CHANGE - Men Learning to End Their Violence against Women
Effective Policy and
Practice in Work with Offenders: SWSG Seminar Crieff Hydro - 28
& 29 November 1991
Workshop on Effective
Intervention
In developing effective
intervention practices into domestic violence offending we need
to have an understanding of its nature, causes and
consequences. No-one would now deny that domestic
violence is a real problem and one which the past 15 years has
seen growing efforts by a variety of organisations to tackle. It
is interesting to note that the 'rediscovery' of the problem in
the early 1970's initially by a group of women in Chiswick, and
subsequently by the growing Women's Aid movement, met in its
early stages with much opposition and denial that there was a
problem and that it was widespread. This denial of the problem
reflects the socio-cultural climate in which the violence
occurs: a climate we would argue, where what happens in the home
is seen as essentially 'private' and not a concern of the state,
and a climate where women have traditionally been regarded as
subject to the authority and control of their husbands. The
development of theories which explained the causes of and
reasons for this violence reflects an unwillingness to tackle
the institutional support for men's so-called right to control
their wives.
CHANGE would agree with Lorna
Smith that looking for one theory of causation for domestic
violence is probably pointless: it is more reasonable, given the
complexity of the problem to seek a multi-dimensional
explanation.[1]
This is not to argue that all theories proposed to date have an
equal validity, but rather to say that each has something to
offer in developing our understanding of the problem.
The first theories which
gained currency following the exposing of the problem looked to
explanations for the violence which stemmed from the pathologies
of either the men or women concerned. Men who used violence were
examined in order to find out what made them different from
other 'alleged' non-violent men. They were classified as having
certain personality traits: poor impulse control, low self
esteem, low frustration tolerance, or as suffering from
underlying depression or impaired ego functioning. Other
researchers developed personality typologies which linked the
use of violence to such personality types as
obsessive/compulsive, paranoid, borderline or
passive/aggressive. However, the link between pathology and the
use of violence is not satisfactorily explained. To what extent
are men with the same personality traits or characteristics
present in the general population, and how many of them do or do
not use violence to their partners? And why, in the main, is the
violence directed exclusively at their partners and not at
others?
More recent theorists working
from this perspective have looked at sex-role identity and
concluded that exaggerated hyper masculinity results from men's
unconscious anxiety over the 'feminine' part of their
personality and that this gives rise to the violence. However,
even this approach fails to tackle the social context within
which men learn to develop deeply misogynistic and controlling
behaviours. Implicit in pathological explanations is that
solutions lie in treating the 'sick' individual rather than
there being any need for social or institutional changes.
Another approach which gained
currency during the early days of the 'rediscovery' of the
problem of domestic violence was the notion of the
violence-prone woman. Women victims of abuse were defined as
precipitating the violence or as seeking out violent partners.
If women do not wish to be abused, it was argued, why do they
stay in violent relationships, and why do many who do leave such
relationships so often return to the violent partner? The
characteristics of such women were explored and they were
described in terms which were often contradictory: passive,
aggressive indecisive, domineering, submissive, subservient, low
in self esteem and confidence, and often inconsistent in their
behaviour. Such women, it was argued, look for violence in their
relationships with men. We would argue, however, that what was
being described was the effects of the violence not its causes.
Violence does foster self-blame and submission in the victim:
research undertaken with hostages and their captors has revealed
similar traits in the dependency which such prisoners develop to
their captors as those developed by victims of domestic violence
to their abusers[2].
Current evidence about the
extent of domestic violence has highlighted the problem of
pathological explanations. They seek to propose an
‘exceptionalistic explanation to a universalistic problem’.[3]
Although they may apply to a few cases, they do not provide a
broad theory of the general phenomenon.
The next perspective to gain
currency was that which sought to explain domestic violence as
being a response to social structural factors: for example
frustration, stress and blocked goals.[4]
Social structures create role expectations that men should
‘succeed’ as breadwinners and their sphere of success was the
economic world. There is less stress on women to succeed: their
roles are more defined as homemakers, mothers, wives. This
imbalance in expectations means men are more likely to fail to
live up to their role and this creates stress for them. Men are
more prone to resort to violence as a result because the
normative structure, in terms of sex-role socialisation,
legitimises its use by them under certain circumstances.
Criticism of this school of
thought centred around its premise that if violence was caused
by social stress, why did it not just occur among those most
likely to experience such stress, i.e. blue collar workers? A
1985 empirical study of men in therapy for wife abuse claimed to
demonstrate that white collar men suffer stress from the
demands put on them by their work coupled with the frustration
that this gives them over lack of contact with their families.
Blue collar men, it is argued, find it essential to their
self-esteem to ‘keep their wives in line’. White collar men
wanted more egalitarian relationships but became enraged by the
injustice of a system which denied them full participation in an
egalitarian personal life, leading to them using violence to
their partners.[5]
As pathological explanations
blamed the victim, then the abuser, so this approach indicts
society. What it fails to explain is why violence is seen as the
appropriate response.
Another common explanation for
domestic violence linked to the social stress perspective is
that of alcohol abuse, and this is a powerful argument. It is a
reason that men use, that victims use and a socially acceptable
one to use in the public domain. We accept that many people
believe it, and indeed for many perpetrators and victims alike,
who do not understand why they are violent, it is a seemingly
reasonable explanation. It is a handy hook on which to hang the
blame for the violence. It minimises it and takes away the
responsibility from the abuser. We acknowledge that we live in a
society where the main recreational drug is alcohol, and where
there is a lot of alcohol abuse. However, we do not accept that
alcohol causes violence. It is a disinhibitor, but not all men
who are drunk beat their wives and not all men who beat their
wives are drunk. There is indeed some evidence to show that men
will become drunk in order to beat their wives since alcohol
furnishes them with some bravado and provides a widely accepted
excuse.
Another model which has been
widely used to interpret domestic violence is the interactionist
one, stemming from family systems theory. This model sees
violence as one extreme of a variety of coercive and incitement
tactics used by couples in dysfunctional relationships.[6]
Couples' behaviour is seen as cyclical in that the actions of
one provoke the reaction of the other, which in turn provokes
the further action of the first. Therapeutic programmes which
have adopted this model use couples’ counselling or co-joint
therapy to 'treat' those involved.
The problem with this model is
that it ignores the power differential in relationships and
women are seen to be equal contributors to the violence.
Responsibility for the violence is not laid firmly at the door
of the perpetrator. During treatment, often it is suggested that
women adapt their behaviour in order to stop the violence. This,
we would argue, confirms the notion that women are somehow
responsible for provoking the violence and further reinforces
the power of the man in the relationship.
A related theory is that of
the intergenerational transmission of violence: that it is
perpetuated in families from one generation to the next.
Stopping the violence in one generation it was argued would
prevent its continuation. However, evidence now appears to show
that not all men who are violent have witnessed this in their
family of origin; and conversely, not all those who do so
witness violence go on to perpetrate it themselves. This is not
to argue that we do not accept that violence is learned, but
would argue that the learning process is more complex than this.
The perspective which most
informs the work of the CHANGE Project is one which has been
labelled pro-feminist, but we would call the social/historical.
It is a view propounded by sociologists, psychologists, lawyers
and practitioners alike.[7]
This perspective takes the view that violence is a form of
social action which has intent, whether it be mass violence, or
interpersonal between individuals, or more specifically in this
case, by a man against his female partner. The intent that
violence has is to create and maintain the imbalance of power in
the relationship. The issues here are power and control.
This perspective views
domestic violence as stemming from an historical legacy of men’s
power over women. The development of western civilisation
stemming from the Judaeo-Christian tradition defined woman's
status as separate from and inferior to man. Women rarely had
any identity outside the family. They were defined by their
relationships to men or children: wife, daughter, mother. The
seeds of wife beating lie in the subordination of women to male
authority and control. This subordination was institutionalised
in the structure of the patriarchal family and supported by
economic and political institutions, and by a belief system
which made women's subordination seem natural, morally just and
sacred.
This historical legacy is at
the root of the problem we still face today in the area of
domestic abuse. There is still currency in the notion that a
man's home is his castle and that a woman's place is in it. What
goes on in the home is viewed as essentially private even if it
does contravene the law.
There is still a tolerance of
marital violence evident in public opinion, in the traditional
police response to domestic disputes and the way charges of
domestic assaults were processed through our criminal justice
system. The relationship of husband to wife is largely viewed as
hierarchical. The very rituals which we use to change single
women into wives with their emphasis on unviolated property,
(the white wedding), on her adopting his name and in the
traditional wording of the wedding ceremony: 'love, honour and
obey', signify the inequity of the partners. Public opinion of a
woman who fails to live up to the wifely ideal is still far more
condemning of her than of a man who similarly falls short. If
she is seen as a less than perfect housekeeper, mother or wife,
then she is often dismissed as deserving everything she gets.
From this perspective the
nature of domestic violence is seen as behaviour
which is purposeful. The purpose is the dominance of the man
over his partner. Further, such behaviour goes beyond the use
of physical violence to encompass all behaviour aimed at
imposing his will on her. Thus effective intervention will
require to encompass all forms of dominating and controlling
actions, to challenge men’s own understandings of why they are
abusive and their attitudes and beliefs about their role in
relation to their partner.
The causes of domestic
violence from this perspective are seen to be the historical
legacy of an imbalance of power in male/female relationships,
such imbalance being learned by sex role socialisation and
supported by community and institutional responses. Effective
work needs therefore to tackle both individual offending, the
way such offending is treated by the institutions of the
criminal justice system: the police, courts and social work; and
to challenge community supports for domestic violence by
questioning social attitudes to the problem.
The consequences of
domestic violence from this perspective can be seen to be that
the offender finds it difficult to accept responsibility for his
offending. In his terms, he is only doing that which he has the
right to do. Many men therefore seek to put the blame for it
onto their partner’s provocation. If this is challenged they
seek instead to mystify it by ascribing it to a loss of control
or a temporary aberration.
For the women victims of
domestic violence the consequences are various. They may feel an
element of self blame in that they share a common culture which
puts the responsibility for domestic harmony onto women and
seeks to legitimise their subservience. For similar reasons they
may feel it difficult to pursue the matter through the due
process of the law, as well as believing it to be up to them to
‘press charges’. In any case they may feel that the legal
system does not offer them much protection from the violence if
it has been their experience that the police and courts have not
been helpful in the past or to others.
Effective intervention then
must focus on men taking responsibility and realising the
consequences for them and their partner of acting in this way.
Men’s programmes which work within the criminal justice system
can assist social institutions to demonstrate to the man that
his behaviour is illegal and unacceptable. It must also
encompass demonstrating to women that they are not to blame for
men’s violence.
