(Blackstone 1765 cited in Dallos and Foreman 1993, p.7)
In the 1840s a judge affirmed the husbands right to kidnap his wife, beat her and imprison her in the matrimonial home (). These views highlight the patriarchal role that society deemed correct and that English Common Law upheld. Men were superior and held all the rights, property rights were the most important of these as this determined your status and as Buzawa and Buzawa (2003, p. 60) highlighted, women were part of these property rights once they married.
The basis for such beliefs of male superiority has been rooted in history for years and as Buzawa states can be seen in the, ‘deeply held religious beliefs (that) have governed political and social attitudes’ (Buzawa and Buzawa 2003, p. 58). They also show many examples from passages in the bible, which, are shown to, ‘justify a man’s primacy and his right to exercise authority over women,’ (Buzawa and Buzawa 2003, p. 58).
In 1853, an Act for the Better Prevention and Punishment of Aggravated Assaults upon Women and Children was introduced (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 145). Feminists believe that this highlighted an important change in legal thinking, although it did not aim to challenge the patriarchal role of the family it aimed to regulate the violence within it, giving limits to the amount a man can chastise his wife (Emsley 1996, p. 159). Later, in 1878 the first of the Matrimonial Causes Acts was introduced which, meant a woman could obtain a separation order if her husband was convicted of aggravated assault against her, she could also obtain custody of her children and retention of earnings and property (Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 156; Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p.205). This improvement in the civil law has been linked to the campaigning of the early feminist Frances Power Cobbe (Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 156)
Although such legislations highlighted change in law and acknowledgement of the feminist movement, there effectiveness was far from been seen. The patriarchal system was still very much lived by and upheld by society and law, therefore it can be said that, ‘whilst domestic violence was to some extent recognised, it was also treated with some ambivalence’ (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206). It has been highlighted in many readings how men taken to court on charges of assault to their wives and even murder have had the charges reduced and recommended to mercy by the jury on the understanding that he was provoked into his actions (Emsley 1996, p.47, 159; Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 156). Aggravation on the part of the wife would be grounds for mitigating circumstances (Emsley 1996, p. 159) and a ‘scandal to her sex’ deemed that she deserved it (Hammerton cited in Emsley 1996, p.47).
Domestic violence during the nineteenth century was also highly associated with the working classes- ‘at least by the members of the upper classes’ (Buzawa and Buzawa 2003, p. 61). As mentioned previously most judges were under the belief that, ‘a good man had the right to beat a bad woman’ (Conley 1991 cited in, Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206). The image of an ideal woman was based largely on the middle classes, benefiting the middle and upper classes. It identified that a woman was required to keep house; she would be non sexual, non aggressive, able to control her impulses and generally behave in a ‘womanly’ manner (i.e. no foul language, polite and no drunkenness) (Dallos and Foreman 1993, p. 8; Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206). This ideal tended to be beyond the reach of the working class woman, who had to deal with working two jobs, poverty, living in squalor and drunkenness (Dallos and Foreman 1993,p. 8; Muncie and McLaughlin 2001,p. 206).
This working class stereotype did not only affect the women but also the men. Men who chastised their wives in a more brutish nature were seen as, ‘men who were not of good character…from the dangerous classes of immigrants’ (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206). They were also described as, ‘drunken, loutish brutes…predominantly working class or immigrants, distinct from the civilised English males’ (Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 235).
The blame was put onto the ‘dysfunctional’, ‘abnormal’ element of society. They did not conform to the typically middle class stereotype of a family. Family was assumed to be a place of ‘privacy’ and ‘security’ (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 192) which made it difficult to object to what you thought was normal behaviour. The ‘safe private world of the family’ tended to be in complete contrast to the ‘dangerous public world of crime’ (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 194). Many theorists believe that this, along with the dependence of women to their husbands created a huge hidden aspect of domestic violence. Emsley (1996, p. 159) highlights that many women were reluctant to take their husbands to court recognising the impact that a short spell in prison or a fine to cause to the family budget. While others argue that family was highly respected as private and women would be embarrassed and even feel shameful to bring such public attention to it (Dallos and Foreman 1993, p. 8; Emsley 1996, p. 47). As mentioned earlier, middle class families associated domestic violence with the working classes, the brutish behaviour of the males and the immoral unwomanly behaviour of the females, if a middle class wife complains of abuse she is associating herself with this behaviour and likely to be challenged of her role as a wife.
This hidden aspect of domestic violence carried on until the late twentieth century, following the social constructions of the ideal nuclear family (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 194; Muncie and Sapsford 1997, p. 10). The 1950s family were strongly embodied in the ideals of, ‘safety, security and a sense of identity’ (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 193). It wasn’t until the 1970s and1980s when feminist campaigning started to make a mark on male superiority, challenging the privacy of the family and asking ‘whose rights were being protected’ (Dallos and Foreman1993, p. 8; Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 196). They emphasised the visible inequalities and power relationships found within the family (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p.196). There is still no specific domestic violence criminal offence but violence against women in the home is being recognised ( 2003).
To conclude, this essay has shown how societal and historical factors determined and shaped the view people had of domestic violence, it was not known as domestic violence but ‘domestic chastisement’ and was held as a necessary action of the male to ‘control’ his wife (Dallos and Foreman 1993, p. 7; Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 155, Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p.206). It highlighted that brutish behaviour was not accepted but as not to damage the status society attributes to families it was associated with the working classes (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206; Dobash and Dobash 1992, p. 235). It also drew attention to the implementation of civil acts of law in the late 1800s and how these were in place to control the level of chastisement and not to challenge it (Muncie and McLaughlin 2001, p. 206; Emsley 1996, p. 159).
References
Buzawa, E and Buzawa, C (2003), Societal and Historical Factors in Domestic Violence, in Domestic Violence The Criminal Justice Response, Sage, London, pp. 57-68
Dallos, R and Foreman, S (1993) Domestic Violence, in Dallos et al, Social Problems and The Family, Open University, London, pp. 7-26
Dobash, R and Dobash, R (1992), Women, Violence and Social Change, Routledge, London, pp. 153-159, 235-240
Emsley, C (1996), Crime and Society in England 1750-1900, Longman, London, pp. 41-49, 158-161.
Muncie, J and McLaughlin, E (2001), Dangerous Places: The Family as a Site of Crime, in The Problem of Crime 2nd Ed., Open University, London, pp.191-238
Muncie, J and Sapsford, R. (1997) Issues in the study of the family, in Muncie et al. Understanding the family 2nd Ed, Open University, London, pp. 8 - 35
URL:
Date visited: 02/04/2004
URL:
Date visited: 02/04/2004
URL:
Date visited 02/04/2004
