a cultural taboo. As for forced labour, which at the level of behaviour is deceptively similar to work as such—that is not the case. In order for this situation to change, some serious modifications in the mechanisms of giving meanings would be needed, for example for some reasons we would decide that begging was socially beneficial. This would firstly require fundamental transformations in the communication model as the source of meanings. Are modern societies ready for that, though?

Finally, the fifth element of the model is a variable that I provisionally call the 'level of subtlety of control measures'. Parents who have to encourage their children to study have a wide array of measures at their disposal, but seldom employ the most drastic ones. An employer who wants to boost the effectiveness of work, first of all, considers instruments from the spectrum of financial incentives. It is extremely difficult to force another person to provide sexual services against their will, as the sphere of individual sexuality is the most protected area of human activity. The unwilling are ready to sacrifice their health and even life on the altar of their own autonomy. It is possible to force such persons into prostitution only when the construction of the pressure mechanism renders it effective. That is the case, for example when the person becomes addicted to drugs or when the perpetrators make real threats against their family members. I do not know how many women are able to refuse to 'cooperate' with human traffickers when their children are threatened with beating or rape.

The situation with forced begging is not necessarily any less drastic. There was a case of a criminal group in Poland that forced women to beg together with children who were not their own [61]. The brutality of the control methods consisted of the fact that children were taken away from their mothers and begged with someone else. Consequently, the control was fully effective. The situation is completely different in the case of forced labour. Employers who expect to continue to exploit the victim's labour for a long time do all in their power to ensure that the mechanisms of enslavement and the establishment of dependency are as subtle as possible. Beating, starving or depriving of sleep are counter-productive and increase the risk of social visibility. The system of enslavement works very efficiently when control is effective and the social business environment is not in a position to recognise the signs of pathology in the treatment of workers. Furthermore, the system works perfectly when the workers themselves believe that what happens to them is necessary, and even right. For instance, they are foreigners and have violated the visa rules, and the employer nevertheless shows them 'kindness'. This effect of humility and engagement in work can be achieved not with violence or threat of violence, but with very subtle manipulation, as a result of which the worker does not even know anymore when they begin to spiral down the so-called continuum of exploitation [44].
