Interpersonal, Family & Structural violence
Our social world is a diverse mosaic of varying ethnicity, status, class, sexual identity/orientation, race, age or religion. Unlike many other social concerns, interpersonal, family, and structural (IFS) violence are not discriminatory of its victims and survivors. Whilst darkly ironic, violence against women is unsettling inclusive of all. The intersectionality of such factors in each case, however, can add to vulnerability of women and survivors.
The ‘Universal Woman’
Whilst slightly outdated, this concept of a ‘universal woman’ (Collins, 1998) was introduced to guide dialogue targeted at domestic violence in a direction weighted empathy rather than problem saturated victim blaming. Whilst honourable in its intentions, creating a universal narrative of the battered woman stripped cultural, political, and social their dominating presence in IFS violence cases. More specifically, it failed to introduce a necessary dialogue addressing how survivors’ experiences and responses to IFS violence are largely formed by an impending force of structural limitations in all cultural, social and political streams. The primary agenda for advocates moving forward should be to dismantle such structures and re-wire a dialogue built on victim blaming to one that empowers survivors on their strength, resilience and bravery. For the purpose of this blog, the strengths and limitations of gender-based approaches and intersectionality theories will be at the forefront of discussion. We need to relight the compassion society has lost for the survivors in order to ignite a movement dedicated to the safety, wellness and health of all survivors of IFS violence.
Gender-Based Model and Interpersonal, Family and Structural Violence
As a collective, most academics have shared an explicit focus on violence against women (McMillan et al, 2012). Until recently, a vast volume of those contributing to research available have written exclusively about the victimisation of children and women within violent or abusive relationships. A gender-based framework is a necessary tool when assessing IFS violence cases as well as adopting a holistic understanding of domestic violence. In its simplest form, domestic violence is often associated with wider gender inequalities and its pervasiveness. Namely, the collection of behaviours constructing men’s misuses of power and its relation to all forms of male violence (Scottish Executive, 2000). As stressed by Connell (2000), a thorough understanding of the foundations of gender regimes when dismantling the concern of interpersonal violence is integral. Notable commentators on sex discrimination and gender equality, Dragiewicz & Lindgren (2009) advocate for a movement that shifts the narrative of domestic violence from one of political and social concern as opposed to one simply framed around a private issue of interpersonal relationships.
From the perspective of structural or conflict theory lens, gender is a transient social product driven by conflicting gender regimes. These regimes are constructed by institutional, systemic and structural factors. Gender, therefore, is primed, developed and maintained through practice and learnt behaviour. The valorisation of violence and construction of gender identity can be explained through Connell’s (1995, 2005) theorisation of hegemonic masculinity as a cultural dynamic of which a leading position in our social worlds is claimed and sustained by a group. The concept of hegemonic masculinity structures power conflicts amongst variant femininities and masculinities, furthermore legitimising the use of power and control (Kimmel, 1987) entrenched in every interpersonal relationship. It is important to note that whilst not all men gain equal privilege from the patriarchy, all benefit from a patriarchal dividend – otherwise recognised as a generalised advantage or gain men receive from the subordination of women overall.
It is is important to recognise that violence is not biological, but rather that violence exists as a constructed product of social and political ideas that esteems hegemonic masculinity above any other discourse. As Hatty (2000, pg. 1) powerfully states, “violence is not a deviant act; it’s a conforming one”. In relation to domestic and interpersonal violence, men’s violent actions need to be assessed as deliberate and conscious (Hearn, 1998) to assert power and control rather than a subconscious act. Needless to say, the risk of an impoverished understanding, analysis and conceptualisation of violence is unavoidable without the discussion of gender in how we challenge it. Whether it is witnessed, experienced or perpetrated, all violence is gendered. Gender also exists in how people gain access to support and help as victims.
Critics of gender-based concepts have often commented on the frameworks inability to adapt to difference and diversity and that using such a tool in isolation from other theories is potentially damaging to the general response. A common theme of many critics has been how gender-based frameworks or analysis over-prioritise gender and treat other contributing factors such as class, race, ability, sexuality and ability as secondary ‘add-ons’ to client disadvantage or adversity (Verloo, 2009). Furthermore, it has been suggested that gender-based frameworks focus on a homogenous conceptualisation of social factors rather than recognising diversity within the ‘strands’ – further marginalising those who don’t belong to the mainstream of their communities, masculinities or femininities (Baer et al, 2009). As according to Siltanen (2006, pg 93), “the problem with an additive approach from gender frameworks is that it cannot cope with the complex connections and interactions between various dimensions of oppression”.
Concerningly, this ‘additive’ approach that gender-based frameworks tend to adopt are blinded to the intersectionality of systems of oppression. In essence, these limitations have illustrated how gender-based frameworks fail to recognised and understand the dynamics and relations gender, class, ethnicity/race share. To combat these blind spots there needs to be a shift in language from gender-based analysis/framework/ideas to equality-based frameworks. This will serve as a vehicle encompassing and inclusive of the systematic/structural oppressions interweaved in gender inequalities. It does not, however, limit the concepts to one discourse of discrimination and embraces a dialogue of intersectionality and gender.
It is integral that we feed an awareness of the way men and women’s violence is based on the discourse of femininity and masculinity. As discussed previously before, social workers need to continue to advocate a movement that changes the narrative from that of “Why doesn’t she leave?” to that of “Why did he do it?”. There is an integral need to recognise and acknowledge that our daily conceptualisation of women’s and men’s violence is constructed and founded on our perceptions/judgements of gender. Ultimately, men are moulded by social constructs and cultural narratives of masculinity often favouring anger, physical prowess, protection and entitlement encompassed by the damaging expectations of masculinity and men. Women violence, on the other hand, is nearly always judged as unnatural and against general traditions of femininity (Burman 2004; Edwards 1984; Worrall 2004).
Violence against women/gendered violence is persistent and tenacious, highlighting how social expectations are still prescribing to the gender regimes constructed by patriarchal patterns. From this perspective, however, it is evident that using gender-based theories in isolation from other theories neglects a necessary critique that is needed for a centrist dialogue around interpersonal violence. In order to combat gender-based violence all sexes need to be invited into the conversation to promote a collaborative, engaging, program led and unified approach that will deconstruct and rebuild a social world welcoming of inclusion, equality and justice.
Intersectionality of Interpersonal, Family and Structural Violence
Intersectionality can be understood as a conceptual drive that explores class, gender, sexuality, and race as inter-webbed categories with mutual reinforcing social structures and oppressions (Davis, 2008). The context of intersectionality sprouts from feminist theory, a founding vehicle for how we understand gender and women’s disadvantage. Different from gender-based frameworks and approaches, intersectionality promotes and idea that gender cannot be assessed in isolation from other social constructs. Rather, intersectionality in conjunction with feminist research has created a mosaic of ideas illustrating the ways in which women are placed in the patriarchy alongside other oppressive systems such as race and class (Davis, 2008). Most notably, however, intersectionality is integral for dismantling violence, power and privilege in our social world. As a theory, a large majority of intersectional theories are based upon the intersection of privilege and oppression. Furthermore, intersectionality is a tool used to map the roles of the oppressor and the oppressed (Shields, 2008). Adding to this, intersectionality renders social roles and identities as communally constitutive where “one category of identity such as gender, takes its meaning as a category in relation to another category” (Shields, 2008. pg. 302). Whereas Collins (2000, pg. 18) suggests “intersectional paradigms remind us that oppression cannot be reduced to one fundamental type, and that oppressions work together in producing injustice”.
Notwithstanding the structural focus intersectionality encompasses, it also navigates the political and structural positioning within interpersonal, family, and structural violence. Crenshaw (1994) argues that systems, responses, and programs to domestic violence cases vary depending on how women are positioned in intersections of subordination. Furthermore, Crenshaw (1994) goes on to suggest that survivors of domestic abused endure “multilayered and routinised forms of domination . . . hindering their ability to create alternatives to abusive relationships” (pg 94). Alongside Crenshaw, a number of other academics adhere to the idea that if structural intersectionality is used in favoured program techniques and approached to domestic violence it should guarantee the deconstruction of victimisation.
Many critique the inconsistencies and discrepancies of intersectionality. As according to Carbin & Edenheim (2013), intersectionality can be perceived as a theory, method, framework, concept or perspective. Chang & Culp (2002), however, argue that flexibility amongst intersectionality accommodates clients/individuals multiple identities, interlocks systematic inequalities in all cultural, social, historical discourses. More recently, intersectionality has been engineered and re-wired as an analytical process as a way of conceptualising the complexities identity and social structures are constantly navigating (Sawyer, 2012). From a less conventional lens, perhaps different approaches towards intersectionality and its use in the social work realm can only strengthen the field.
A large challenge people find whilst engaging with intersectionality theories, frameworks and philosophies is how they apply their new skills to critical reflection. The role of critical reflection in intersectional practice is to challenge the complexity of variant clusters, structures or categories which are interwoven and reinforced by each other. Ultimately, the importance of conceptualising and analysing the intersections of gender, class, race and sexuality cannot be stressed enough (Lykke, 2010). Especially in the context of interpersonal, family and structural violence. To syndicate critical thinking with intersectionality is a creative process on work dealing with power and control, and challenges all risk of minimising or neutralising client experiences.
Conclusions
To summarise, our social tapestries are a collection of variant class, status, sexuality, race, age and religion. Interpersonal, family and structural violence are not discriminatory of any of these factors, but rather, darkly inclusive of all. The intersectionality of such social variants dramatical heighten and perpetuate the vulnerability of women and survivors. Ultimately, it is such social, political and economic structures and climates that are accountable for IFS violence. As advocates for social change and human rights our principal agenda should to upkeep a gender-based and intersectional lens to create a critical continuum on interpersonal violence. As discussed previously, both intersectional theories/frameworks/concepts and gender-based approaches are flawed in their delivery when use in isolation. With a critical lens as a constant stabiliser, intersectionality and gender should be approached in conjunction with other theories such as anti-oppressive, feminist and structuralist. We need to relight the compassion society has lost for survivors in order to ignite a movement dedicated to the safety, wellness and health of all survivors of IFS violence.
References
Burman, M. (2004). ‘Breaking the Mould: Patterns of Female Offending’. In G. Melvor (ed.) Women Who Offend. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers
Carbin, M., & Edenheim, S. (2013). The intersectional turn in feminist theory: A dream of a common language? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 20, 2.
Chang, R. S., & Culp, J. M. (2002). After intersectionality? UMKC Law Review, 71, 85–98.
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of empowerment (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
Connell, R. W. (1995, 2005). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Connell, R. W. (2000). The Men and The Boys. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Crenshaw, K. W. (1994). Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of color. Stanford Law Review, 43, 1241–1299.
Davis, K. (2008). Intersectionality as buzzword: A sociology of science perspective on what makes a feminist theory successful. Feminist Theory, 9, 67–85. doi:10.1177/1464700108086364
Dragiewicz, M. & Lindgren, Y. (2009). ‘The gendered nature of domestic violence: Statistical date for lawyers considering equal protection analysis.’ American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy & The Law. The first annual American Bar Association Domestic Violence Commission and Journal of Gender, Social Policy and the Law domestic violence dedicated section, 17, 2, 229 – 268.
Edwards, S. (1984). Women on Trial. Manchester: Manchester University Press.
Hatty, S. E., (2000). Masculinities, Violence and Culture. London: Sage Publications.
Hearn, J. (1998). The Violences of Men: How men Talk and How Agencies Respond to Men’s Violence Against Women. London: Sage Publications.
Kimmel, M. (1987). ‘Rethinking Masculinity: New Directions in Research.’ In M.S. Kimmel (ed.) C hanging Men: New Directions in Research on Men and Masculinity. London: Sage Publications.
Lykke, N. (2010). Feminist studies: A guide to intersectional theory, methodology and writing. Advances in feminist studies and intersectionality. New York, NY: Routledge
McMillan, L. & Lombard, N. (Eds). (2012). Violence against women: current theory and practice in domestic abuse, sexual violence and exploitation. Retrieved from https://ebookcentral.proquest.com
Sawyer, L. (2012). Intersectional normalization processes in a Swedish family assessment home. Affilia, 27, 153–166.
Scottish Executive (2000) National Strategy to Address Domestic Abuse in Scotland. Edinburgh: Stationary Office.
Shields, S. (2008). Gender: An intersectionality perspective. Sex Roles, 59, 301–311. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9501-8
Worrall, A. (2004). ‘Twisted Sisters, Ladettes, and the New Penology: The Social Construction of “Violent Girls”. In C. Adler and A. Worrall (eds.) Girls’ Violence. New York: State University of New York Press.