**2. Discussion of the theoretical foundations**

Seeing the multitude of perspectives mentioned above, an approach limited to a legal definition that was phrased almost 100 years ago [10] and is relatively simple appears rather limited: *forced or compulsory labour shall mean all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily* [10]. Since the adoption of the Convention, forced labour has become the subject of more than 10 global treaties and nearly 300 bilateral agreements [11], yet we are not much further along in terms of understanding the phenomenon. A legal definition is not enough [12] in times characterised by macro-phenomena such as globalisation, migration, dominance of capitalist theory and climate crisis on the one hand, and the attempts to revitalise the notions of human rights and civil society on the other [13]. Furthermore, it needs to be taken into account that, as a result of the intense political, economic and social processes of the past century, we have entered the next millennium in a situation where the traditional model of governance is being undermined and the social order—redefined. On the one hand, the state ceases to play the key role as a leader of change, abdicating in favour of global business. On the other hand, civil society is morphing from a crucial player in the political game for democratic values into society's nurse and provider of social services. The role of global religions is likewise undergoing a rather fundamental transformation [14–16].

These general observations make up the context of my remarks, yet I will stop here in order to focus on the central purpose of this chapter, which is to define forced labour. Following an analysis of the subject literature, it turns out that not only the definition of the phenomenon, but also the use of the term is in dispute. The opponents of the expression 'forced labour' look for solutions in two different directions: some propose that we use the somewhat broader category of 'modern slavery', while others suggest the rather narrow term 'servitude' [17]. Both groups invoke vital arguments to support their views, yet I will refrain from delving deeper into the details

of the dispute, as it is not essential to my considerations. What matters is that as a civilisation of the twenty-first century, even in a crucial issue such as the concept of forced labour, we are only at the beginning of the road.

And the problem is serious. According to the most recent estimates, the number of victims of various forms of enslavement amounts to 40 million people worldwide [18], while the number of identified victims is below 100,000 [19]. This is undoubtedly one of the most painful and pressing social issues of the twenty-first century, one with which our civilisation is simply incapable of dealing. Moreover, in all likelihood, the exploitation of human labour will not disappear any time soon, plus it will prevail over other forms of enslavement [20].

Amongst many characteristics of forced labour described in the subject literature, one that is relatively least discussed is that it is difficult to recognise [12]. Forced labour becomes socially invisible, and information about it is not socially welcome. In other words, people tend to reject information as 'bad' as this in order to avoid experiencing the discomfort we have mentioned above. This is why forced labour and human trafficking should be talked and written about as much as possible, so as to achieve the highest possible level of intellectual and mental readiness in society to accept the fact that these negative situations occur next to us. This level has been achieved with regard to ecological issues. Once we started to talk about the climate catastrophe, hardly anyone turns away from information about it.

At least this is a good reason to alter the language used to describe forced labour. Perhaps presenting this phenomenon in the political and criminal language does not guarantee wide social interest [21]. Perhaps the metaphor of 'modern slavery', which is used so widely in literature and politics, is not the best tool to communicate with a mass recipient [20, 22, 23]. It should be noted, for example, that Ricard-Guay and Hanley called one of the sub-chapters of their text: 'Labor Trafficking: Still Under-detected? Or Rather Called by Another Name?' [24]. Significant are the question marks included in the title—I interpret them as invitations for discussion. I join it eagerly, especially since the term 'modern slavery' is rather unclear and controversial [25].

The central issue here is not terminology, however, but the discrepancy between the estimated magnitude of the phenomenon of forced labour mentioned above (40,000,000 people) and the real interest in the problem. This discrepancy can be dissected into several questions, for example why does collecting data on forced labour, compared to sexual exploitation, proceed so slowly? Or, why has progress in eliminating forced labour, compared to sexual exploitation, been so negligible? Or, why is there no real interest in changing this situation in many countries?

It is far from easy to answer these questions, as modern slavery poses major challenges before the states and societies, irrespective of the level of the state's economic development or of society's legal culture.2 And finding answers can have serious consequences for the practice of social life in individual countries and around the globe. It may therefore be worthwhile to take a moment's reflection and go somewhat deeper into the issue and broaden the area of analysis. This is my intention, albeit I limit my role to reporting the problem and proposing a debate on the subject, guided by the belief that we should all seek an answer.

For the purposes of this work, I propose to leave aside the legal definitions of human trafficking and forced labour that we know from the 1930 ILO Convention [10] or the United Nations' Palermo Protocol [27]. In order to overcome interpretative difficulties resulting from the character of these definitions, I further propose

<sup>2</sup> For more on that subject, see [26].

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

to set aside the established analytical pattern based on the AMP model: action, means and purposes [28]. The model works as a tool for the phenomenological description of events, especially for the purposes of criminal justice, including the determination of the perpetrators' culpability. However, this is probably not the language that can easily be used to reach politicians, let alone the average citizen, to make the issue of forced labour the subject of their sincere interest and the focus of social dialogue.

I am convinced that, precisely for this reason, the language of criminal justice should be complemented with a perspective that could be described as humanistic, in the sense given to the term by the sociology that emerged from the thought of F. Znaniecki, G. H. Mead, J. Devey or W. I. Thomas. I mean an approach that is strongly supported by the philosophical elements of social pragmatism [29], and the treatment of the individual characteristic of symbolic interactionism [30]. By rejecting idealism and behaviourism, pragmatism has created a great deal of room for knowledge, especially knowledge gathered in social experience. A person's actions are guided by not only ideas that organise their will, or only stimuli from their environment, to which they react. An individual's actions consist in solving problems in communication with other people based on gathered information. The proponents of this way of thinking argued that actions are more effective when the mind and knowledge operate together [31]. If that is true, then perhaps a lack of profound knowledge and full understanding of the essence of forced labour limits our possibilities of taking action. Therefore, in moving away from defining forced labour in the language of law, I emphasise the importance of interpreting social reality as seen through the lens of social interaction and the stock of popular knowledge [32].

In this perspective, it is useful to employ symbolic interactionism, which has redefined the social order and raised the social status of the individual as a free, active and creative subject. Human action is not merely reactive but is performed on the basis of the ongoing definition of the situation [33]. Thus, in describing this action, the point of view of the acting subject must also be taken into account. This, in turn, fundamentally changes the social role of communication, which serves not only the transmission of content, but also the construction of reality. This way of thinking rendered possible the fundamental breakthrough in the description of society and the genesis of crime brought about by the Chicago School [34]. Yet what is most significant about symbolic interactionism is the role of meanings in stimulating human action. To put it simply, people take certain actions on the basis of meanings they learn in the process of social communication [35]. This rule applies also to social behaviour and allows us to ask: does forced labour mean the same thing to everyone? Without going into details, let us just say that it does not, as evidenced by the fact that not all forms of human trafficking and forced labour receive the same attention from politicians, experts and the media [36].

By contrast, if we were to look for the place of forced labour on the map of the twenty-first-century social mentality, we would notice that it is marginal. The modern world pays most attention to sexual exploitation, even though its scale is much smaller [37, 38]. Certainly, there are authors who note that the situation is changing and forced labour is gaining wider attention from researchers and analysts [39], yet this alters little. The public perception of the scale of the phenomena discussed here, but also of policies to combat forced prostitution and forced labour [40], are consistent with the trend outlined above.

This marginalisation is also confirmed by the data. Let us recall the gigantic difference between the estimated number of victims of modern slavery (40,000,000) and the number of victims, which we know by name, because they were identified by law enforcement (100,000). But that's not all: it turns out that the vast majority of these people are victims of sexual exploitation and not forced labour [18]. Explaining this fundamental discrepancy is not difficult, as a victim of forced prostitution is far easier to identify compared to an enslaved and exploited worker. All police forces in the world monitor the sex industry because it is a useful source of operational information, although sex workers try to avoid contact with the police and often do not even report, for example acts of violence [41]. Nevertheless, establishing details of the status of sex workers for the police is not a particularly difficult task. The matter is even easier in countries where prostitution is illegal, as it suffices to arrest such persons from time to time to gain useful information. Invariably, another source of information are pimps, who—in return for tolerating their activities—act as informants to the police.3 Under these circumstances, identifying a victim of sexual exploitation is not a problem for the police, as long as the police are willing to do so.

It is much harder to identify a victim of forced labour, unless they are, for example in a labour camp, since there is no operational control over the labour market. Furthermore, the specific interest arrangement means that no one is interested in leaking information. There is on the one side a socially vulnerable migrant who wishes to earn money, and on the other, a dishonest employer who wants the migrant's cheap labour. Additionally, various 'discomforts', such as enslavement, loss of independence or lack of influence on the working conditions are treated as a price the migrant has to pay [43]. And finally, it ought to be noted that identifying a victim of forced labour is difficult because the labour inspection services in many countries are ineffective.4

Albeit this explanation could be satisfactory, it remains incomplete in the sense that it ignores the essence of the behaviour that is the subject of our interest. In search for said essence, it is worth looking at the problem with the above-mentioned 'humanistic factor' in mind [45]. To that end, we should refrain from defining sexual services and forced labour from the structural and normative perspective and instead adopt an interpretative, semiotic approach [46]. Then, the key category of description becomes the 'symbolic visibility' of those phenomena, that is their social meanings established in the process of social communication. Let us try to explicate how this system works.

Commercial sex is not 'welcome'/well taken in the symbolic sense, as in a manner, it is subject to individual experience in two ways. Firstly, because offering or buying sexual services, especially when they are illegal, is an obvious breach of a law. Anyone who does that commits a criminal/administrative offence. Therefore, it is relatively easy to collectively establish the meanings of such conduct. From this point of view, it is in fact irrelevant whether the sex worker was forced to provide their services or not. Secondly, commercial sex is a social taboo and subject to moral condemnation, even when it is legal. In that case, it is likewise easy to ascertain its negative value, which is determined by this moral judgement. If we adopt W. I. Thomas's theory that opinions and actions are the consequence of an interpretation and definition of a situation [47], then we tend to think of the sex worker as a sinner rather than a victim of coercion. This is true also because we cannot imagine how brutal (drastic) methods need to be used to force someone to provide sexual services.

The case of forced labour is completely different because we are dealing with its 'double invisibility'. The difficulty in eradicating forced labour as a criminal act

<sup>3</sup> For more on the special position and role of pimps, see, for example [42].

<sup>4</sup> For more about said effectiveness, see, for example [44].

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

stems among others from the fact that it is hard to distinguish from, for example the exploitation of another's labour taking place in corporations [48]. Unlike paid sex, forced labour is well hidden behind the façade of work, which in turn is something legal, and even very noble and commendable. There were, however, periods in world history when work was deemed a shameful and degrading activity [49]. Nowadays, at the level of meaning, we have no doubt that work is something good and expected. Yet forced labour is invisible also because those who profit from it do everything in their power to conceal it by employing subtle and sophisticated methods of enslaving and taking control over their workers. This goes equally for working conditions as well as remuneration and the legality of employment. In turn, a worker who, for example, has no work permit or no visa will do all in their might not to appear conspicuous to the authorities, but also to be invisible, including in the symbolic sense.
