[acb-hsp] Strengthening DV Theory: Culture

[J.Rayl]

Strengthening Domestic Violence Theories: Intersections of Race, Class, Sexual Orientation,

and Gender

by Michele Bograd

"An erasure need not take place for us to be silenced. Tokenistic, objectifying voyeuristic

inclusion is at least as damaging as exclusion. We are as silenced when we appear

in the margins as we are when we fail to appear at all" (Crenshaw, 1993, p. 116).

A review of the growing, but still small, family therapy literature on domestic violence

discovers just one article (Almeida, Woods, Messineo, Font, & Heer, 1994) that addresses

the salience of race, class, sexual orientation, and gendered asymmetry. How can

we understand what now appear as glaring omissions? Considering my own work as illustrative

of a broader pattern (Bograd, 1982, 1984,1986a, 1986b, 1987,1988a, 1988b, 1989, 1990,

1992, 1994; Yllo & Bograd, 1988), my oversights were due less to blatant racism or

classism (although presumably these also played a part) than to unexamined premises

influenced by then-popular systemic constructs and by my personal and social location.

I wrote as a feminist with the goal of establishing the reality of domestic violence

in a sociopolitical context where the dimensions of gender and violence against women

had just been introduced into family therapy theories and practices. My goals were

to demonstrate the prevalence of domestic violence and to critique family therapy

concepts and practices that implicated the battered woman in her abuse. Heterosexuality

was assumed. Family therapy constructs led me to examine life within the family,

with lip service to extrafamilial dimensions. This coincided with my perspective

as an uppermiddle-class white woman that gender inequality and domestic violence

posed the major threats to family life and the development of intimacy. At that stage

of theory building, family therapy as a field paid little attention to the psyche

as well as to social constraints, so the mechanisms between social conditions and

individual behavior remained unformulated. I privileged the dimension of gender over

others because it seemed to offer parsimonious explanatory power and clinical direction.

I believed that gendersensitive models of domestic violence were universal, relevant

to all families and, thus, race-, class-, and sexual-orientation-neutral. Initially,

I understood the additions of those dimensions as just additions, enriching theory

and intervention without requiring their substantial modification.

However, different values now characterize the field, as social, theoretical, political,

and clinical contexts have evolved. These values promote cultural sensitivity, beginning

acceptance of diverse family forms, and recognition of oppressive social forces.

In general, these values are informed by a focus on the socially constructed nature

of human experience: life experiences and their meanings are qualitatively different

for different individuals due to general and idiosyncratic patterns shaped by social

dimensions. Simply put, once social contexts and meaning systems are taken into account,

a rose is not just a rose, nor a slap just a slap. This position paper is a beginning

effort to describe how family therapy thinking and practice on domestic violence

can be strengthened by explicit inclusion of dimensions such as race, class, sexual

orientation, and the gendered asymmetry of domestic violence. Outside of family therapy,

the domestic violence literature addresses these issues in exciting and thought-provoking

ways. Surprisingly, this literature is often neither acknowledged nor well integrated

with family therapy theories and practices. Therefore, special effort has been made

to direct readers to this body of knowledge. Given the purposes of this article,

the literature review is illustrative rather than comprehensive. The goals of this

article are theoretical: to introduce the voices and experiences of individuals not

widely represented in family therapy theories while describing omissions and their

possible consequences for theory and practice. This task is simplified through the

concept of intersectionality.

INTERSECTIONALITY

Through development of the concept of intersectionality, Crenshaw (1992, 1993, 1994)

proposes that domestic violence is but one form of oppression and social control.

We exist in social contexts created by the intersections of systems of power (e.g.,

race, class, gender, and sexual orientation) and oppression (prejudice, class stratification,

gender inequality, and heterosexist bias). In practice, social dimensions are not

merely abstract descriptions as they are suffused with evaluations that have social

consequences. For example, heterosexual and homosexual are formal ends of a continuum,

but one end is hierarchically valued over the other. These systems are not mutually

exclusive, static, or abstract. They operate independently or simultaneously, and

the dynamics of each may exacerbate and compound the consequences of another.

In this framework, domestic violence is not a monolithic phenomenon. Intersectionalities

color the meaning and nature of domestic violence, how it is experienced by self

and responded to by others, how personal and social consequences are represented,

and how and whether escape and safety can be obtained. Sometimes, intersectionalities

are patterned, as in the life of a poor immigrant woman of color.

Sometimes the meaning of that pattern changes in different contexts, as when a lightskinned

black middle-class professional is valued in his community but prejudicially treated

in a court system as a batterer of color.

Most family therapy theories of domestic violence do not address such intersections.

An implicit assumption of many theories and practices is that domestic violence poses

a central threat to the boundaried, protected, inner space of the family.

With the exception of gender inequality, other social dimensions usually are defined

as stressors, rather than as key explanatory factors of the violence, and so primary

attention is paid to intrapsychic, interpersonal, or intrafamilial dynamics. Almeida

et al. (1994) argue that the assumption of a boundaried, safe, domestic sphere reflects

not some universal family reality but the conditions of white middle-class heterosexual

families. In contrast, the family lives of people of color, poor, minority, or homosexual

individuals are marked by frequent, disruptive intrusions of the state (Almeida,

1993).

Here, domestic violence often occurs in the private context of a couple trying to

build intimacy while experiencing racist, heterosexist, or classist discrimination,

which often takes the form of actual violence in the public domain.

>From this perspective, intersectionality suggests that no dimension, such as gender

inequality, is privileged as an explanatory construct of domestic violence, and gender

inequality itself is modified by its intersection with other systems of power and

oppression.

So, for example, while all men who batter exercise some form of patriarchal control,

men's relationships to patriarchy differ in patterned ways depending on where they

are socially located. While all women are vulnerable to battering, a battered woman

may judge herself and be judged by others differently if she is white or black, poor

or wealthy, a prostitute or a housewife, a citizen or an undocumented immigrant.

INTERSECTIONALITY AND FAMILY THERAPY THEORY AND PRACTICE

Most current family therapy theorizing on domestic violence remains silent regarding

these intersections, unless they are addressed as special cases. But silence is neither

neutral nor benign. It renders many families touched by domestic violence invisible,

relegates some individuals' experiences outside the realm of clinical concern, and

may guide us to intervene in ways that unwittingly compound clients' experiences

of abuse, unpredictability, and domination. The impact of intersectionality will

be demonstrated by addressing: (1) the socially structured invisibility of certain

victims; (2) who the "appropriate" victims are and the denial of victimization; and

(3) the real-world consequences of intersections and domestic violence.

The Socially Structured Invisibility of Certain Victims

A basic question facing family therapists is: who are the victims of domestic violence?

Evidence of the consequences of intersectionality is immediately visible through

examination of the statistics on domestic violence.

Race and ethnicity. Although race is a standard factor examined in national surveys

on domestic violence, most of the minority research is on black or Latino populations

(Hampton & Gelles, 1994; Kaufman Kantor, Jasinski, & Aldarondo, 1994; Neff, Holamon,

& Schluter, 1995; Straus & Smith, 1990). Little is known about the experiences of

battered individuals in many minority or marginalized communities (Carillo & Tello,

1998). Current research on race can be problematic: diverse ethnic groups are often

collapsed into a single category, such as Asians, or the patterns of a single group,

such as Mexican Americans, are overgeneralized to all Hispanics (Campbell, Masaki,

& Torres, 1997).

Because of this, "[d]ata on partner violence among minority populations are so incomplete

that they preclude meaningful generalizations" (Koss, Goodman, Browne, Fitzgerald,

Puryear Keita, & Russo, 1994, p. 60). Research suggests that the meaning of domestic

violence may differ across racial or ethnic lines, that predictors of husband violence

differ among ethnic groups, and that racial differences disappear when other factors,

primarily socioeconomic status, are controlled (Browne, 1995; Cervantes & Cervantes,

1993; Feldman & Ridley, 1995; Holtzworth-Munroe, Smutzler, & Bates, 1997; Straus

& Smith, 1990).

Social class. Research data suggest that social class is inversely related to the

severity of violence, although domestic violence occurs across all classes (Holtzworth-Munroe

et al., 1997). However, although class is a standard dimension of most research,

"inquiries into the prevalence of violence in the lives of poor women and children

remained startlingly absent" (Browne & Bassuk, 1997, p. 261), as in the lives of

non-English speakers, the hospitalized or institutionalized, the disabled, the differently

acculturated, rural dwellers, and the incarcerated (Browne, 1995; Gondolf, 1997;

National Research Council, 1996). Browne and Bassuk found that high levels of assault

and injury characterized their sample of homeless and poor housed women (one-third

of whom had been severely physically assaulted by their current or most recent partners),

that lack of economic resources seriously compromised the women's ability to alter

their environments, and that "across the lifespan, the majority of these young mothers

had experienced only brief-if any-periods of safety" (1997, p. 275). Race, gender,

violence, and class here intersect: in 1993, over one-third of all woman-headed families

lived in poverty, and over half of those were Black and Hispanic (Browne & Bassuk,

1997).

Gay and lesbian battering. Invisibility and lack of information also shroud gay and

lesbian battering, even though conservative estimates suggest that half a million

gay men are battered annually (Island & Letellier, 1991) and that the prevalence

and severity of lesbian battering are comparable to that of heterosexual relationships

(Coleman, 1997; Leeder, 1994; Lobel, 1986; Renzetti, 1992). There are few or no available

statistics on the intersections of homosexuality, domestic violence, race, and class.

Gender asymmetry and domestic violence. The invisibility of victims results not only

from silence but also from assuming no differences across victims and perpetrators.

Although most therapists acknowledge that, in heterosexual relationships, men have

a greater capacity to injure women, controversy remains in the field about whether

there is a fundamental asymmetry between men and women who are violent. However,

research suggests that the sociopsychological contexts of the use of violence, its

meanings, and its interactional and psychological consequences are gender specific.

For example, men are more likely to use severely violent tactics, less likely to

be injured, and less likely to be intimidated by their partner's violence (Cantos,

Neidig, & O'Leary, 1994; Cascardi & Vivian, 1995; Dobash, Dobash, Wilson, & Daly,

1992; Langhinrichsen-Rohling, Neidig, & Thorn, 1995). While men and women alike employ

violence to express anger, release tension, or force communication, women tend to

use violence for self-defense, escape, and retaliation, while men employ violence

for purposes of dominance, coercion, control of partner's behavior, protecting self-image,

and punishment (Cascardi, Langhinrichsen, & Vivian, 1992; Dobash et al., 1992; Hamberger,

Lohr, & Bonge, 1994; Hamberger, Lohr, Bonge, & Tolin, 1997; Saunders, 1988; Stets

& Straus, 1990). Examining victims of husband abuse and wife abuse, Christian, O'Leary,

and Vivian (1994) found that victimized wives reported more negative impact and more

frequent and severe injuries than did victimized husbands, and female perpetrators

experience more depression than male perpetrators (Vivian & Malone, 1996). Vivian

and Langhinrichsen-Rohling (1994) suggest that highly victimized wives tend to be

more unilaterally victimized than highly victimized husbands. Different patterns

describe male and female batterers and their spouses (Hamberger, 1997). For example,

over two-thirds of women arrested for battering their husbands were in relationships

with husbands who initiated assaults more than 50% of the time (Hamberger & Potente,

1997).

Patterns of homicide are gendered (Browne, 1994; Browne & Williams, 1993). Research

on severely violent men suggests that "[o]nly husband violence produces fear in the

partner. It is largely this difference that accounts for the unique ability of husbands

to use violence as a means of psychological and social control" (Jacobson, Gottman,

Waltz, Rushe, Babcock, & Holtzworth-Munroe, 1994, p. 986). In couples where the man

has been quite violent, wives are verbally aggressive in reactions to husbands' violent

behaviors, while husbands are violent in response to a variety of nonviolent wife

behaviors; gender differences, in effect, exist in verbal arguments (Jacobson et

al., 1994); and "nothing the women did predicted the onset, offset, increase, or

decrease of male violence" (Jacobson, 1994, p. 100) at the interactional level (Babcock,

Waltz, Jacobson, & Gottman, 1993; Cordova, Jacobson, Gottman, Rushe, & Cox, 1993)

or over the longitudinal course of violence in the marriage (Jacobson, Gottman, Gortner,

Bems, & Shortt, 1996).

Care must be taken not to generalize from one population to others, since the chronicity,

level, frequency, and types of violence may be important distinguishing factors among

couples and their dynamics. Currently, family therapy theories and their related

practices are conceptualized without reference to a target population or the severity

of violence. This theoretical omission implies that a theory or set of practices

is equally applicable to all violent individuals and their family members. Family

therapy theories and practices would be strengthened if their relevance to specific

populations was explicit, since different populations will likely require modification

of theory and practice.

Statistics and social value. Complicated reasons explain the lack of statistics on

gender asymmetries in domestic violence and on diverse ethnic, racial, and sexual

orientation groups-much less on a broad range of intersections. A primary reason

is whether individuals have access to and seek legal or clinical remedies in the

institutions that provide the database for much family violence research. But the

lack of statistics is not neutral. The invisibility of certain populations reflects

more their social importance in the eyes of the dominant culture than the absence

of domestic violence in their midst. The lack of statistics is also not of minor

consequence. These statistics are fundamental to the distribution of funds and the

creation of social policy, which in turn shape the development of mental health initiatives,

the availability of services, and the possibility of safety for disenfranchised populations.

Who the "Appropriate" Victims Are and the Denial of Victimization

Family therapy, theory, and interventions are dedicated to aiding all victims and

perpetrators of battering. Yet do our theories, most often written in neutral universal

language, illuminate the experiences of all touched by domestic violence, or do they

unintentionally force those whose experiences differ from the mainstream to the margins?

As therapists, can we be free from socially constructed stereotypes of racial and

ethnic groups, or of who batters and who is battered? The intersection of race, class,

sexual orientation, and gendered violence often influences whom therapists define

as "real" or "appropriate" victims, which implicitly denies the victimization of

others. These definitions also inform social policy and informal practices.

First, victimization can be denied by rendering it invisible or undescribed. For

example, in labeling all batterers "he" and all victims "she," lesbian and gay battering

disappear (Letellier, 1994), as does husband abuse. Social action strategies often

focus on white, middle-class women in efforts to challenge stereotypes of poor, minority,

battered women. These strategies not only draw attention to the plight of all women

but can unwittingly defocus concern from poor women of color who remain unseen or

defined as dehumanized Other and undeserving of services (Crenshaw, 1994). In focusing

on domestic violence within the socially legitimated form of marriage, silence exists

concerning evidence that the prevalence of domestic violence is higher among cohabiting

or unmarried couples (Browne, 1995; Browne & Williams, 1993; HoltzworthMunroe et

al., 1997).

Victimization can also be denied when social stereotypes are employed to neutralize

or obscure the presence of human suffering (Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1993). For example,

gay men are often not diagnosed as battered because men are not defined as victims,

because the gay relationship is judged as neither intimate nor legitimate, or because

of assumptions that homosexual domestic violence is a fight between equals (Letellier,

1994).

However, preconditions for defining violence as mutual include the equal size of

the combatants, equal training and socialization in the use of violence, equal propensities

to use violence, and equal ability to inflict pain and to instill fear. This suggests

that the sociopsychological and temporal contexts of violence must be examined carefully,

as a distinction must be drawn between "bidirectional" and "mutual" violence (Vivian

& Langhinrichsen-Rohling, 1994). Stereotypes also deprive battered women of care,

justice, and services. Women who fight back are often judged as undeserving of protection

because they violate social definitions of the helpless or passive victim (Kanuha,

1996). Less empathy is afforded battered individuals who are prostitutes, substance

abusers, incarcerated, or HIV positive (Richie, 1996). Typifications of the appropriate

victim are codified in social policy: in some states, domestic violence legal statutes

are written in language that ensures services and protection to heterosexual persons

only.

Victimization is also denied when domestic violence is defined as culturally normal

for groups different from the dominant white culture. Defining domestic violence

as "culturally relative" minimizes the extent of domestic violence in white families;

ignores the complexity of other cultures' values concerning respectful intimate relationships

and conflict resolution (Fry & Bjorkqist, 1997); trivializes the ongoing evolution

of other cultures; may confuse cultural expectations with other social, psychological,

or relational factors; and diverts attention from how oppressive cultural practices

may rigidify in dangerous forms in a context of discrimination by our dominant culture

(Cervantes & Cervantes, 1993; R. Almeida, personal communication). In an analysis

of race and family violence, Hawkins (1987) examines the finding that black men who

murdered their female partners received less punishment than white men. He argues

that this reflects mainstream assumptions and practices about the normality and intractability

of violence among poor black families, the devalued status of black life, and the

perceived dispensibility of lowerclass people of color. As Crenshaw writes in a quote

relevant to the lives of many disenfranchised groups, "le]ven when the facts of our

stories are believed, myths and stereotypes about black women influence whether the

insult and injury we have experienced is relevant or important" (1992, p. 1470).

Real World Consequences of Intersections and Domestic Violence

While discussion of intersectionality may seem abstract, it relates to real and lifethreatening

consequences, as the ramifications of social location reverberate through psyche,

family relations, community support, and institutional response. The trauma of domestic

violence is amplified by further victimization outside of the intimate relationship,

as the psychological consequences of battering may be compounded by the "microaggressions"

of racism, heterosexism, and classism in and out of the reference group (Hardy &

Laszloffy, 1994; Hill & Rothblum, 1996; Kliman, 1994). Efforts to seek safety in

the domestic sphere often entail profound social risks beyond retaliation by the

batterer. Individuals may have internalized ideologies antithetical to disclosure

of violence or to help seeking, such as a Vietnamese woman taught that saving face

and family unity preempt individual safety (Lee, 1997) or a gay man who believes

that his physical retaliation for his abuse makes him a batterer rather than a victim

(Letellier, 1994).

Since Jews tend to be seen as a model minority free from domestic violence, the Jewish

battered woman may be constrained by her community from going public for fears of

tarnishing the Jewish image and inviting anti-Semitism. Kosher shelters are rare,

and as she grapples with domestic violence itself, she must also decide whether to

honor herself as a woman deserving of safety or as a Jew, as if she is not both.

Disenfranchised groups such as Palestinians in Israel (Haj-Yahia, 1996) or Catholics

in Protestant Northern Ireland (Cullen, 1997) may be forced to seek safety from individuals

who are enemies in political contexts. As a member of several devalued identities,

a dark-skinned, black, battered lesbian may fear that naming her battering will subject

her partner to racist reaction from mainstream culture, confirm stereotypes of blacks

as violent, expose her to skin color biases within her social group, and alienate

her from the community that provides protection from a prejudiced society (Comas-Diaz,

1994; Kanuha, 1990, 1996).

Simultaneously, because of external and internalized homophobia in and out of her

community, she may feel pressured to deny the abuse to protect herself from being

outed, to maintain the image of a successful lesbian relationship, or to minimize

significant risk because of the lack of legal protection around issues such as child

custody (Almeida et al., 1994; Rasche, 1995; Robson, 1995).

Victims may sometimes employ certain intersections and social stereotypes to buy

freedom. A gay man who is closeted or light-skinned individuals may be able to pass

and so obtain services or privileges that would be otherwise denied them, but at

the cost of defining themselves deceptively (Almeida, 1993; Almeida et al., 1994).

Incarcerated, black, battered women are tutored not to mention their children in

court to avoid confirming stereotypes of the welfare mother, while incarcerated,

white, battered women are taught to weep about their children to capitalize on images

of conventional white motherhood (Richie, 1996). In the service of safety, the conscious

manipulation of images fundamentally estranges the battered individual from the truths

and integrity of his or her life, a poignant repetition of dynamics often experienced

with the batterer. As Crenshaw writes, "To speak, one risks the censure of one's

closest allies. To remain silent renders one continually vulnerable to the kinds

of abuse heaped upon people who have no voice" (1992, p. 1472).

Furthermore, when certain groups are not deemed "legitimate" victims, services may

be scarce or nonexistent, and access to and the nature of available services may

be strongly influenced by social location. There are few services for battered husbands,

and responses to female heterosexual batterers may be insensitive to the woman's

own victimization (Hamberger & Potente, 1997). Programs for gay and lesbian batterers

and their victims may not be funded in some states because sodomy is still considered

a crime, and public hate crimes, much less domestic violence, remain unaddressed.

Many clinics do not have bilingual services, severely hindering non-English speaking

women from obtaining safety. A disproportionate percentage of court-referred batterers

in urban areas are men of color, but there are few racially specific programs with

experienced minority staff (Gondolf, 1997; Williams, 1994; Williams & Becker, 1994).

In efforts to bridge cultural gaps, minority clients are assigned to inexperienced

paraprofessionals of their own culture, who themselves lack power in institutional

systems.

Social service providers may respond to different kinds of victims in frankly punitive

and discriminatory ways. While sometimes this is intentional, often service providers

enact the prejudicial and unintended consequences of well-meaning social, legal,

or clinical policy. Some battered women advocates report that judges have asked the

batterer to interpret for the non-English speaking battered woman; more progressive

judges have refused to proceed legally in the absence of a neutral interpreter, thus

denying the women services. Battered women can lose custody of their children once

it is learned that children have witnessed domestic violence, and children have been

remanded to the care of the batterer, who appears to offer a more stable home than

the mother does once she flees to shelter (Geffner, 1997). Some shelters do not permit

adolescent boys. A battered woman must choose between not seeking safety for herself

or leaving sons at home, opening herself to charges of desertion. Crenshaw (1994)

describes how immigration policy unintentionally trapped battered women with their

abusers when a ruling decreed that length of marriage was one of the preconditions

for legal papers. After outcry from the battered women's movement, the policy was

amended so that exceptions to cohabitation were made upon testimony by social service

personnel. But because of cultural and linguistic barriers, women most vulnerable

to abuse (such as immigrants or undocumented refugees) often lack access to services

necessary for that protection.

The formal presence of legal and social services may not reflect their actual accessibility

or availability, which may be a function of cultural, racial, or economic privilege.

A review of 176 medical records of suicide attempts at a New Haven hospital found

that onethird of all battered women attempted suicide on the same day that they visited

the hospital with injuries attributable to the abuse, and, in contrast to nonbattered

women who attempted suicide, the battered women were more often sent home and/or

received no mental health referral (Stark & Flitcraft, 1995). The authors suggest

that battering may be the single most important cause of female suicidality, especially

among black or pregnant women, and that "[t]he very problems caused by social inequalities

based on sex, class, race, sexual orientation, or age propel women to seek help from

a system that reproduces and stabilizes those inequalities" (Stark & Flitcraft, 1995,

p. 58).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

This article argues that domestic violence does not have a singular impact on all

families. Not only do different patterns of domestic violence have different consequences

for different families, intersectionality asks us to integrate into theory and practice

the simple recognition that, for many families, domestic violence is not the only

or primary violence shaping family life. Intersectionality also requires that we

develop theories that go beyond single-factor descriptions of domestic violence,

such as gender inequality.

Intersectionalities and asymmetries are quite complex. Individuals may or may not

differ on dimensions including but not limited to gender, size, class position, culture,

disability, skin color, age, the use of violence, and race. These intersections shape

meaning systems and concrete avenues for escape. As new theories and techniques are

developed, models and practices must be anchored in descriptions of the contexts

in which they were developed and the populations that they are intended to serve.

Rather than assuming their universal applicability, it is crucial to ask: Who is

excluded and why (Kanuha, 1996)? Until recently, family therapy theories have tended

to give an incomplete picture of how domestic violence develops between individuals,

how it is situated in the lives of individuals at risk for violence and oppression

of many sorts, and how external ongoing objective dimensions of situations shape

the nature and character of individual experiences of and responses to domestic violence

(Stark & Flitcraft, 1988). Domestic violence poses a fundamental question still being

debated by marital and family therapists: "Is the problem of wife abuse so philosophically

and topographically distinct from other marital problems that one must dismiss systemic

explanations of behavior" (Margolin & Burman, 1993, p.60)? Similarly, the beginning

study of the diverse social contexts of battered individuals and their partners leads

to the question: Can present theories and practices encompass intersectionalities

without significant modification, or must we more radically expand current ideas

and interventions?

While answers to these questions await future experimentation and insights, some

family therapists are already creatively addressing these concerns. However, they

are not yet employing the construct of intersectionality, which I suggest is a useful

tool for capturing some of the complexity and layers of domestic violence. As earlier

interactional models of domestic violence are being replaced, two somewhat divergent

models of intervention seem to be emerging in marital and family therapy. One is

based on the stance that theoretical lenses that seem to be logically contradictory

can be simultaneously held in view as the therapist takes a "both/and" position (Goldner,

1990; Goldner, Penn, Sheinberg, & Walker, 1990). Criminal, psychodynamic, feminist,

and interactional stances all give partial pictures of domestic violence. The therapist

tries to enhance flexibility by shifting between lenses-and, at times, layering them-in

order to bring to light, language, and understanding the many levels of domestic

violence. Although not neutral regarding the use of violence, the therapist tries

to create a space separate from the legal and criminal structures. In contrast, another

approach focuses more on asymmetries as a primary condition for why a man uses violence

against his partner and focuses as well on the asymmetries that violence creates

and sustains. In this model, the therapist takes a stronger position to counterbalance

asymmetries and inequalities and often explicitly sequences when levels of asymmetries

and violence are addressed in treatment (Jory, Anderson, & Greer, 1997; Vivian &

Heyman, 1996). For example, Almeida et al., (1994) and Almeida, Woods, Messineo,

and Font (1998) begin with the premise that family therapists must start their analysis

and treatment of domestic violence at the sociopolitical level and move to the interior

of the family. This group dramatically expands therapeutic possibilities by intervening

in relevant communities, addressing multiple oppressions while confronting personal

responsibility, and creating public structures of accountability to address how mainstream

social institutions may not provide safety for women and the disenfranchised (Almeida

& Bograd, 1991). Some of the differences between these emerging models are significant

concerning therapeutic stance and positioning, clinical technique, and the nature

of advocacy and coordination with other larger systems pertinent to batterers and

their families. Care must be taken not to polarize frameworks still in development,

however, since no outcome research suggests the efficacy of one over the other, and

since they may be applicable to somewhat different treatment populations. Their differences

also provide fertile ground for theory development.

>From my perspective, one of the most critical and provocative areas for future theory

development is the degree and nature of human choices in contexts of violence at

the personal and social levels. Somewhat broadly speaking, two positions have typified

popular ideas about responsiblity and domestic violence: (1) both parties are equally

responsible for the violence; and (2) the perpetrator is unilaterally responsible.

Similarly, popular concepts of agency (acting for oneself) and victimization tend

to assume that one capacity exists in the absence of the other (Kanuha, 1996). Again,

approaches to personal choice in oppressive social contexts have tended to rest on

the premise either that all individuals can create safe lives or that the disenfranchised

are helpless victims in an unresponsive and unchanging hostile world.

Family therapists have begun to create paths through simplified descriptions of victim

and victimizer, accountability and loss of control. In clinical practice, this can

take the form of either exploring the choices abusive men make as they experience

themselves as being out of control or constructing therapeutic agendas in which the

abuser takes responsibility for his behavior and the partner takes responsibility

for her self-protection (Jenkins, 1990). Controversial though it is, it is important

to clarify the victim's responsibility, which may be enhanced by developing notions

of relative responsibility. A focus on a victim's responsibility may help him or

her to examine when he or she has not made selfprotective choices, can teach active

strategies of resistance, and can challenge the passivity which is often a consequence

of abuse (Lamb, 1996). Such ideas may clarify, for example, how to intervene with

perpetrators who are victims (a batterer who was him- or herself an abused child)

and victims who themselves perpetrate (as when battered women abuse their children).

However, it is crucial that theoretical ideas of responsibility be linked to those

of constraint (Dell, 1989; Serra, 1993). The allocation of responsibility to recipients

of violence becomes victim blaming when formulations do not include how the true

threat of danger limits choice, how adaptations to living with violence may compromise

internal integrity, and how social location profoundly restricts paths to safety.

Even as there is a range of batterers, victims are coerced to varying degrees and

have had varied opportunities to take action (Lamb, 1996). Some victims make the

only choices possible due to constraints on many levels. When therapists ignore or

minimize these constraints, the victims' behavior is often labeled dysfunctional

and not understood as necessary adaptations to circumstances (Almeida et al., 1998).

In these contexts, "therapists need to be aware that what initially appears to be

resistance or denial in survivors may actually reflect coping styles related to experiences

of class, race, and gender oppression" (McNair & Neville, 1996, p. 116). Victims

do not create crises, but some have the power to ameliorate them, within limits.

In a quote that can be generalized to victims of both genders, "fw]here possible,

we should build on the limited control women are already exercising in contexts that

allow for little or no control" (Stark & Flitcraft, 1988, p. 146).

The framework of intersectionality can provide a map through this tangled context.

Richie (1996) demonstrates the power of this approach through an analysis of how

black and white incarcerated battered women have been differently entrapped in their

lives. She examines intersectionality at the multiple and interactive levels of gender

identity, familyof-origin experiences, internalized gender roles and expectations,

intimate relationships, biased institutional practices, and hierarchical institutional

arrangements based on race, class, and ethnicity. Her illuminating book demonstrates:

(1) abuse is constituted, experienced, and addressed by intersectionalities that

shape psyche, interpersonal experiences, family relationships, community location,

and social value; (2) safety for individuals experiencing abuse from intimates is

severely constrained by social location and its impact on internal experience as

well as on avenues of escape; (3) within a context of constraints, individuals make

rational choices in efforts to optimize protection, although these choices may be

compromising intrapsychically, interpersonally, and legally; (4) the actions of victims,

maladaptive in some contexts, derive from resistance to domination and efforts to

achieve autonomy; and (5) efforts to obtain help may be misread or punished in ways

that confirm the ongoing abuse and reinforce behaviors, such as compliance and self-blame,

that increase vulnerability to violence.

Moral responsibility is not a question that can be decided by fiat, but one that

must be examined in context. Examining the responsibility of victims need not entail

lessening the perpetrators' responsibilities, but family therapy concepts may need

to be expanded to make this possible. Most critically, given the evidence that mental

health institutions can play a pivotal, if unintended, role in maintaining patterns

of abuse, the framework of intersectionality compels therapists to examine how professional

and personal responsibility resides in our offices and goes beyond them.

It is incumbent upon those of us in the field who already have power and prestige

to shoulder the responsibility of expanding our models, examining our practices,

and giving voice to those who are silenced among us. This cannot be done without

fear and discouragement, as those of us who live in safe contexts experience the

risks of speaking out, and as we understand more clearly how in the lives of the

invisible, the marginal and the disenfranchised, every move toward safety entails

risk and may intensify danger. It is sobering and distressing to realize that although

anti-domestic violence work has promoted greater safety for some individuals, many

remain in a position as dangerous and vulnerable as ever (Richie, 1996). The words

of the Jewish Talmud remind us, "It is not your job to finish the work, but you are

not free to walk away from it."

-1-

Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com

Publication Information:

Article Title: Strengthening Domestic Violence Theories: Intersections of Race, Class,

Sexual Orientation, and Gender. Contributors: Michele Bograd - author. Journal Title:

Journal of Marital and Family Therapy. Volume: 25. Issue: 3. Publication Year: 1999.

Page Number: 275+. © 1999 American Association for Marriage and Family Therapy. Provided

by ProQuest LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Next Page

Jessie Rayl
EM: thedogmom63 at frontier.com
PH:304.671.9780
www.facebook.com/eaglewings10

"But they that wait upon the LORD shall renew their strength; they shall
mount up with wings as eagles. They shall run, and not be weary"--Isaiah 40.31
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.acb.org/pipermail/acb-hsp/attachments/20110725/7c1b8536/attachment-0001.html>