Choose a service user group, male perpetrators of domestic violence and critically explore a possible intervention.
Choose a service user group, male perpetrators of domestic violence and critically explore a possible intervention. Pay attention to the theoretical and possible practice implications of the suggested intervention and critique this with reference to another theoretical approach.
When considering to assess and address domestic violence there exist a variety of
methods of interventions, which are adopted as a means to reduce and eradicate
domestic violence, with such interventions amalgamating a pro feminist approach. To
address the essay question the essay will critically explore a pro feminist intervention,
the CHANGE Project, discussing the ineffectiveness of constructing an intervention
for male perpetrators of domestic violence around a feminist discourse alternatively
criticising the feminist discourse from a psychodynamic perspective
Firstly, it is necessary, before establishing an intervention for male
perpetrators of domestic violence to address the issue of what is domestic violence?
Throughout the essay the term 'domestic violence' will be used, because it is widely
accepted within common and professional use within the British context, constituting
such clarification as:
Any form of physical, sexual or emotional abuse which takes place within the context of a close relationship. In most cases, the relationship will be between partners (married, co-habiting, or otherwise) or ex partners. (Home Affairs Select Committee, 1993 cited in Alder, 2004, P.222).
Despite this, the term 'domestic violence' still falters within its inadequate
terminology. Thus the word 'domestic' is clearly flawed when put into context as it
fails to acknowledge alternative crimes, which occur within the domestic setting, to
exemplify, child abuse. Also the use of the term 'domestic violence' can itself conceal
the relationship between gender and violence, of who actually is the perpetrator? and
who is being abused? As Maguire, 1988 proclaims "I reject all...titles and
descriptions that obscure the real nature of violence; giving any form of violence a
name which does not address its nature and causation diminishes its importance"
(Maguire, 1988 cited in Mullender, 1996, P.9). Clearly the term 'domestic violence'
within the British professional context generally refers to male abuse on women, with
such definition omitting the implications of women's abuse on men. This lack of
clarity in conceptualising the terminology of domestic violence is very much
associated with explanations that "are entangled with political, moral and
interdisciplinary issues" (Blackburn, 1993 cited in Alder, 2004, P.219)
The essay will adopt an informed critical view when considering how
discourses of domestic violence form the basis for different approaches to
interventions. "Overall, pro-feminist treatment models are the most widely used in the
UK", (Scourfield and Dobash, 1999 cited in Alder, 2004, P.234) with programmes for
male perpetrators of domestic violence being one of the major interventions in
operation across all sectors, voluntary, statutory and private. The essay will now adopt
an intervention, CHANGE, which establishes both these areas, pro-feminism in
orientation and which facilitates programmes for male perpetrators of domestic
violence. The CHANGE Project, was establishes in 1989 in Stirling, Scotland, as a
piloted programme. The Project also incorporates a multi-agency system for working
with abused women but the essay will clearly focus on work with spouse abusers.
Such project was founded upon a small number of pro-feminist projects in North
America, to exemplify EMERGE and the Duluth programme, which placed its core of
their programmes within a social context. The programmes not only served the
purpose of changing the perpetrator but also integrated within the programmes was
the enhancement of community awareness to domestic violence. Following the co-
-ordinated approach of the North American models, the CHANGE Project differs in
respect to its ethos, in that the programme is constructed to operate within the
Criminal Justice System. The programme "admits only court mandated offenders
placed on probation for an offence involving violence against their partner. Their
participation in the programme is a condition of the order" (Dobash + et-al, 2000,
P.19). Setting the context of theoretical thinking from which the programme is
constructed, it embarks on the premise of feminist discourse:
The feminist critique of wife bearing is, at heart, a critique of patriarchy. The central argument is that the brutalisation of an individual wife by an individual husband is not an individual or 'family' problem. It is simply one manifestation of male domination which has existed historically and cross-culturally. (Yllo, 1983 cited in Dallos + McLaughlin, 1993, P.22).
The feminist theory signifies that violence against women, in a domestic violence
context is largely the issue of the exertion through the misuse of gender power and
domination, which is subsequently learned and constructed through the foundations of
a patriarchal society, in "essence of the political, social and cultural context, where
men are socialised to believe that they are entitled to use power against women"
(Adams, 1989 cited in Rapp-Pagliccif + et-al, 2002, P.76). Historically, male
domination entrenched all spheres of society where more often than ...
This is a preview of the whole essay
The feminist theory signifies that violence against women, in a domestic violence
context is largely the issue of the exertion through the misuse of gender power and
domination, which is subsequently learned and constructed through the foundations of
a patriarchal society, in "essence of the political, social and cultural context, where
men are socialised to believe that they are entitled to use power against women"
(Adams, 1989 cited in Rapp-Pagliccif + et-al, 2002, P.76). Historically, male
domination entrenched all spheres of society where more often than not men's
violence to their partners were shrouded in secrecy in what is perceived to be the
'private' domain of the family home and this is still often the case. Regarding the
concept of patriarchy "most of us grew up with the understanding that women should
know their place and if they did not, men should show them" (Wilson, 1996 cited in
Cavanagh + Cree, 1999, P.28), which resulted in with many individuals being
socialised to accept messages, which are embedded within the institutions of a
patriarchal society, such as, "men are strong, women are weak, men are independent,
women are dependant and men are secure, women are vulnerable" (Young, 1996 cited
in Dominey, 2003, P.3), which further reinforces male domination. A key tenant of
feminist theory is that although men have been socialised into these patriarchal
traditions, which engenders men's beliefs, this does not condone such behaviour as
"the use of violence is a choice for which each man is responsible and for which he
should be held accountable...he can still choose to take responsibility and learn non-
violent way of relating" (Respect, 2000, P.3)
In respect to the practice implications of the CHANGE Project, the primary
aim of working with male perpetrators of domestic violence is to increase the safety
of women and children. Falling second to this aim is to hold men accountable for their
behaviour, to challenge their attitudes and beliefs, which foster such behaviour, and to
develop and adopt the perpetrators with skills that are respectable and positive, that
can be applied to promote an egalitarian relationship with their partners. The core of
the programme ideally constitutes a structured challenging group work setting, which
operates on a weekly basis requiring the men to attend sixteen to twenty-two sessions
to complete the programme. To recapitulate, the theoretical orientation of CHANGE
is directed primarily towards a feminist perspective, disregarding such notion of men
being pathology sick. Thus to underpin this message the programme ensures that it is
educationally focused and not regarded as supporting a therapeutic regime. From a
feminist perspective a social problem like domestic violence cannot be eradicated by
working with individuals alone, situating its work within the Criminal Justice System
can play a vital part in having an impact on institutions which dispense justice, and
on the community which can "serve to reinforce the idea... that violence against any
member of the community is an offence deserving an effective response from the
Justice System in co-ordination with other agencies of the state and the community"
(Morran + Wilson, 1994 cited in Cavanagh + Cree, 1996, P.34)
"The status of this research and theorizing has become the essential theoretical
foundation to effective work with violent men", (Teft, 1999 cited in Milner, 2004,
P.80) but feminist interventions are not without its own criticisms, which the essay
will now examine. There exist many persuasive arguments about whether work with
men should occur at all. Firstly there is the concern that programmes such as
CHANGE reinforce the danger that women face by abusive partners, to exemplify in
the event of reducing a man's physical abuse to his partner, attending such a
programme may increase the potential, from socialising with other abusers of learning
more skilled "terrorist tactics" (Hart, 1988 cited in Cavanagh + Cree, 1996, P.31). It
may further serve to oppress women by robbing them with their chance to escape
because the abuser is 'proving' to them that he is going to change this time, which can
often provide women with false hope. Another, very real fear is that the existence of
men's programmes may deny women and children of resources thus "politicians
would be able to say that this was the avenue for reform that was now being pursued
and that women and children would no longer need refuge and support as men would
stop being violent" (Wilson, 1996 cited in Cavanagh + Cree, 1996, P.31), with more
attention directed at men's needs rather than women. It can be debated that the very
skills that co-ordinators demonstrate within feminist programmes, challenging and
confronting, which Senior 1992 proclaims that the word itself, confrontation is
immanently masculine, are "the very attitudes they are set out to challenge-
entitlement, blame and vengeance" (Milner, 2004, P.81) which can often be
counterproductive, leaving men feeling inferior, threatened and humiliated. It is
concerning "that on leaving the group he will resent having been humiliated, and
either reject the programme message, or, much more seriously, take it out on his
partner" (Wilson, 1996 cited in Cavanagh + Cree, 1996, P.40). The CHANGE Project
delivers its programme using a gendered team, a man and a woman co-ordinator, but
this itself can comprise of flaws, when it comes to the issue of female co-ordinators
confronting male perpetrators of domestic violence. How effective is this
confrontation when it comes from a woman, as a man, from a feminist perspective
perceive women to be inferior to themselves. Wilson, 1996, insists that:
When a challenge does come from me I have been aware that at times it is not taken seriously as when it comes from a male colleague... The dismissal of my challenge can take the form of verbal responses such as me being 'just' another woman who 'doesn't understand', or taunts that I am a woman's 'libber' (Wilson, 1996 cited in Cavanagh + Cree, 1996, P.38).
One form of backlash, which is embedded within the feminist theory, is the
way in which women are constructed as the only victims, and men as the only
perpetrators, which demonstrates "the power of the dominant domestic violence
discourse to deny the actual extent of female-on-male violence" (Milner, 2004, P.90).
The British Crime Survey, 1999 reveals that " 4.2% of women and 4.2% of men said
they had been physically assaulted by a current or former partner, with 4.9% of men
and 5.9% of women had experienced physical assault or frightening threats"
(Mirrlees-Black + Byron, 1999, P.1). But it needs to be questioned how reliable are
these statistics in its deliverance of violence against men by women, as men may feel
particularly reluctant to come forward. "They are less likely to report being hurt,
frightened or upset by what has happened" (Mirrlees-Black, 1999 cited in domestic
violence data source, 2000, P.1). It is expressed that "heterosexual women who are
violent to their partners have been found to use a higher rate of violence than
heterosexual men" (Mirrlees-Black, 1999 cited in Milner, 2004, P.90). Clearly a
feminist would deny such claim and construct such explanation that the motive for
women being violent towards men is that they have fought back. Another form of
criticism lies in the feminist theory as it dismisses alcohol abuse as a contributing
factor to domestic violence. But "research indicates that alcohol is best seen as
contributing to violent behaviour" (McCord, 1993 cited in Finney, 2004, P.4), "32%
of incidents of intimate partner violence were committed when the perpetrator was
under the influence of alcohol" (Mirrlees-Black, 1999 cited in Finney, 2004, P.1).
Alcohol can clearly become a compounding factor within a feminist intervention
which can prevent such men from participating in the programme.
The changing historical attitudes and explanations for domestic violence has
very much developed differentiating interpretations over time, which can very much
inform the way agencies approach such a problem. The essay will now attempt to
explain a contrasting psychological theory to that of feminism, the psychodynamic
approach, discussing how such an approach would theorise domestic violence and
illustrating, from a psychodynamic perspective the limitations of a feminist
intervention for male perpetrators of domestic violence. The pioneer of this
psychodynamic model, psychodynamic referring to the dynamic forces within
personality that motivate behaviour and its inner causes, was Sigmund Freud (1856-
939). "According to Freud, we are in large part a legacy of our past. Our adult life is
shaped by the way in which we have charted our stages of development and dealt with
the conflicts presented in each" (Caldwell + et-al, 2001, P.538). Slife and Williams,
995 proclaim that "this view of development makes us very much victims of our
past" (Caldwell + et-al, 2001, P.538). The psychodynamic theory holds the view that
the personality, which is developed while passing through several different
developmental stages, the Oral, Anal, Phallic and Latency stage, in the individuals
primary years predisposes that individual to be violent, aggressive, as Freud viewed
aggression as an inborn drive, which is "an unavoidable reality of human life"
(Glassman, 1995, P.308), which can never be eliminated only controlled. Freud
proclaimed that personality denotes three components of the mind. The 'id', which is
embedded within the unconscious part of the mind is an aspect which motivates our
behaviour and contains a reservoir of primitive instincts and impulses such as
aggression. The 'ego' controls our conscious mind and deals with external reality,
hence, understands the consequences for behaviour and actions and the third
component comprises of the 'superego', which dwells within the unconscious mind. It
represents our conscience and guides us to socially accepted behaviour. More often
than not Freud illustrated that the 'ego and the 'superego' often oppose the aggressive
impulses of the 'id', thus to resolve such conflict defence mechanisms are initiated to
block such conflict "and attempt to ameliorate the tensions in various ways, for
example by displacing the aggression onto a substitute" (Glassman, 1995, P.308), as a
form of coping. Thus the crux of the psychodynamic theory is that the foundations of
personality which were laid down in early childhood were damaged by unresolved
conflicts, reinforcing violence within a relationship in adulthood.
Despite the great appeal of the psychodynamic theory it is subject to great
criticisms in that the theory lacks falsifiability. Freud's theory cannot actually be
proven to be true because of unverifiable data. Freud made use of concepts and
processes throughout his theory but these concepts, processes cannot actually be
measured because they cannot be seen. Another major concern was that the
psychodynamic theory was biased in its sexist male view on female inferiority.
Associated to such view was the idea that individuals are not to be blamed for their
behaviour, since it is the conflicts embedded within the subconscious that are
causing the problem, therefore how can it be the individual's fault? Referring to
female inferiority it is through our childhoods that these conflicts occur and women
are perceived to be the primary care givers so women can be perceived to be partially
to blame for the violence in relationships. "Violence is developed through inadequate
mothering which implies that women (first as mothers, then as wives) are the primary
source of the violence", (Dobash, 1980 cited in Hague + Malos, 1993, P.149) which
can be perceived as allowing, "the individual deny responsibility for their offending"
(Alder, 2004. P.233). It can also be debated that the psychodynamic approach
dismisses the current problem of violence, instead it delves into the childhood,
ignoring the immediate problem. Although childhood and violence are interrelated,
how does such theory account for men who have experienced a traumatic childhood
and do not become abusive to their partners or those men who were not exposed to a
traumatic childhood and become abusive to their partners.
From a psychodynamic approach Freud would clearly dismiss a feminist view
of domestic violence because he wrote from a male perspective at a time when men
were seen to be superior to women, where "the white male was considered as the
norm and primary focus of interest" (Richards, 1996, P.150) within psychology. With
"the Freudian woman, to a large degree, the traditional woman with many of her
negative traits" (Richards, 1996, P.156). An example of male inferiority throughout
his writings consisted of his fundamental ideas of penis envy. Freud elucidates that
when a young girl first perceives a penis she is "overcome with envy" (Freud, 1905
cited in McLeod, 1998, P.130), the female would recognise that "she cannot compete
with boys, and that it would be therefore best for her to give up the idea of doing so"
(Freud, 1924 cited in McLeod, 1998,P.130). "Some writers from this camp describe
battered women as having a basic need to provoke violence, as displaying hostility
that contributes to the violence" (Hansen + Harway, 1993,P.29). It can be debated
whether Freud would dismiss domestic violence as a mere fantasy constructed by
women because "at heart he could not believe that...socially respectable men could
engage in this behaviour", (McLeod, 1998, p.131) as his "writings reveal that he
thoroughly rejected women as full human beings" (Taylor, 1991 cited in McLeod,
998, p.131) The psychodynamic approach would also dismiss the feminists approach
in respect to structural influences on violence as the psychodynamic approach
believes that violence, aggression is an innate intra personal problem.
In conclusion to this essay it is debatable whether the feminist theory can be
applauded for its accomplishments in raising awareness of domestic violence as it
constructs domestic violence in heterosexist terms, truly dismissing the extent of
female violence on men. It is also important to perceive that these interventions do
not always provide an answer to domestic violence, as each individual is different in
terms of treatment. From an individualistic perspective every intervention is
embedded with flaws as each individual in society has their own interpretation as to
the causes of domestic violence and effective treatment, but what needs to be
considered is that changing individual perpetrators alone is not the answer, the
problem lies in the social context.
Bibliography:
Alder, J. (2004). Forensic Psychology Concepts, Debates And Practice. Devon: Willan Publishing.
Caldwell, M + et-al. (2001). Psychology For A2 Level. London: Harper Collins Publishing.
Cavanagh, K + Cree, V. (1996). Working With Men Feminism + Social Work. London: Routledge.
Dallos, R + McLaughlin, E. (1993). Social Problems And The Family. London: Sage Publications.
Dobash, R + et-al. (2000). Domestic Violence Programmes: A Framework For Change. Probation Journal 47 (1), PP.18-29.
Domestic Violence Data Source. (2000) Prevalence And Incident Of Domestic Violence Fact Sheet. (WWW)
http://www.domesticviolencedata.org/4_faqs01.html
(March 18th 2004).
Dominey, P. (2003). Masculinities + Violence: Interventions For Violence Prevention. (WWW)
http://www.brave-project.org/html/pdominryarticle.html
(March 17th 2004).
Finney, A. (2004) Alcohol + Intimate Partner Violence: Key Finding From Research. Home Office Research Finding 216. London: Research Development + Statistics Directorate.
Gilchrist, E + et-al. (2003) Domestic Violence offenders: Characteristics + Offending Related Needs. Home Office research Study 217. London: Research Development + Statistics Directorate.
Glassman, W. (1995). Approaches To Psychology. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Hague, G + Malos, E. (1993). Domestic Violence Action For Change. Great Britain: New Clarion Press.
Hansen, M + Harway, M. (1993) Battering + Family Therapy A feminist Perspective. London: Sage Publications.
Hester, M + et-al. (1996). Women, Violence + Male Power. Buckingham: Open University Press.
McLeod, J. (1998). An Introduction To Counselling. 2nd edn. Buckingham: Open University Press.
Milner, J. (2004) From 'Disappearing' To 'Demonised': The Effects On Men + Women Of Professional Interventions Based on Challenging Men Who Are Violent. Critical Social Policy 24 (1), PP.79-101.
Mirrlees-Black, C + Byron, C. (1996) Domestic Violence: Findings From The BCS Self-Completion Questionnaire. Research Findings No 86. London: Research Development + Statistics Directorate.
Mullender, A. (1996). Rethinking Domestic Violence The Social Work And Probation Response. London: Routledge.
Rapp-Paglicci + et-al. (2002). Handbook Of Violence. United States Of America: John Wiley + Sons, inc.
RESPECT, The National Association For Domestic Violence Perpetrator Programmes + Associated Support Services. (20020. Statement Of Principles + Minimum Standards Of Practice. (WWW)
http://www.respect.uk:net/aimspage.html
(March 16th 2004)
Richards, G. (1996). Putting Psychology In Its Place. London:Routledge.
Teft, P. (1999) Work With Men Who Are Violent To Their Partners: Time To Reassert A Radical Pro-Feminist Analysis. Probation Journal 46 (1), PP.11-18.
Taking Stock What Do We Know About interpersonal Violence. London: ESRC Violence Research programme.
