“I want a twenty-four-hour truce, during which no rapes will occur,” — these words of Andrea Dworkin make us think about the mundaneness of gender-based violence. Can her dream come true and, if so, when will it happen? In this text, we will try to understand the causes of violence against women. What is the basis of violence? What should be the feminist opposition to violence? And feminist psychotherapy for victims of violence? More on this and other things later in this text.
Theories about violence
A certain phenomenon can only be eradicated by understanding its essence. Researchers from various disciplines (sociology, psychology, criminology, philosophy, etc.) have repeatedly turned to studying the root causes of violence.
Sociology, cultural studies, philosophy, research on power and ideology
The two most famous sociological experiments of the 20th century are connected precisely with the topic of violent behavior. The first is the Milgram experiment: its participants shocked actors with an electric shock, the strength of which was gradually increased, the percentage of refusal and the duration of “passing” were measured. Although there are critical remarks about this experiment (the participants could predict that they would not be allowed to experiment with real violence, and could consider themselves participants in a prank), the results of the experiment shocked both the public and the researcher himself. A similar one is the Stanford prison experiment, in which a prison was simulated, and volunteers played the role of jailers. In both cases, the actual subject of the study was the violent behavior of the participants in the experiment, and both times the following conclusions were made: the situation set by the experimenter, which inclines the subject to commit violence, affects the behavior of the individual more than his personal qualities. These experiments were a kind of breakthrough in understanding the topic, because until then the problem of violence was considered from a moralistic position, as a manifestation of some malignancy of the individual who commits this violence.
In the further development of Western sociological and philosophical thought, the works of Louis Althusser are important, who contributed to the theory of the concept of “ideology”. In the context of the topic of violence, we are interested in his statement that any power apparatus and its practices always materially embody some system of ideas, and therefore, the system of power relations and the set of ideas in the minds of individuals who belong to this system of relations do not exist separately from each other, but on the contrary, they are directly related.
Later, sociologist Johan Galtung introduced the concept of “structural violence”, distinguishing it from “personal” by the absence of a subject who commits violence, instead its causes are structural (economic or political). This does not necessarily have to be a targeted oppression through the imposition of unjust rules – structural violence can be a consequence of the general imperfection of the system of relations. A category of the population that systematically suffers from hunger and disease is a victim of structural violence.
This same approach is implemented in the classic works on the sociology of violence – the studies of Michel Foucault. Considering power as something inherent not only to certain social institutions, but also rooted in the minds of members of society, Foucault shifts the emphasis from subjects who exercise power over certain objects to the social relations themselves, which are the bearers of power. Foucault writes about prisons and hospitals as institutions that exercise power and punishment, and notes that these models are internalized by the consciousness of the punished or patient, and that the very notions of norm and abnormality are conditioned by the social context. In particular, at the Salpêtrière hospital, he says, it was common to observe insane women who “in none of the periods of their illness showed any distortion of the ability to understand and were possessed only by a peculiar instinct of violence, as if only their emotional faculties were affected.”[1] This quote vividly illustrates the patriarchal prohibition on women from resisting and generally showing any aggression. Similarly, Pierre Bourdieu introduced the concept of symbolic violence as an attribute of power[2] — the latter imposes meanings that are beneficial to it on the subjugated. Thus, the system of power relations is perceived as legitimate and is not perceived as such that it can be changed.
Thus, violence in modern sociology and political philosophy is considered as a systemic phenomenon, one of the sources of which is social relations. All these theoretical approaches are easily applied to the concept of patriarchy and gender-based violence as its indispensable component. Overcoming patriarchy and moving to a feminist utopia without violence and discrimination is possible if we realize how this system of violence is constructed.
One of the latest sociological works is “Violence: A Micro-Sociological Theory” by Randall Collins. In this fundamental work, the author examines the micro-level of more than thirty different types of violence, including domestic violence, and analyzes the scenarios in which conflicts occur. Among the forms of partner violence, Collins distinguishes short-term gender-symmetrical violence and long-term male-dominated violence.
“The difference between casual intimate partner violence and serious abusive relationships is that the former type of confrontation is directed towards protected, limited violence; whereas the latter develops into a pattern of situational tension and sudden release of tension, leading to violent over-acceleration of panic or prolonged use of torture.”[3]
Psychology
The structure of social relations does not deprive the individual of free will, and behind each act of violence lies the responsibility of an adult capable person. Therefore, it is important to consider not only the structural, but also the individual level of violence. Psychological research throughout the existence of this science has sought keys to understanding the behavior of victims and aggressors.
The study of “female hysteria” and the very concept of psychotherapeutic work with psychological problems arose in the 19th century in the works of Jean-Martin Charcot, and then Sigmund Freud[4]. The latter established a connection between childhood psychological trauma and psychological problems in adulthood. However, it is believed that he could not believe the scale of sexual violence against children and women that he discovered, so he renounced his previous theories, and the new explanations he proposed were unsuccessful. However, the work of Freud and his followers laid the foundation for healing psychological difficulties, and psychotherapy emerged and became an increasingly accessible service.
A patient of Freud’s colleague Josef Breuer, Anna O. (Bertha Pappenheim), was a prominent activist of her time. Her personal resistance to the violence she experienced turned into a long-term political struggle against the abuse of women and girls, and she founded shelters and feminist organizations.[5] From the mid-twentieth century, psychoanalysis began to acquire a feminist dimension. Notable here are Nancy Chodorow, who in her study “The Reproduction of Motherhood” analyzes the mechanism of reproduction of gender-role differences in Western society, and Juliet Mitchell, whose work “Psychoanalysis and Feminism” radically reevaluated the classical version of psychoanalysis.
Among the modern psychological theories, the most interesting in the context of violence, it is worth mentioning the conclusion that the behavior of the aggressor or the victim can be similar and repetitive. Eric Berne’s research indicates that one of the prerequisites for the repetition of a certain situation (not necessarily violent) is scripted behavior, that is, one that is reproduced according to the same scenario with different people. Knowledge of this reproducibility has brought to psychotherapy the opportunity for the client to get out of the scenario and form new, more constructive ways of behaving. This concept is further developed by the concept of the Karpman triangle – a psychological and social model of human interaction, which assumes that there are three roles in the system of relationships: “Victim”, “Persecutor” and “Rescuer”, and they dynamically replace each other (more on this later)[6].
Psychologists began to examine the topic of violence and its consequences more closely during and after the Vietnam War, which coincided with the second wave of feminism. Feminists also redefined rape as an act of violence and political control, and surveys have shown the enormous scale of its prevalence.[7] Notable works on this topic include Judith Herman’s books Trauma and the Road to Recovery and Parent-Daughter Incest. They are based on the author’s long-standing work with victims of sexual and domestic violence and present the theory of psychological trauma and the practice of trauma psychotherapy from a feminist perspective. Psychologist Lundy Bancroft, in his book Why He Does It, summarizes his work with men who commit domestic violence. In his view, the problem lies primarily with men and it is they who are responsible for ending domestic violence. The humiliation of a partner, writes Bancroft, is not the result of the dynamics of the relationship, and changing her behavior or trying to better understand her partner does not lead to changes for the better. He insists that in this case it is men who need to adjust, and not their emotions, but their behavior and value system.[8] Michael Kaufman agrees, introducing the concept of the triad of male violence as a set of violence against women, violence against men and violence against themselves. Kaufman recognizes aggression as a toxic part of masculinity, built into the structure of the male psyche by society and upbringing, and suggests getting rid of it.[9]
Robin Norwood’s book “Women Who Love Too Much” also gained popularity, although it eventually earned a negative reputation among feminists as one that (along with the activities of the author’s support group) caused malignant changes in the lives of affected women.[10] Norwood recognizes the prevalence of the problem of violence and saw its causes in the psyche of women, who, in her opinion, are too dependent on men. The self-help program, developed on the basis of the “twelve steps” program of the Alcoholics Anonymous movement, proposed to change only one’s own perception of oneself as a victim. However, a man, unlike a bottle, is a subject, not an object, ignoring his responsibility for violence and refusing to actively try to demand better treatment from him is not an adequate response to the problem. The woman who attended Norwood’s self-help program remained passive as before, but now she was also strengthened in this passivity ideologically.
Leave a Reply