VICTIMS BEYOND DOUBT: A FEMINIST CRITIQUE OF THEORIES OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE Flashcards
What are the Psychological Theories?
1) Violence as an Abnormality and Consequent Impunity
2) Unmet Childhood Needs
3) Attachment and Loss
4) Social Learning, Trauma and Imitative Violence
Violence as an Abnormality and Consequent Impunity
Theories of Psychology had two primary approaches towards causation in
domestic violence: firstly, that violence is an abnormality and is triggered in men by their environment and secondly, that being an abnormality, it can be remedied by therapeutic interventions and not punitive measures.
Three prominent theories were used by psychologists to trace causality in
domestic violence,
Object Relations, Attachment and Trauma.
Unmet Childhood Needs
The Object Relations Theory was used to explain that early childhood experiences
were responsible for perpetration of violence by adults.
Violence is the expression of unmet childhood needs for security that mutate into rage and aggression in adulthood. The reason for such mutation is inadequate channelling of feelings of rejection that come from the absence of affection, security and care in
childhood.
Attachment and Loss
The gist of Bowlby’s theory is that violence is the result of negative emotions that arise when the natural state of attachment of infants with their care-givers is broken or interfered with.
Bowlby located a three-fold
behaviour pattern in such children- protest, despair and detachment. He concluded that these feelings had the potential to generate violent interpersonal relationships in
children who were raised by unresponsive care-givers that neglected them.
His theory was developed further by Prof. Donald Dutton, a psychoanalyst who pointed out that men who perpetrate violence against their intimate partners generally had a history of witnessing violence in the family of origin as well as facing parental rejection.
Social Learning, Trauma and Imitative Violence
Social Learning is based on the principle that human beings, by their nature are inclined to learn by imitation and its use is seen in early development of skills in children like moral decision making, learning language, aggression, etc.
By combining Social Learning principles with the Trauma theory, psychologists emphasised on behavioural and cognitive factors that are responsible for
men perpetrating domestic violence against women.
In many ways, therefore, psychological theories presented the perpetrator as the victim.
Limitations of Psychological Theories
For example, they fail to explain why the batterer, while being abusive towards his wife could be absolutely non-violent in public.
Moreover, these theories justify impunity by treating domestic violence as a private
problem that did not require any state intervention and could be remedied by therapy.
This perception, of which the foundation was laid by psychoanalysts, is still widely
prevalent. All over the world, battered women are forced or encouraged to undergo counselling with their spouses and make efforts to “mend” them- irrespective of the dangers that this process holds for them.
Violence as a Consequence of Social Stress and Environment (Sociological Theory)
1) Family as a contributor
2) Stress as a consequence of Social Expectations
3) Stress as an Explanation for Role of Women in Domestic Violence
Family as a contributor
According to the Family Systems theory, the entire family contributes to the
perpetuation of Domestic Violence against a woman. The contribution is positive and constructive which signifies the presence of wilfulness on the part of the perpetrator. Apart from perpetration of acts of violence, the victim also plays a role by silently suffering through it.
As a consequence, not only is domestic violence perpetrated against a woman, it is also transmitted across generations over a period of time as a cyclic process.
Another prominent theory is the Social Learning Theory, according to which, people learn behaviour by interaction with other members of society.
Stress as a consequence of Social Expectations
Social expectations based on specific structure of the society were responsible for violent matrimonial relationships.
Social stress or strain revolved around the idea that social expectations based on socially approved roles of individuals resulted in aggression and violence. The theory was used to explain and sometimes, even justify the conduct of husbands who battered their wives.
Stress as an Explanation for Role of Women in Domestic Violence
Conflict in marital relationship also led to violent female partners who physically assaulted their male counterparts.
At a time when feminists were struggling to highlight the problems of women victimised by domestic violence and
establishing effective control mechanisms, Strauss‟ s research was rejected as a great obstacle.
A major criticism by feminist scholars was that instead of treating women as victims of violence in abusive relationships, the theorists had tried to justify, explain and “understand” the cause of violence. The analyses have proved to be counter-productive as all along, sociologists and psychologists tried to highlight an
active participation of victims in domestic violence whereas their real focus should
have been on evolving strategies and mechanisms to protect women battered by aggressive and violent husbands.
Violence as a Reaction to Victim’s Conduct: Victim Blaming
1) Violence as “Pleasure”
2) Violence as a Result of Victim Provocation
3) Violence as a Private Matter
Violence as “Pleasure”
“masochism”, which was originally coined by Dr von Krafft-Ebing who defined it as “the wish to suffer pain and be subjected to force.” In later years, it was introduced by Sigmund Freud as a sexualised wish to be beaten- a modality to draw pleasure from pain.
The problem of this theory was in
the acceptance of domestic violence as a part of women‟s social life and even worse, in the recognition of matrimonial cruelty as something that gave “pleasure” to women.
Violence as a Result of Victim Provocation
Richard Gelles maintained that the victim’s role in family violence is not just crucial but also a very active one. In saying so, Gelles explained how various actions of a victim amount to “vital intervening events” in a stress scenario.
Thus, by stopping a partner from violently chastising the children,
arguing or engaging in criticism, the victim actively provokes the male partner, who is under the influence of social stress to become aggressive or violent.
Violence as a Private Matter
This meant that victims were conditioned to put up with the trauma of such violence and deal with it through counselling and other alternative measures. This, combined with the discourse of psychologists that women enjoyed being violated, played a
fundamental role in making matrimonial cruelty acceptable in societies and therefore, this approach was severely criticised by feminists.
Violence as Natural Behaviour: Socio Biological Theories
1) Evolutionary Explanations of Violence in Men
2) Linking Violence to Hormones
Evolutionary Explanations of Violence in Men
Evolutionary factors are the reason behind violence and aggression being so
common among men. He explains the case by stating that in primitive societies,
men were preferred by women as mates or partners based on their reproductive
abilities and their capacity to provide for the family.
However, as society changed from pre-historic to a modern one, dependence of physically challenging activities like hunting gradually declined and therefore, the channelization of competitive aggressive behaviour required new routes. In a technologically competitive world, reliance is more on factors like intelligence, soft skills, etc. So, Ellis opines, those men, in whom aggression fails to find more purposive routes, tend to become more violent physically.
Linking Violence to Hormones
Some sociologists, in course of their research came across a distinct bio-chemistry of men who indulged in marital violence. They identified lower levels of serotonin in such persons and a high level of testosterone. Serotonin is also known as the “contentment hormone” and a lack of it along with high testosterone is considered to be a potent cause of rage, anger and violence.
In 2006, a group of scientists
concluded that defects in processing serotonin and testosterone affected made men more violent and threw light on the distinct traits of such people like over-reaction to certain stimuli, hyper-sensitivity to tones, words and looks
Functional Division of Labour and Social Stratification
1) Creating Inequality through Systematic Stratification
2) Gender Roles, Economics and Power
Creating Inequality through Systematic Stratification
Structural models of gender argue that like caste, gender came to be used as an index of division in social institutions as well as relationships.
The use of gender systematically to stratify society ultimately placed
men and women in unequal categories.
Gender Roles, Economics and Power
The problem of confining women‟s roles to the household was that they were
completely divorced from positions of power and responsibility in public life and
gradually, labels of inferiority and superiority started being attached to the roles ascribed to men and women.
Household functions were treated as repetitive and lacking in intellect and challenges whereas men‟s role in public life was more important, rewarding and profitable.
Violence as Goal-oriented Behaviour
1) Violence as Instrumental Behaviour
2) Making a Case for State Intervention
3) Bringing the Burden Back to Men: Violence as Choice
Violence as Instrumental Behaviour
Studies have shown that men use violence as a modality to exercise control and in this sense, violence is perceived as behaviour directed towards the accomplishment of certain goals. In his research Campbell, an American sociologist revealed that in male
dominated societies, violence or aggression are perceived as tools to acquire material or social goals. When men succeed in the accomplishment of these goals by using violence as the modality, they tend to justify and rationalise the use of violence.
According to him, violence is seen as “rational, understandable or reasonable” under such circumstances.
Making a Case for State Intervention
Studies conducted by social scientists in this field are significant as they point towards the factors that are conducive to the growth of violence in society. So far, research has conclusively established that in societies and cultures, where violence is excused on one ground or the other, its use is considered as legitimate by offenders.
On the other hand, if violence is discouraged, its use in all forms except under extra ordinary circumstances is considered to be illegitimate.
Bringing the Burden Back to Men: Violence as Choice
This brings us to the factor of rational choice, a theory used to explain criminal and illegal behaviour by individuals. Almost all scholars indicate that the process of decision-making which leads to the actual violent behaviour is a vital process from the point of view of the offender.
Application of the rational choice theory may help in further analysing the psychological state of the offender.
This implies that when men
decide to use violence, they rationally choose to do so by weighing the pros and cons of using it. When the benefits outweigh the shortcomings, they go ahead with being violent. Social tendency to excuse violence in private or intimate relationships, tacit approval to use violence against women for chastising them, apathy of social control
mechanisms towards family violence- all these factors count as benefits for using
violence in intimate relationships.
Culture as a Factor
1) Cultural Impunity
2) Patriarchy and its Prescription to Endure Violence
Cultural Impunity
In most societies, cultural impunity of marital violence is an overarching phenomenon.
Marital violence has been historically justified, excused and accepted all over the world. Sometimes through religion and on other occasions through literature and social media, violence against women by their husbands has been romanticised and explained, even celebrated.
A general argument advanced in favour of marital violence is that it occurs within the private space of family relationships. Traditionally, legal systems and social structures have conferred greater immunity on matters of the family as intervention of the state in these matters would lead to an undesirable breakdown of families.
Patriarchy and its Prescription to Endure Violence
In other words, violence to a certain extent against women is acceptable in
family spheres. The problem with acceptance of violence in some measure is that it gives offenders the scope to be violent to their partner. The limitations on the use of violence are not relevant at any point of time because what appears externally as an idea of some measure of violence is in reality, an unconditional license to use violence against women in the privacy of family and marital relationships.
Dominance Theory
Dominance Theory put forth by Catharine A. Mc Kinnon. She argues that
dominance of one spouse on the other is the reason behind occurrence of violence in families. Such dominance is dependent on configurations of power in relationships.
Since women are more frequently dominated by their spouses in heterosexual relationships, unequal treatment and therefore, violence against them is perpetrated very often.
