However psychoanalytical theories are criticised for placing too much blame on the victim. For example, in the case of domestic violence it is suggested that women ‘let it happen’ because of treatment they received as children. Because of this psychoanalytical theories are often labelled as “not feminist” or “antiwoman”. (Hearn 1998: 21). Despite this, psychoanalytical explanations remain very powerful and influential in the social sciences, although more socially located theories have become increasingly significant.
Socially located theories suggest then it is men with social dispositions, not psychological dispositions who are prone to violence (Hearn 1998). There are various socially located theories which include the Social Learning Theory, Socialization and Cognitive-Behavioural Analysis. All of these are based on the same basic idea that men’s violence is behaviour which men learn.
Although psychoanalytical theories suggest that observing other people committing violence or even expressing one’s anger in a non-violent way may actually reduce violence in a person, this is not the case in sociological explanations where it is believed that violence is externally derived. Sociologists argue that violent behaviour can be closely related to an individual’s socialization, namely through learning theories. Jones (2000) describes how there is a possibility that the expression of some violent behaviour is causally connected to either observation or experience of aggression. He discusses how “human behaviour is based on learned experiences rather than instinct or some other innate characteristic” (Jones 2000: 49).
One of the best-known sociological theories of socialization is Sutherland’s theory of differential association (Sutherland 1947 cited in Jones 2000). He argues that cultural, in this case delinquent, behaviour is learnt through interaction with others. Most people come into contact with both law-breaking people and law-abiding people, but it is when a person has more contact with the law-breakers that they become delinquent.
Ray (2000 cited in Hearn 1998) describes how the “crisis of masculinity” could also be a causal factor of male violence. The crisis of masculinity refers to, amongst other things, increasing unemployment combined with increasing women’s equality. Due to unemployment young men or ‘lads’ begin spending more time on the street, (they don’t want to go home as they believe that home is the woman’s place) and so have more chance to commit crime. ‘Real manhood’ is based on devotion to group membership, particularly that of street gangs. These gangs or “subcultures” (Hearn 1998: 30) use violence as a way of confirming status in street culture and so encourage young men to act aggressively and violently.
Sutherland’s theory of differential association (1947 cited in Jones 2000) becomes clear in Ray’s (2000 cited in Hearn 1998) connection between ‘real manhood’ and male violence; a person becomes violent because of stronger exposure to people who commit violence than those who don’t, through association with other violent males on the streets.
The social learning theory outlines the idea that violence is observed and then reproduced or imitated and focuses on past experiences, especially from childhood (Hearn 1998). According to social learning theorists early experiences in the childhood form a persons personality, basically if a child witness’s a parent being violent they are more likely to be violent themselves, even if it does not become obvious until later in their adult life. However social learning theorists also accept that if children witness violence being used as a punishment then they are less likely to copy, and therefore will be deterred from violence (Bandura 1973; 1977). Children develop ‘learned’ patterns of violence through intergenerational relations (Hearn 1998; Hoffman et al 1994; Ainsworth 2000).
However the exact process of learning violence is often less clear and there is a divide between theorists who believe that individuals learn through cognitive structuring, personality formation, behavioural reinforcement and modelling (Jones 2000; Hearn 1998).
Cognitive-behavioural analysis looks at particular forms of learning that have taken place for particular individuals and how reproduction of violence occurs through intergenerational learning and socialization. Goldstein (1989:124 cited in Hearn 1998) identifies the three main areas in which aggression is learned: in the home, school and the mass media. He theorises that learning is either direct through individual practice of aggression or indirect through observation of people being rewarded for aggressive behaviour.
Hotaling and Sugarman (1986) suggest that men who are violent to their wives were traumatized as children, either through being abused themselves or through witnessing abuse of their mother by their father, again focusing on the intergenerational production of violence.
Bandura (1973; 1977), a major proponent of Social Learning Theory, combined aspects of behaviourism and cognitive psychology. He argued that people learn their behaviours not only through the idea of rewards and punishments achieved through certain types of behaviour but also through observing other people’s actions. By doing this “individuals can learn to anticipate the effectiveness of particular courses of action in achieving desired goals” (Jones 2000: 51; Hoffman at al 1994).
To reinforce his theory Bandura conducted an experiment involving a ‘Bobo doll’ (Bandura 1973; 1977). In this experiment, he had some children witness an adult aggressively attacking a plastic clown called the ‘Bobo doll’. The children watched a video where a ‘model’ aggressively beat up a doll. In order to frustrate the children, after the video they were placed in a room with attractive toys, but they could not touch them. Then the children who had watched the video and some other children who had not witnessed the violence, were led to another room where there were identical toys to those used in the Bobo video. Bandura found that the children exposed to the aggressive model were more likely to act in physically aggressive ways than those who were not exposed to the aggressive model (Ainsworth 2000; Bandura 1973; Bandura 1977; Hoffman et al 1994; Jones 2000).
However there are also many criticisms of these theories as the exact process of how social learning or socialization takes place is often unclear and often represent a very simple explanation of how violence happens and is reproduced. Hearn (1998: 27) also claims that there is an “under theorization of gender” amongst the socially located theories. Certain questions such as ‘why don’t girls copy violence like boys do?’ and ‘why do boys understand and imitate the violence of men but not the violation of women?’ are extremely important issues which are not addressed in these explanations of male violence.
Another set of theories which attempts to explain why men are more violent than women are reactive theories, which can be either psychological or sociological in focus. Reactive theories are based on the idea that violence is a response to external conditions, men use violence when their goals are blocked and non-violent alternatives are ineffective (Hearn 1998).
The ‘stress theory’ suggests that certain factors such as low income, unemployment, part time employment and a large number of children are more likely to cause stress to men which can make them more prone to violence. Despite this, it would be unfair to isolate stress as a causal factor of violence because it is a constant feature of everyday life which everyone, both men and women, have to deal with. Another criticism of this theory is that if stress is a single causal factor of violence then why is it mainly men and not women whoare violent? (Hearn 1998).
Reactive theories also look at the abuse of alcohol as an exernal factor, and how this can cause men to act violently. However as Horsfall (1991) outlines alcohol cannot be seen as a direct cause of violence. She concludes that if alcohol is a causal factor of violence, why do some men react violoently when others do not and why does the social structuring of ‘boys’ and ‘men’ bring them up to think that in order to feel like a ‘man’you must drink with the ‘boys’, often to excess.
The construction of gender is a very useful starting point to understand why men are more violent than women. As Moore (1994) writes, discourses about gender construct women and men as different sorts of persons. Discourse that is used to describe men is active; men are portrayed as “aggressive, thrusting and powerful” (Moore 1994: 138). Whereas discourse that describes women is usually passive; women are portrayed as essentially “powerless, submissive and receptive” (Moore 1994: 138). However, these constructions actually only have the most peripheral relation to the behaviours of individual women and men.
Moore (1994) goes onto describe how discourses “engender women and men as persons who are defined by difference”(Moore 1994: 139). They produce discursive effects which produce gender difference, therefore producing symbolic or culturally constructed categories of women and men as different from each other.
The discourse used to conceptualize violence is also very important as it often tends to take the focus, blame and responsibility away from the man who commits the violence and pushes it towards ‘the family’. Phrases such as ‘domestic violence’, ‘conjugal violence’, ‘marital violence’ and ‘family violence’ are often used and although it is “important to acknowledge the relational nature of gender and relational context of violence… it is equally important not to reduce violence to the product of ‘the relationship’” (Hearn 1998: 28).
So far we have identified that, according to socially located theories, violence is produced and reproduced through learning, socialization, modelling and imitation, and this can be “conceptualized as producing an environment of violence which operates over time” (Hearn 1998: 29), for example intergenerational violence. Cultural theorists go on to discuss how these environments can be thought of as a ‘culture’ with norms and values, or a ‘system’ with systematic characteristics. They shift the focus away from the individual to take into consideration social relations and raise important issues such as “cycles of violence”, whereby the victimiser may once have been the victim themselves (Geffner 1989: 107).
Multi causal explanations of violence are very important and claim that violence is a result of not just one individual force, but numerous factors working together. Multi causal theorists bring all, or at least some, of the theories I have already discussed together. Edleson et al (1985) put forward a multicausal explanation where they combine: ideas of violence in the man’s family origin from the social learning theory; personal characteristics, such as an individuals attitudes and ideas towards violence taken from the psychoanalytical approach; the use of substances as an external force from the reactive theory; and they also condsider the context of violence by looking at demographic and relationship variables and specific violent events from a mans past.
Another multi causal theory was put forward by Strauss (1977 cited in Hearn 1998) who identified seven factors which when combined can trigger violence in men:
1. High levels of conflict inherent in the family form.
2. High levels of violence in society.
3. Family socialization into violence.
4. Cultural norms legitimating violence between family members.
5.Violence integrated into the personality and behavioural transcript.
6. Sexist organization of society and its family system.
7. Woman puts up with beatings because of various structural and ideological reasons.
(Hearn 1998: 31)
However, both of these multicausal explanations can be criticised as they lack any mention of the idea that patriarchy may play a part in the reason why men are more violent than women.
Feminists such as Dobash and Dobash (1979) would argue that patriarchy does play a very important role in understanding mens violence and view violence as structured oppresion. Feminist studies claim that individual acts of violence must be understood within frameworks of capitalism and patriarchy, and in turn patriarchy must be understood as a social organisation which perpetuates violence through men trying to gain status. Dobash and Dobash (1979) analyse the structural and ideological character of patriarchy, as a hierarchal organization of social institiutions and relations. The organization of society locates people differently, particularly by gender. Women are in subordinated positions due to structural discrimination and ideologies that legitimate and rationalize that situation; these include the family and public institutions of society.
Feminists argue that violence is a means of control of men over women, and in some cases children, and is used as an attempt to diminish power and resistance of women to men. Men are members of a powerful social group and their dominance is maintained through a variety of ways including violence, in order to enforce power and control. It is also important to remember that a mans feelings of possible of potential loss of power in one sphere may take violence out elsewhere, where there is less resistance. However as Hearn (1998) points out the acceptance of men’s violence and control over women are often sanctioned within the law. For example in today’s society it is illegal for a man to rape his wife, however before 1991 there was no law to protect a woman from being raped by her husband, in other words he was allowed to do it.
Although it is important to remember that all men are not violent all the time and it is not only men who are violent, it still remains obvious that it is men who dominate and specialize in violence. As Hearn (1998) concludes “Men remain experts in how to do violence and in the doing of violence” (Hearn 1998: 36). Violence will always be a very powerful way of showing one’s masculinity.
In conclusion, there are clear differences between men and women with regard to violent behaviour, however the theories behind these differences are much more complex than I originally thought. While social learning models account for some of these differences, it is unhelpful to identify one specific factor or theory which can account for violent behaviour (Hoffman et al 1994).
Each theory has it strengths and weaknesses. For example, while the Social learning theory is very useful in that it highlights the important ways in which environmental influences can be translated into violent behaviour, it depends solely on the “application of a few basic principles to the complex variety of human behaviour” (Nietzel 1979 cited in Jones 2000: 66). Basically the theory relies on experiments which require participants to do specific tasks which are unlikely to be repeated anywhere outside the laboratory, in everyday life, where violence occurs.
No single theory can provide all the answers, however when some of these theories are combined to provide a multi-causal explanation, it gives a much clearer picture of why men are more violent than women. These factors can include; violence in society as a whole; family socialisation; cultural norms and values; growing up in a patriarchal society; the personal attitudes of the individual; the use of substances and the effects of subcultures, and these factors may all combine to a point where violent behaviour is much more likely to occur (Ainsworth 2000). As long as we recognise the multi-causal nature of violent behaviour, sociological theories can offer us a number of valuable insights as to why men are more violent than women.
Bibliography
Ainsworth, P. (2000) Psychology and Crime: myths and reality
Longman: Essex.
Bandura, A. (1973) Aggression: A Social Learning Analysis
Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Bandura, A. (1977) Social Learning Theory
Englewood Cliffs, N.J: Prentice-Hall.
Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1979) Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy London: Open Books
Edleson, J.L., Eisikovits, Z & Guttman, E. (1985) ‘Men who batter women: a critical review of the evidence.’ in Journal of Family Issues 6(2): 229-247.
Geffner, R., Mantooth, C., Franks, D & Rao, L. (1989) ‘A psychoeducational, conjoint therapy approach to reducing family violence.’ in Caesar, P.L. & Hamburger, L.K. (eds) Treating Men who Batter: Theory, Practice & Programmes. (1989) Springer: New York.
Hearn, J. (1998) The violences of men: how men talk about and how agencies respond to men's violence to women London: Sage
Hoffman, J.P., Ireland, T.O. & Widom, C,S. (1994) ‘Traditional Socialization Theories of Violence’ in Archer, J.(ed) Male Violence (1994) London: Routledge.
Horsfall, J. (1991) The presence of past: Male violence in the family
Allen & Unwin: North Sydney.
Hotaling, G.T. & Sugarman, D.B. (1986) ‘An analysis of risk markers in husband to wife violence: the current state of knowledge’ in Violence & Victims 1(2): 101-124.
Jones, S. (2000) Understanding Violent Crimes
Open University Press: Buckingham.
Maccoby, E.E. & Jacklin, C,N. (1975) The psychology of sex differences
London: Oxford.
Moore, H. (1994) ‘The Problem of explaining Violence in Social sciences’ in Harvey, P. & Gow, P. (eds) Sex & Violence (1994) London: Routledge.
