The dark side of the family
Conflict within in families to a degree is inevitable. Marital conflict and conflict between parents and children is common and most families will engage in hostile conflict at some point or another. Frude (1991) argues it has been researched and concluded that conflict within families to an extent is healthy. However when these conflicting confrontations become violent then this is when the conflict can become damaging to individual members. This is often known within the sociological arena as the dark side of the family. Frude (1991)
Giddens (1992) argues that violence within families exposes the underside of the ideal family or the happy couple. Disrupted, unhappy family life is not a recent invention. The dark side of the family has been around for centuries and can be traced back to the fight between the brothers Cain and Abale. Gelles (1997) argued that people are more likely to experience violence or even death in their own homes by a member of their own family, rather than anywhere else or by anyone else within society. In the last 20 years, there has been public outrage of the appalling stories of domestic violence, child abuse and more recently abuse of the elderly that have started to emerge. It is only just recently that the realisation and attitudes of family violence are being publicly challenged as it is becoming clearer by the minute that the home is not always the safest place to be.
Domestic violence
Giddens (1992) argues that women are overwhelmingly the recipients of domestic violence. About one in ten women suffer abuse at the hands of their partner. Nearly 70% of all reported family violence accounts for men beating women compared to 1% of reported family violence of women beating men. It should however be acknowledged that these figures could be misleading for two major reasons. The first being under reporting of incidents particularly for men, men are less likely to report incidents because it bruises their masculinity. The second reason being many violent acts are in response to self-defence from one to another.
However, though we know men are not immune to violence at the hands of women, more often than not women suffer at the hands of men. Giddens (1992) suggests that this could be because of the subordinate role women have endured for centuries and the centrality surrounding male authority within relationships. Giddens (1992) argues that men’s power is not an individual one but a collective one portrayed by society and legitimised. Giddens (1992) argues;
“The account of battered women’s experiences are characterized as normal interaction of intimate couples blinded by patriarchal notions about the privacy of family matters deafened by the rhetoric which maintains these notions, society once again focuses blame on individual women who because of their assumed weakness ‘choose’ battering relationships”
Giddens, (1992), PG 186
Much of the legitimacy surrounding domestic violence could be because of the family being seen a s a private institution. Muncie et al (2000) argues that this strongly upheld view is often held by doctors, police, neighbours, parents etc, which makes it difficult to talk to others about the violence. There are many explanations as to why domestic violence occurs, Dallos & Mclaughlin (1995) outline some of the most common explanations of domestic violence; violence is believed to arise in couples that are deemed incompatible, conflict between such couples is often a frequent occurrence when there are disagreements and animosity between them. Couple who suffer from extreme stress and frustration in their daily life are also at risk of violence outbursts. Another explanation is that men are naturally more aggressive or violence by men is often learnt through the portrayal of the media or from experiences in childhood. Other reasons include men are violent because they are abnormal because of pathological issues. One other explanation is that men overall attain more power than women and attempt to maintain their position of dominance by controlling women, unfortunately violence is a useful tool for doing this.
It could be argued why would a person stay in such a violent relationship. Why do they not just leave? Giddens (1992) argues that leaving a violent relationship can be just as bad as staying. Some victims feel inadequate, lack self-confidence and self-sufficiency. Others believe that keeping the relationship together is more important than the violence this could be because of financial support and shelter. Giddens (1992) argues that many felt excluded from society and saw themselves as subject to a consensus or judgement made by their partner (mainly men) on whom they depend.
The process of leaving a violent relationship can take many years to achieve. Gelles (1997) argues that of those who do leave many return only to leave again, return and leave. Gelles (1997) argues that reasons for this are similar to those who stay in a violent relationship i.e. living in hope that the violence will stop because the violent partner has promised that it will, concern and guilt over taking the children away from a parent, financial difficulties or acceptance of the violence and just plain fear.
Domestic violence is the second most common from of serious family violence the first is child abuse.
Child abuse
While child abuse, particularly over the past 20 years has been put back on the political agenda and constructed as one of the major social problems of our time Muncie et al (2000) argues that figures still remain extremely high. Muncie et al (2000) argues that the figures for child abuse as reported by the NSPCC suggested in 1996 over 15000 children in great Britain were reportedly abused. However, it could be argued that this figure could be far greater because of under reporting. Of this figure about 3/5’s were physically harmed and the rest sexually molested. Child abuse was defined by Gelles & Loseke (1993) as neglect or physical, emotional or sexual abuse or exploitation of a child by a parent or caretaker. There have been many arguments as to why violence towards children occurs within the family. Gelles & Loseke (1993) argue that people who abuse children in their care were often abused themselves as children. However this theory can be strongly contested as Dallos & Mclaughlin (1995) argue many parents who were abused in childhood often provide their own children with a loving, supportive environment, where the child’s needs are met safe from harm.
Giddens (1992) argues there are many stresses in families that have a negative impact on a child’s development or health. Social exclusion is one of these factors – lone parents are often one group that faces such exclusion. Gelles (1997) in a study of child abuse argued that abuse was higher in lone parent families than in two parent families. Gelles (1997) points to the reason of poverty to explain the high rates of abuse in lone parent families. Gellles (1997) argues that lone parents lack a wage earner; often live in poor housing conditions which in turn can lead to stress and frustration in the parent who in turn may take it out on their children. Newman and Grauerholz (2002) found other factors relating to child abuse, they argue that abusive parents are often immature and often fail to see their children as children, they often have unrealistic expectations for their children and when not met leads to disappointment anger and violence. Newman & Grauerholz (2002) also argues that unemployment is also another factor of child abuse particularly for that of males. Unemployment in men is often associated with low self-esteem, stress and depression, which are also frequently associated with child abuse. Unemployment leads to spending more and more time at home increasing interaction with children. Newman & Grauerholz (2000) argues that the frustration and tension from this can lead to the likelihood of child abuse. It can also be argued that child abuse is not just confined to the lower classes. The middle classes are just as vulnerable. However wealthier families may well be able to hide it better because they are more likely to have private housing and are less likely to use public health care or transport where they would be at risk of their actions coming under public scrutiny. Newman & Grauerholz (2002) argues that while these factors may explain why some cases of child abuse occurs it doesn’t explain why child abuse exists to the extent at which it does and why is it difficult to stop.
“ In a society that idealises children why is there such a high rate of child abuse, maltreatment and neglect?”
Newman & Grauerholz (2002) PG 427
Another area of family violence is that of sibling rivalry although as we will discuss this term is widely contested.
Sibling rivalry
Sibling abuse has often been described as another form of child abuse. However the abuser and abused are often similar. Gelles (1997) argues that violence among siblings is the most common form of family violence. However, fighting siblings are often considered normal and it is often not disputed. Gelles (1997) states that society accepts sibling violence as a norm and to a degree encourages it Gelles (1997) argued
“this hinders the recognition of sibling violence as abnormal and worthy of serious concern”
Gelles (1997) pg.187
There have been many sociological studies into sibling abuse and as Dallos & Mclaughlin (1995) argue most are conclusive that while many parents do not actively encourage their off spring to be violent to one another they do believe that it is important that they learn how to handle themselves. Gelles (1997) argues that parents will only intervene between siblings when situations turn into major confrontations. Gelles (1997) argues that most sibling rivalry occurs early on and as they grow older it becomes less frequent but can be more severe. It is also argued that boys are more likely than girls to engage in violence this is because society portrays boys as naturally more aggressive. Explanations for sibling rivalry include jealousy of one another, invading one another’s space or taking something that does not belong to them. Although sibling abuse is common it is rarely bad enough for professionals to classify it as abuse, however Newman & Grauerholz (2002) argues that the frequency of violence among siblings is cause for concern.
Another area of family violence is that of elder abuse, this is a new arena where little research has been accomplished.
Elder abuse
The term elder abuse is a somewhat new and ambiguous phenomenon Pilmer cited in Gelles & Loseke (1993) argues that stress, frustration and feeling of burden can result abusive and neglectful car of the older person. Barnett et al (2000) argues that abusers of older people are more likely to be a relative who lives with the older person or has cared for them for a long period. Barnett et al (2000) argues that as an older person needs more care they are less able to offer rewards and benefits to those who care for them. This it is argued, causes an imbalance in the relationship suggesting caring for an older person does not pay, this can often end up leading to neglect of the older person. Gelles (1997) argues that other factors of abuse are stress factors particularly for the carer who is usually a woman who may have to balance running a home of their own, rearing children, working etc along with the care of an older person. This could lead to abuse in one form or another as the carers find themselves unable to cope with the demands. Newman & Grauerholz (2002) also argues that the unwanted dependency of older people is another factor to the extent that dependant individuals are reliant on a carer almost immediately putting them at risk of being hurt or unprotected from abuse.
While it is considered that these forms of family violence are the most common, other forms, do exist. One area that is often kept away from public attention and is dramatically under researched is that of homosexual abuse.
Homosexual abuse
This is one of the most over looked areas of family violence. Gelles (1997) argues that violence among gays and lesbians is not rare and as with other forms of family violence is rarely a one off case. The violence, which occurs in same sex relationships, is not that different to that in heterosexual relationships. The only distinct difference is that of the threat to ‘out’ the partner (Telling people they are gay when they want to keep it secret)
Leventhal & Lundy (1999) argues that same sex violence is barely recognised and when it is there are assumptions that the violence conforms to the stereotypical images that gays and lesbians are believed to play; for example – in a lesbian relationship the abuser will be the masculine one and the abused the feminine one. This is not the case sex role or physical size is not related to the offender – victim roles. Explanations for same sex violence again are similar to that for heterosexual couples, as Leventhal & Lundy (1999) argue key triggers are power and power imbalances.
The invisibility of this social problem is great cause for concern. As Leventhal & Lundy (1999) argue, service providers need to overcome assumptions that gays and lesbians live in non-violent relationships and enhance the service provision to this group in society.
Conclusion
This essay shows the family is not a perfect place to be. Other than violence of wars and riots, the home can be the most violent place in society. Most people at some point will experience or witness some form of family violence between members of their own family. Giddens (1992) argues that family violence is embedded in society in the characteristics of the way people react to one another within the family.
This is also reinforced by the state, which supports the idea of the ‘nuclear’ family. I believe the state would rather a family where there is violence , stay together in its nuclear form of a breadwinner, dependant partner and child/ren, than disperse and become a lone parent family reliant on state welfare. This issue alone has made it particularly difficult, for women in particular, to leave violent relationships. If a woman with children does decide to leave a violent relationship then she is required by law to seek some form of support from the children’s father in the form of maintenance. This could lead to further problems and dangers for the woman and her child/ren in the form of repercussions from the abusive partner. If the woman does not comply with this requirement then benefits she is entitled to could be reduced forcing them further into poverty. This is just one typical case where the state lets such families down.
However although family violence is still kept to the private domain of the family it is no longer tolerated by outside agencies such as health workers police courts etc. It is still sad to say though that in the 21st century male power within families is still apparent although this is to a lesser degree these days.
However, the power that parents exert over children is still not being called in to question enough, if it was would so much abuse exist? This is also true for elder abuse, as we live in an aging population more and more older people are finding themselves at risk of abuse from their loved ones. May be this could be because of initiatives such as care in the community while on paper this looks like a good idea in practice all it is effectively doing is shifting responsibility from the state to families. This area is very much under researched as is the areas of sibling rivalry and same sex violence. More research is desperate for all these areas in order to provide adequate services and develop effective social services.
Giddens (1992) argues that to end family violence in the short term we need to be more vigilant and provide more refuges for victims of family violence. In the long term we need to strengthen social polices that will release all vulnerable victims of family violence from the society created status as the victims of violence and domination