Tuesday 16 June 2009

FORMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Batterers use a wide range of coercive and abusive behaviors against their victims. Some of the abusive behaviors used by batterers result in physical injuries. Other techniques employed by batterers involve emotionally abusive behaviors. While these behaviors may not result in physical injuries, they are still psychologically damaging to the victim. Batterers employ different abusive behaviors at different times. Even a single incident of physical violence or the threat of such violence may be sufficient to establish power and control over a partner; this power and control is then reinforced and strengthened by non-physical abusive and coercive behaviors.
Forms of domestic violence can include physical violence, sexual violence, economic control, and psychological assault (including threats of violence and physical harm, attacks against property or pets and other acts of intimidation, emotional abuse, isolation, and use of the children as a means of control). Because they occur in intimate relationships, many kinds of abuse are often not recognized as violence. In many places throughout the world, marital rape is still not viewed as sexual assault because a husband is deemed to have a right of sexual access to his wife. Stalking, as well, has only recently been recognized as a form of violence and a severe threat to the victim.
A diagram called the "Power and Control Wheel," developed by the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project in Duluth, identifies the various behaviors that are used by batterers to gain power and control over their victims. The wheel demonstrates the relationship between physical and sexual violence and the tactics of intimidation, coercion, and manipulation that are often used by batterers.

WHAT IS DOMESTIC VIOLENCE?

Domestic violence is a pattern of abusive and threatening behaviors that may include physical, emotional, economic and sexual violence as well as intimidation, isolation and coercion. The purpose of domestic violence is to establish and exert power and control over another; men most often use it against their intimate partners, such as current or former spouses, girlfriends, or dating partners. While other forms of violence within the family are also serious, this site will address the unique characteristics of violence against women in their intimate relationships.
Domestic violence is behavior that is learned through observation and reinforcement in both the family and society. It is not caused by genetics or illness. Domestic violence is repeated because it works. Domestic violence allows the perpetrator to gain control of the victim through fear and intimidation. Gaining the victim's compliance, even temporarily, reinforces the perpetrator's use of these tactics of control. More importantly, however, the perpetrator's abusive behavior is reinforced by the socially sanctioned belief that men have the right to control women in relationships and the right to use force to ensure that control. From Anne L. Ganley & Susan Schechter, Domestic Violence: A National Curriculum for Family Preservation Practitioners 17-18 (1995).

OTHER CAUSES AND COMPLICATING FACTORS

Domestic violence is a serious problem in all countries in which it has been studied in CEE/FSU. Women suffer high rates of violence in the home, including both physical and psychological violence.
Stereotypes about the "proper" roles and responsibilities of men and women in the family reinforce the view that the family is a self-contained unit, deserving privacy at the expense of other rights and freedoms. Traditionally, women are relegated to subordinate positions in this family structure. The Network Women's Program explains that in CEE/FSU:
Such attitudes endure in countries and communities that condone violence against women as a part of daily life. In some places, the goal of the community is "to save the family." Women are told: "Go back to your husbands. Do you want to make your children orphans?" In many cases, society teaches women that they are at least partly responsible for provoking the violence against them. "Good wives" seldom get beaten. And when they do, its excused as a sign of affection. As a Russian proverb puts it, "No beatings means there's no love."
From Network Women's Program, Bending the Bow: Targeting Women's Human Rights and Opportunities, Open Society Institute 24 (2002).
For victims of domestic violence, this notion of family privacy often interferes with effective police intervention and prosecutorial decisions in domestic violence cases. In many countries, people interviewed, including many police officers, reported that police often regard domestic violence as a minor offense and as a family issue in which police officers should not interfere.
These stereotypes also reinforce the mentality that men are the leaders of the family and thus have the right to control women's behavior by any means necessary. Women are expected to show their husbands obedience and respect. Women have identified the male view of women as subordinate to men as one of the underlying causes of violence against women. Many view violence as a normal part of an intimate relationship.
Research also indicates that many people accept the widespread myth that alcohol is the primary cause of domestic violence. Police, prosecutors, doctors, and others share this view that alcoholism causes domestic violence.
Research from around the world demonstrates that while alcoholism is a contributing factor to some domestic violence, it is not the cause. International studies attribute domestic violence to other underlying factors in the abuser's life. Some of these factors include violence in the home as a child, a belief that violence against women is acceptable and a desire for personal power. In discussing substance abuse and domestic violence, these researchers conclude that one does not cause the other. Because they are not causally related, scholars recommend that the government address alcoholism and domestic violence as two separate problems with two separate treatments. "Although programs addressing alcohol abuse are no doubt beneficial in many ways . . . unless interventions also aim to . . . alter male attitudes and beliefs in the rightness of male dominance and control over women, they are unlikely to be successful." From Holly Johnson, Contrasting Views of the Role of Alcohol in Cases of Wife Assault, 16 J. Interpersonal Violence 54, 57 (2001); Larry W. Bennett, Substance Abuse and Woman Abuse by Male Partners (1997).
Economic hardship places additional stress on family relationships and affects a woman's ability to leave a violent relationship. In many countries in CEE/FSU, affordable housing is very limited. Many women do not seek legal relief against their abusive husbands and partners because they do not have alternative housing arrangements. This reality affects both divorced women, who must live with their ex-husbands while they wait for financial and property settlements, as well as married women who may wish to flee the abuse but have no reasonable alternatives given their lack of economic resources. Economic considerations may be even more pressing for women with children.
Another consequence of poverty is changing gender roles within the family. Where there is severe poverty and unemployment, women often seek informal employment, taking jobs that men are unwilling to do. The income generated from this work, along with high rates of male unemployment, result in a shift of traditional gender roles in the family. This shift in gender roles changes the power structure within the family, often resulting in increased violence.
Religion also plays an increasingly important role in many countries in CEE/FSU. The religions are also diverse, ranging from Catholicism in Poland and Eastern Orthodox Christianity in Ukraine to Islam in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. Some leaders in these religious communities hold very traditional views, taking the position that a woman should remain in her marriage and endure physical abuse regardless of the circumstances.

Monday 1 June 2009

EVOLUTION OF THEORIES OF VIOLENCE

Gregg Barak : February 1,2006

A common understanding of the causes of domestic violence can help communities develop more effective responses to the violence; such an understanding helps avoid conflicting responses that could undermine efforts to protect victims and hold batterers accountable.
When the battered women's movement in the United States began in the early 1970s, the prevailing theory of why men batter was based on psychopathology. According to this theory, men who abused their wives were mentally ill and could be cured through medication or psychiatric treatment. Researchers found, however, that the behavior of perpetrators of domestic violence did not correspond to profiles of individuals who were mentally ill. Batterers attack only their intimate partners. People who suffer from mental illnesses such as schizophrenia do not limit their violence to their intimate partners.
Initial studies also characterized battered women as mentally ill. The results of these first studies, however, were distorted because the studies examined women who were in mental hospitals; their batterers, who were calm and credible in contrast to their wives, were asked about the cause of their partners' condition and thus given an opportunity to minimize and deny their partners' account of the abuse. In reality, however, battered women are not mentally ill, and many of those who were institutionalized were misdiagnosed because of a failure to recognize or understand the physical and psychological effects of domestic violence. From Joan Zorza, Batterer Manipulation and Retaliation in the Courts: A Largely Unrecognized Phenomenon Sometimes Encouraged by Court Practices, Violence Against Women 47-48 (Joan Zorza ed., 2002).
Researchers next theorized that violence was learned. They argued that men battered because they had learned violence in their families as children, and women sought out abusive men because they saw their mothers being abused. This was the "learned behavior" theory of violence. Yet women who witness domestic violence are not any more likely to be battered as adults. (A recent study reported by the Family Violence Prevention Fund does indicate, however, that women who were physically or sexually abused as children may be more likely to be abused as adults.)
Although research does show that boys who witness abuse in the home are seven times more likely to batter, many men who witnessed violence as children vow not to use violence and do not grow up to be batterers. A more consistent explanation for the relationship between witnessing and battering is that witnessing is one of many sources of information; men also receive information from the larger society that it is appropriate to control your wife and to enforce this control through violence. Further, as emphasized in batterers' intervention programs, boys who witnessed domestic violence and grew up to be batterers learned more than just violence; rather, they learned—and thus can unlearn—lessons about the respective roles of men and women that contribute to their abusive behavior as adults.
Closely related to the "learned behavior" theory were the theories that described violence as the result of a loss of control. For example, many believed that men are abusive when they drink because the alcohol causes them to lose control. Others explained men's violence as a result of an inability to control their anger and frustration. These theorists argued that gendered societal expectations prevented men from expressing anger and frustration; these feelings would build up until the man lost control and released his feelings through the use of violence.
This "loss of control" theory is contradicted by batterers' behavior. Batterers' violence is carefully targeted to certain people at certain times and places. For example, batterers "choose not to hit their bosses or police officers, no matter how angry or 'out of control' they are." From Ethel Klein et al., Ending Domestic Violence: Changing Public Perceptions/Halting the Epidemic 6 (1997).
Abusers also follow their own "internal rules and regulations about abusive behaviors." They often choose to abuse their partners only in private, or may take steps to ensure that they do not leave visible evidence of the abuse. Batterers also chose their tactics carefully—some destroy property, some rely on threats of abuse, and some threaten children. Through these decisions, "perpetrators are making choices about what they will or will not do to the victim, even when they are claiming they 'lost it' or were 'out of control.' Such decision-making indicates that they are actually in control of their abusive behaviors." From Anne L. Ganley & Susan Schechter, Domestic Violence: A National Curriculum for Family Preservation Practitioners 19 (1995). In fact, a recent study reported by the Family Violence Prevention Fund indicates that many batterers become more controlled and calm as their aggressiveness increases.
Another theory that was advanced was the "learned helplessness" theory. Lenore Walker, a psychologist in the United States, studied the behavior of women who stay in violent relationships. Walker hypothesized that women stay in abusive relationships because constant abuse strips them of the will to leave.
The learned helplessness theory, however, did not account for the fact that there are many social, economic and cultural reasons a woman might chose to stay in an abusive relationship. Women often have very rational reasons for staying—they may fear retaliation against themselves or their children, or they may not be able to financially support themselves or their children. They may be ostracized by their family and community if they leave.
Further, the learned helplessness theory is inconsistent with the fact that women surviving in abusive relationships attempt to leave many times and routinely act in very conscious ways to try to minimize the abuse directed at them and to protect their children. As Dobash and Dobash explain, "[w]omen are usually persistent and often tenacious in their attempts to seek help, but pursue such help through channels that prove to be most useful and reject those that have been found to be unhelpful or condemning." Battered women do not live their lives in a state of "learned helplessness." On the contrary, they often engage in a process of "staying, leaving and returning." During this process,
women make active and conscious decisions based on their changing circumstances: they leave for short periods in order to escape the violence and to emphasize their disaffection in the hope that this will stop the violence. In the beginning, they are generally not attempting to end the relationship, but are negotiating to reestablish the relationship on a non-violent basis.
In addition, the learned helplessness theory was based on perceived characteristics ostensibly shared by battered women, such as low self esteem, a tendency to withdraw, or perceptions of loss of control. Those who espoused the theory, however, rarely took into account the fact that these "characteristics" might be, in fact, the physical and psychological effects of the abuse.
Finally, the static model of "learned helplessness" is contradicted by the fact that the violence, and the woman's reaction to the violence, often changes over time. The first episode of violence is generally minor; victims may be surprised and shocked, and may not anticipate that it will occur again. Rather, as Dobash and Dobash explain, "they believe, as anyone might, in the potential for reform and are still committed to the relationship." Victims may begin to then
look to their own actions for an explanation. This is not surprising in societies which allocate to wives the responsibility for happy husbands and families; women are expected to ask how their behavior 'caused' their husband's violence. Women eventually realize that solutions to the man's violence do not reside in a change of their own behavior. For some this realization comes fairly quickly while others take longer to overcome such culturally constructed notions.
The "learned helplessness" theory was accompanied by a resurgence of the psychopathology; theorists argued that women stayed in abusive relationships because they suffered from a personality disorder that caused them to seek out abusive relationships as a means of self-punishment, or were addicted to abusive relationships. Many also maintained that women were co-alcoholics with their spouses and thus could be "treated" through alcohol addiction programs. These theories were inconsistent with the fact that women had very rational reasons for staying in relationships. In addition, while battered women may be subject to an increased risk of substance abuse, this is a consequence, not a cause, of the abuse.
The "cycle of violence" was the next theory to gain popularity in the United States. This theory was based on the belief that men did not express their frustration and anger because they had been taught not to show their feelings. The man's tension built until he exploded and became violent. The tension was released, and the couple enjoyed a "honeymoon" period, during which the husband was apologetic and remorseful.
This theory, however, was not consistent with women's experiences. Many women never experienced a honeymoon period. Others stated that there was no gradual build-up of tension, but rather unpredictable, almost random, episodes of battering. This theory also did not explain why men directed their explosions of rage only against their intimate partners. Dobash and Dobash explain that
the conception of a cycle of violence is static rather than dynamic and changing, does not deal with intentionality, and the notion of the third phase as a 'honeymoon' phase belies the experience of women who indicate that even the process of 'making-up' or reconstructing the relationship is carried out against the background of a personal history of violence and coercion and in the context of few viable alternatives to the violent relationship.
From R. Emerson Dobash & Russel P. Dobash, Women, Violence and Social Change 222-23, 225, 229-32 (1992).
This theory was often paired with the "family/relationship conflict" model. According to this model, "both the man and the woman contribute to violence in an intimate relationship." This model assumes either that the relationship is characterized by mutual violence, or that "in many cases a wife provokes her husband by 'below-the-belt' arguments prompting a violence response from her husband." The woman's behavior contributes to the build-up of tension in the man, until the man explodes in a violent rage, followed by a honeymoon period.
Theories based on "mutual" violence do not take into account the different ways that men and women use violence in intimate relationships. Further, any theory that describes violence as a response to "provocation" from the other partner is simply another form of victim blaming. Nor does this model account for instances in which a husband explodes over trivial issues or starts beating his wife while she is asleep.
From Michael Paymar, Building a Coordinated Community Response to Domestic Violence: An Overview of the Problem 3-4 (1994).
What was missing from all of these theories was a recognition of batterers' intent to gain control over their partners' actions, thoughts and feelings. The current understanding of abuse, represented by the "Power and Control Wheel," evolved out of many discussions with battered women and batterers through the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP) in Duluth. The Power and Control Wheel describes the different tactics an abuser uses to maintain power and control over his partner.
In an abusive relationships, the batterer uses the pattern of tactics described in the Power and Control Wheel to reinforce his use of physical violence. Violent incidents are not isolated instances of a loss of control, or even cyclical expressions of anger and frustration. Rather, each instance is part of a larger pattern of behavior designed to exert and maintain power and control over the victim.
The Power and Control Wheel is based on the assumption that the purpose of the violence is to exert power and control over another. The elements that formed the basis of earlier theories—a boy witnessing abuse as a child, or substance abuse—may be contributing factors, but are not the "cause" of the violence. Rather, the batterer consciously uses these tactics to ensure the submissiveness of his partner. As Schecter and Ganley explain, perpetrators of domestic violence
bring into their intimate relationships certain expectations of who is in charge and what the acceptable mechanisms are for enforcing that dominance. Those attitudes and beliefs, rather than the victim's behavior, determine whether or not perpetrators are domestically violent.
From Schechter & Ganley, Domestic Violence: A National Curriculum for Family Preservation Practitioners 19 (1995). The exercise of male violence, through which women's subordinate role and unequal power are enforced and maintained, is, in turn, tolerated and reinforced by political and cultural institutions and economic arrangements.
Over time, however, DAIP began to realize that even this theory—that batterers use violence to gain control and power—did not sufficiently capture the phenomenon of violence. While the Power and Control Wheel (i.e., coercive behaviors that establish power and control) did describe women's experiences, batterers in batterers' intervention programs did not articulate a desire for power and control when they talked about their use of these behaviors. Consequently, DAIP began to conceptualize violence within the larger context of society. Under this theory, violence is
a logical outcome of relationships of dominance and inequality—relationships shaped not simply by the personal choices or desires of some men to [dominate] their wives but by how we, as a society, construct social and economic relationships between men and women and within marriage (or intimate domestic relationships) and families. Our task is to understand how our response to violence creates a climate of intolerance or acceptance to the force used in intimate relationships.

CRIMINOLOGIST GREGG BARAK

He is a Professor of Criminology and Criminal Justice at Eastern Michigan University and the former Visiting Distinguished Professor in the College of Justice & Safety at Eastern Kentucky University. In 2003 He became the 27th Fellow of the Academy of Criminal Justice Sciences and in 2007 He received the Lifetime Achievement Award from the Critical Division of the American Society of Criminology.
He is the author and/or editor of 16 books on crime, justice, media, violence, criminal law, homelessness, human rights, and related topics. To read about my latest books, Criminology: An Integrated Approach (2009) and Violence, Conflict, and World Order (2007), scroll down the menu and click on these titles. To watch a video of my "Mediated Violence" talk as part of the EKU Distinguished Lecture Series in 2003-04, go to YouTube and enter hisname.
The purpose of this web site is to disseminate ideas that might decrease crime and increase justice.
As a "public service," you can visit this web site twenty-four hours and seven days a week to receive breaking news on crime and punishment from around the world. Simply click on Headlines/Links near the bottom of the menu.
On this site, he is posting a sampling of essays and articles of mine that will change periodically. For the most recent posted guest essay and in this case an overview of my work and vision as a criminologist, click on What's New: Klepac on Barak. You may also, if interested, read about and/or purchase most of my books and anthologies from this website.
If interested, He is available for public and/or private speaking engagements on numerous crime, media, violence, and justice topics. Of late He has given sponsored lectures outside the USA, in such countries as Canada, Finland, Taiwan, the Netherlands, and the United Kingdom. Inside the country, before the National Institute of Justice in Washington, D.C. and in such cities as San Diego, California, Rockford, Illinois and La Cross, Wisconsin.
He may also be retained for evaluations of the juvenile and adult criminal justice systems, or on domestic violence and sexual victimization projects. He has worked in such capacities for the Office of Justice Planning and Evaluation in Portland, Oregon; the Youth Commission of the City of Aurora, Illinois; and for the Attorney General's Office in Montgomery, Alabama.
Next time, you can read his articels in my blogs