Paper presented at the
Strathclyde Branch of the Scottish Association for the Study of
Delinquency Annual Day Conference.
The Walton Suite, Southern
General Hospital, Glasgow,
Wednesday 23 May 1990
The CHANGE project, which is
funded by Urban Aid and sponsored by Central Region Social Work
Department, represents an attempt to tackle the acknowledged
widespread problem of domestic abuse by providing the courts
with an option which challenges the perpetrators of violence by
focussing on their responsibility for their own violence and
ability to change.
It is worth pointing out first
that the problem we are addressing in domestic abuse is, in the
main, violence directed at women by their male partners. We
recognise that there are some parallels with child abuse in as
much as many of the same issues of power and control are
present, but our remit is to address the issue of partner abuse,
and in addressing that issue we wish to state that the problem
is primarily one where men are the perpetrators and women the
victims. One argument which is constantly put forward in forums
at which we have been present, is 'What about women who are
violent?' I think it is necessary to get this one out of the way
straight away. Yes, there are incidents where women are violent
to their male partners, but research indicates that this is a)
often in response to a long history of abuse to themselves and
b) constitutes a very small element in domestic abuse. Research
undertaken in Scotland by the Drs Dobash which looked at 3,020
cases of violence reported to the police in two Scottish cities
in 1974 found that assaults against female partners was the
second most commonly reported violent offence, and, given our
knowledge of the incidence of actual assaults to reported
assaults, indicates that this form of violence is in all
probability, the most widespread form of violence in our
society. Of all reported violence involving family members, 76%
was wife assault while only 1% involved violence directed at
men by women. These findings are corroborated by research in
England and the United States.
I don't think there is any
argument that domestic abuse 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.
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
behaviour. 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 seen
to be 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.
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. 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.
The cognitive/behavioural
model, which sees violence as socially learned and
self-reinforcing, is a useful one in that it acknowledges that
violence is learned, and that any learned behaviour can be
replaced with new learning. Its emphasis on violence as the
resort of those who lack the skills to use other means of
conflict management is, however, questionable. Research informs
us that men who use violence to their partners often do not use
it in other social contexts which give rise to conflict, such as
at work. The perspective fails explain why this is so. We would
argue that, while the model has much to offer in providing tools
by which men can change their behaviour, violence in the marital
setting is in fact a skill, a skill whereby men may enforce
their authority and get their way.
The perspective which sees
social stress as leading to violence also fails to explain its
almost exclusive use in the domestic sphere. This model sees
violence as the resort of the powerless, the unemployed, those
who fail to achieve. We acknowledge that our society is unequal
and that the stresses on those at the bottom are real and
damaging. But domestic violence is not found exclusively among
those suffering social stress. It is to be found among all
social classes and within all social groups. More public
attention is called to that which occurs among the lower
classes, but research shows us it is not only to be found there.
Another common explanation for
domestic violence linked to the social stress perspective is
that of alcohol abuse, and this is a powerful myth. 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. And in any case, why is the violence which is
allegedly caused by drink directed almost exclusively at wives?
Why not at anyone the drunken person encounters? 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. Men who are referred to
the CHANGE Programme will not be permitted to use alcohol as an
excuse. Those who have an alcohol problem, and we recognise
there will be lots of them; will have to address that problem in
another programme.
The perspective which we
believe gives us the best understanding of domestic abuse is the
historical/contextual one. This perspective takes the view that
violence is a form of social action which has intent, whether it
be mass violence in the form of war or revolution, 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.
An
historical analysis of a woman's place in history informs us of
how this has come to be and of the role played by legal and
institutional supports. A woman's place in history has often
been at the receiving end of a blow.
