Maynard and Winn (Cited in Richardson and Robinson,1993: 175-6) define domestic as much more in-depth than professional and legal definitions from institutions like the police. They believe that the threats women receive from men are just as harmful as being abused as the women are constantly in fear. This definition suggests that no physical harms needs to occur for a woman to experience domestic violence, that mental abuse and fear are too very harmful and are an aspect of domestic violence. Dobash and Dobash (1980:15) argue that” domestic violence between husbands and wives conceptualises such violence as the extension of the domination and control of husbands over their wives. This control is socially and historically constructed through wider society”. Men threaten their wives with violence in order to maintain control like men have in the public sector of society.
The home offices definition of domestic violence is that ‘Domestic Violence is essentially a pattern of behaviour which is characterised by the exercise of control and the misuse of power by one person, usually a man, over another, usually a woman, within the context of an intimate relationship. It can be manifested in a variety of ways, including but not restricted to, physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse, and the imposition of social isolation and is most commonly a combination of them all’ (www.homeoffice.org). Many years ago the Home offices domestic violence definition involved only physical harm, but through feminists and women’s movements they have made the government identify the true diversity of the definition. This leading to a mass of policies in order to prevent domestic violence, through objectives such as to increase the annual detection rate for domestic violence from 14.5% to a minimum of 16% by April 2003 (www.homeoffice.org).
There are many explanations for domestic violence, one of which is a social-situational model of family violence this theory suggests that there are two major factors leading to domestic violence. One factor is known as ‘Structural Stress’, this is based on the income of the family if it is a low income with a struggle to provide for the family they are more likely to be dissatisfied with life generally thus resulting in blaming the family for the lack of supplies. The second factor, which leads to domestic violence is ‘cultural norm’, those who use force and violence in the home were more likely to have experienced it whilst growing up and think it happens in every household. This explanation tends to stress that violence is often used in home as they are dissatisfied with wider society and adopt violent and abusive behaviour to cope with structural stress.
The social learning theory tends to focus on like the social situation model that violence and threatening behaviour is that people learn these behaviour traits when they grew up in violent home. The family is one of the key aspects of a child’s socialisation and they learn what is acceptable behaviour and thus learning that men dominate and own women is a trait that will carry on through generations. This perspective assumes a great deal, and that not everyone who lived in a family of domestic violence will go on and do the exact same, but a history o abuse and violence does increase the risk that an individual will be violent as an adult.
Another theory based on the explanation of intimate violence, is that of the resource theory this theory argues that all social systems including the family rest to some degree on force or the threat of force. Every individual according to Goode (1971: 625) needs power and control and those people who have less power such as those who have low educational qualifications and a lack of interpersonal skills are likely to take their frustration out on their family. This theory therefore suggests that class has an impact on domestic violence, as generally those who have power and money are less likely to be violent and abusive in the home. This theory neglects that people who have many resources still commit domestic violence, and cannot explain why those with power and resources still commit domestic violence.
The other theory to mention in explaining intimate violence is that from a subculture theory. This approach is somewhat similar to that from the social learning theory. Wolfgang and Ferracuti argued that domestic violence is the result of subcultural patterns existing in certain societal groups and that violent responses are seen as normative in such groups (Wolfgang & Ferracuti 1967: 47). This explanation for domestic violence suggests that in certain areas of society the abuse women receive is seen as normal and expected and thus not really seen as a problem.
With all of the theories so far, there is a suggestion that men are violent to their partner because they can, and that a goal is to prevent and treat the family so violence is unacceptable and unable to take place. This is to be solved through women’s groups such as Women’s Aid working with the government to produce policy, which can increase the degree of social control over families, raise the costs of violence and reduce the rewards.
A major explanation of domestic violence is that from feminists, they see violence against women by men not as the behaviour of a few men who had problems or a ‘violent streak’ but domestic violence is an extension of a system of practices and laws which sanction men’s rights allowing men to regard women as their property and therefore to keep women under their control (Maynard and Winn cited in Richardson and Robinson 1997: 175). As feminism developed in the 60s and 70s, the significance of domestic violence started to emerge. Feminist’s movements resulted in the first refuge being set up in England in 1972. The most in-depth perspective and explanation of intimate violence is that from radical feminists. The centre to their view is that domestic violence is both a reflection of unequal power relationships in society and it also serves to maintain those unequal power relationships. They argue that men tend to hold power and control over women in intimate relationships due to the fact that in wider society men have power over women for example in the workplace men are a lot more likely to hold managerial positions and women tend to have small and low paid jobs (Maynard and Winn cited in Richardson and Robinson 1997: 176).
The fear or threat of violence/force is an important aspect to domestic violence. Hanmer (1978 cited in Richardson and Robinson, 1993: 178)) states that the fear of violence both compels and constrains women to behave or not behave in specific ways. Therefore men use the fear or threat of domestic violence on women as a form of social control. Feminists tend to stress the fear and threat as they believe it can be nearly as harmful if not more harmful than physical abuse as women are therefore always on edge and ‘kept in their place’ as men tend to call it. Goode similarly to Hanmer argues “that the family like all other institutions rests to some degree on force or its threats. This suggests that the use of force is an integral part of the institution of the family and is one of the means used to achieve control therein” (Goode cited in Dobash &Dobash 1980:21). Goode argues that the force used by husbands on their wives is used in order to maintain the roles of society as a whole and maintain male dominance. He even argues that if men did not use such force on women the structure of the family system would in fact collapse altogether (Goode cited in Dobash &Dobash 1980:21).
All the explanations of domestic violence stress the importance of the issue and the way in which the issue can spiral out of control if it is not prevented. The best way to prevent it is through polices enforced ob society by the government by providing things such as housing and health care to those who have suffered from such abuse. Feminists and other sociologists work alongside the government to address prevention for violence within the home, it is evident that issue is one the governments sees as important as it has allowed £6million pounds for projects to reduce crime against women (www.homeoffice.org).
It is evident that intimate violence is an issue hat has progressed as society has developed and as the women’s movement has enlarged and gained status domestic violence has been addressed more regularly. It is evident from the research and perspectives I have addressed the problem domestic violence as a gender issue and I see domestic violence as a product of social construction of masculinity across class and racial differences. The institution the family is generally perceived as a good and safe environment but from the statistics and perspective, it is evident that family life is much darker for many people. It could be argued that the family allows for people to behave unacceptably and abuse others in our family as the family as an institution keeps things hidden and quiet thus many people are subjects to domestic violence but keep it quiet as the family is largely recognised as safe and loving. With the government and women’s groups fighting against the issue slowly the extent of domestic violence should decrease and eventually erode away completely.
(2374 words)
Bibliography
Cornell, C. and R, Gelles (1990) Intimate Violence in Families. London: SAGE Publications, Inc.
Dobash, R. E. and R, Dobash (1980) Violence Against Wives. New York: The Free Press.
Goode, W. (1971) Force and Violence in the Family. Journal of Marriage and the
Family, 33, 624-636.
Hanmer, J.and M, Maynard (1987) Women, Violence and Social Control. London: Macmillan Press.
Kelly, L. (1988) Surviving Sexual Violence. Oxford: Polity Press
WolfGang, M. and Ferracuti, F. (1997) The Subculture of Violence: Towards an Integrated Theory in Criminology. London: Tavistock.
Richardson, D. and V, Robinson (1997) Introducing Women’s Studies. New York: Palgrave.