Feminist Perspective on Domestic Violence

Domestic violence is defined as violence within intimate relations, where the perpetrator of the violence is an intimate partner of the victim. Such violence can be perpetrated through use of physical force or coercion, although violence in this context is not just characterised as physical violence (Han Almis, Koyuncu Kutuk, Gumustas, & Celik, 2018). Domestic violence can occur in ways that involve the use of mental, emotional, sexual, and psychological force by the perpetrator of the violence. Violence in this sense can also take the form of economic abuse, where the perpetrator may abuse the victim through exercising financial control over the victim (Abramsky, et al., 2011). While domestic violence can victimise both male as well as female partners in an intimate relationship, the higher incidence of the phenomenon with relation to females is one of the reasons why feminist criminologists have generally explained the concept of domestic violence in terms of the victimisation of women at the hands of men (Groves & Thomas, 2013). This essay will first discuss the early framework of the feminist approach to domestic violence as a problem rooted in patriarchy, then the essay will discuss how this approach within feminism itself gave way to intersectional approach to domestic violence as well as a postmodernist feminist approach that looks at the problem not just from a gender perspective. The essay discusses the different strands of feminist perspectives of domestic violence, including, radical, social and postmodernist.

The misuse and abuse of power and control by the perpetrators and marginalisation of women leading to greater incidence of abuse against them, are the central tenets of feminist perspective of domestic violence (Carter, 2015). In this context, feminist theorists views the problem from the prism of the patriarchal systems prevalent in the society with men having more power and control in families and the broader society (Carter, 2015). The Second Wave of feminist theory, generally located between the 1960s to 1980s feminist literature and movement, was the time of radical feminism. The approach to domestic violence within this period was focussed on the social, cultural and political inequalities between men and women with the conflation between the personal and political (Carrington, 2002). In this context, feminist criminology is concerned with the link between the structural oppression of women, gender inequality and crime (Carrington, 2002). In the context of domestic violence as a crime, feminist criminologists working in this approach would argue that as compared to men, there are very few women who would be involved in the victimisation of their partner through domestic violence (Carrington, 2002).

At the same time, the feminist perspective on domestic violence also emphasised on the need to bring something that had thus far been in the private domain into the public domain, especially with respect to criminalisation of domestic violence (Houston, 2014). Prior to the heightened advocacy created by the feminist movement, domestic violence was considered to be a private relationship problem, which was managed through counselling techniques that encouraged the preservation of marital relationships (Houston, 2014). However, feminists brought more attention to the criminal nature of the acts of domestic violence, driving a shift in the discourse from a private to the public domain; as Houston (2014) writes “domestic violence has become, first and foremost, criminal” (p. 218). However, if domestic violence is criminal, then are the perpetrators only men? This is one of the questions that has challenged feminist perspectives on domestic violence. Radical feminists have maintained that the victims of domestic violence are only women and the perpetrators only men, because the core of their theory is based on the structural and systemic gender inequality and patriarchy, which leads to the victimisation of women. However, by doing so, they have not been able to include within their theory, the victimisation of women in lesbian relationships as well as the victimisation of men in both heterosexual and homosexual relationships (George & Stith, 2014). Men too can be victims of domestic violence and domestic violence can also victimise women in lesbian relationships, which has made it necessary for there to be a shift in how domestic violence is viewed within feminist perspectives.

Therefore, while the feminists in the earlier times, particularly radical feminists, viewed domestic violence from the prism of gender, postmodern feminists also focus on the social construction of masculinities and femininities in a social group or culture and the ways in which such constructions contribute to gendered violence (Bagshaw & Chung, 2000). Indeed, Bagshaw and Chung (2000) pointed out how research on domestic violence itself can be conducted within two dominant paradigms. One paradigm is a radical feminist one, wherein research on domestic violence is focussed on the male perpetrator and the patriarchy driven, systemic, and structural nature of domestic violence. The second paradigm is more social oriented where family conditions become the focus of research, and where the researcher does not assume that violence victimises only women (Bagshaw & Chung, 2000). The former approach is gender based and looks at the systemic oppression of women in societies and families dominated by male power and control (Bagshaw & Chung, 2000). The latter approach does not assume such gender bias and focusses on the abuse and violence being part of family conflict. These paradigms have implications for the feminist scholarship. The family oriented approach has been by and large rejected by feminist theorists, particularly those writing from the perspective of the radical approach. The consideration of any factors other than those steeped in patriarchal structures have generally been rejected by the radical feminists as irrelevant to understanding the problem of domestic violence and also formulating responses to the same (Houston, 2014). In this, the radical feminists have been more successful in creating a strong advocacy on legal responses to domestic violence as shall be discussed later in this essay.

At the same time, there are feminists who have tried to bring an intersectional approach to viewing domestic violence as a phenomenon, without falling into the category of a radical, patriarchy oriented approach or a more social, family oriented approach (George & Stith, 2014). The ‘third wave’ feminist position that is taken in the intersectional approach to domestic violence seeks to hold any partner that indulges in victimisation as the perpetrator, to be accountable for the same regardless of their gender (George & Stith, 2014). The third wave intersectional position is based on the premise of social justice, advocates elimination of essentialist practices, rejects patriarchy as the primary cause of domestic violence, and accepts that there can be a variety of explanations for perpetration of domestic violence as well as a number of intervention options that are not necessarily emphasising on the criminal justice system options (George & Stith, 2014). Therefore, this is a more nuanced understanding of feminist theory, which takes a significant departure from radical feminism by taking into account factors of domestic violence that are not just patriarchy driven. In the first place however, it was the radical feminism theory which brought attention to the research on domestic violence, and its impact therefore has been immense and its perspective still forms the predominant approach to domestic violence within the field of feminism (Carrington, 2002).

The awareness and advocacy around domestic violence was first created through the feminist movement of the 1970s in the Western countries (Groves & Thomas, 2013). This movement was instrumental in bringing attention to domestic violence as a social problem that required legal solutions. At this point, feminist criminologists explored how domestic violence was a social problem that could be traced back to the patriarchal structures of the societies and how responses from the criminal justice system were needed to address the problem of domestic violence (Groves & Thomas, 2013). The advocacy on these responses was framed on the premise that women were the only victims of domestic violence (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). This is one of the earlier aspects of the feminist criminology’s focus on the domestic violence. Indeed, since the 1970s, this has been the predominant theoretical model in the field of domestic violence research, which has led to the development of programmes, interventions, advocacy efforts, and even agenda for legislation (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). Indeed, Houston (2014) writes that the “shift in domestic violence response from private to public is a feminist accomplishment” (p. 219). Therefore, the achievement of the radical second wave feminism movement is that it has managed to bring the issue of domestic violence into the mainstream of law and policy making. However, there are now questions on how far the patriarchy oriented approach to explanation for domestic violence is appropriate in the current time.

As mentioned above, the dominant perspective within the early feminist theory was based on the premise that domestic violence primarily victimises women and is the result of male oppression of women within a patriarchal system. Patriarchy has been described as the “power of the fathers” (Kesselman, McNair, & Schniedewind, 2008, p. 10). For the radical feminists, patriarchy forms “the grand narrative that influences us all, often invisibly” (Dickerson, 2013, p. 102). The influence of patriarchy was therefore not just felt within the families and the wider societies, but also the legal system, including the police and the criminal justice system (Dickerson, 2013). The dominant feminist perspective on domestic violence is informed by this emphasis on patriarchal social structure, has been offered as the primary explanation of domestic violence (Winstock, 2013). As this perspective did not take into account the fact that men too can be victimised by domestic violence, both within heterosexual and homosexual relationships and that women in lesbian relationships too can be perpetrators of domestic violence, there has been criticism of this viewpoint (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). This criticism was also found in the work of those writing in feminist theory domain, which evidences the fact that within feminist perspective itself, there are multiple perspectives on domestic violence (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007).

Thus, responses to the criticism against the predominant theory on domestic violence were made through the later developments in the feminism movement itself, which sought to explore the impacts of intersectionality of gender with race, class, ethnicity, and sexual orientation on the gendering of violence. In contrast, the early feminist perspective was focussed on gender as the primary category of analysis. The proliferation of feminist theory amongst diverse groups of feminist writers, is responsible in part for the shift in feminist perspective on domestic violence, which has come to recognise the intersections between gender and other systems of oppression, such as race and class (Collins, 2000); and sexual orientation and same-sex partner violence (Renzetti, 1997). Collins (2000) argues that there are multiple systems of oppression and therefore, oppression cannot be explained only in the context of gender; black women for example face oppression in the intersectionality of race, gender, and class, which cannot be generalised with comparison with how white women face oppression. Discover additional insights on The United Kingdom Biased Policing Culture by navigating to our other resources hub.

Within feminist perspective itself, there has therefore been a split between those who look at domestic violence solely from the prism of gender and those who have integrated other intersections within the theory. Nevertheless, the predominant feminist view remains that which is focussed on the themes of patriarchy and control as the major factors for domestic violence against women victims by their male partners (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). In particular, radical feminist theorists have been involved in exploring themes of patriarchy and the impact of the social system that is engendered by patriarchy on the social values and the position and status of the woman (Price & Shildrick, 2017). The social values also drive attitudes towards domestic violence against women (Price & Shildrick, 2017). Patriarchy, according to radical feminist theorists and criminologists influences male attitudes towards women and normalises the acceptance of male oppression of women (Price and Shildrick, 2017). In other words, patriarchal cultures and structures are blamed by feminist criminologists for creating or perpetuating conditions in which women are subjected to domestic violence (Price & Shildrick, 2017). Radical feminist perspectives have also been held to be more or less responsible for guiding policy making on domestic violence by governments (DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2007). Feminists who may not align themselves with the radical perspective may not support the use of criminal justice intervention for every case of domestic violence as their perspectives involve the consideration of how broader social forces also contribute to the problem of domestic violence, which may not be appropriately responded to by harsh law-and-order initiatives in all cases (DeKeseredy & Dragiewicz, 2007).

Socialist feminists therefore, consider the broader social factors that engender violent behaviour in intimate relations and how the interactions between gender-based inequalities and class-based inequalities may also lead to the perpetuation of domestic violence. In one respect both socialist and radical feminism perspectives are the same, that is, both consider it important that patriarchy as a system needs to come to an end so that the control and power that men exercise over women also ceases to exist; they both argue that equal gender relations in society are necessary for the purpose of responding to domestic violence (Ugwudike, 2015, 154). Still, there are some significant differences in the approaches to domestic violence. For example, within criminology, the approach of considering the factors that may lead to victimisation, including victim precipitation theory, has been criticised by radical feminists in the context of domestic violence. The victim precipitation theory considers the reasons for victimisation, which may also include the vulnerabilities in the victims themselves, which leads to victimisation (Ugwudike, 2015; Fisher & Lab, 2010). Thus, the exploration of factors that may be related to ‘Lifestyle exposure’ and ‘Routine activities’ may be done to determine the reasons for victimisation (Fisher & Lab, 2010). Feminist criminologists have objected to victim precipitation approach for female related crimes because they consider that this unfairly brings the focus from the perpetrator to the victim (Ugwudike, 2015, p. 142). In the context of family research approach to domestic violence, the objections of radical feminists would be that this approach is unfairly focused on the conflicts within the family and not the patriarchal structures, the latter of which according to them is the real factor responsible for domestic violence (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007).

One of the most important connections between feminist theory and domestic violence is in the effect that the former had on the law and policy responses in the domain of domestic violence (Houston, 2014). Feminist criminologists have been concerned with the ways in which the problem of domestic violence is responded to in the law, noting that patriarchy leads to the structuring of laws and legislations in modern societies with an emphasis on patriarchal attitudes (Carter, 2015). Because law is part of the patriarchal structuring of social systems in the society, feminists argue that law itself can be used to perpetuate power relations between men and women (Carter, 2015). This perspective on domestic violence has had a significant impact on the way advocacy was used to create criminal justice responses for domestic violence (Houston, 2014). The result of the impact of radical feminism has been that there has been an intense criminalisation of domestic violence based on the radical feminist understanding of domestic violence as a form of patriarchal force, which not only led to the rejection of alternative theories of domestic violence, such as those linked to family research, but also an adoption of mandatory criminal justice intervention (Houston, 2014). This has been a drawback of the radical feminist approach as it has been unable to prevent criticism on its narrower way of explaining domestic violence (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, & Rice, 2007). The nuanced third wave feminist perspective fills that gap in feminist approach by allowing different and diverse experiences to be used as explanation of domestic violence and to also respond to domestic violence from a non- criminal justice oriented perspective. Feminists who use intersectionality to explain domestic violence, argue that there are different options, including non-criminal ones, that can be used to respond to domestic violence (Houston, 2014).

To conclude, feminist perspectives on domestic violence have largely been driven by a radical feminist framework which emphasises on the gender based causes of domestic violence. This approach has been the most dominant not only within feminist literature, but also in the way literature and feminist movement has dominated the policy and law making within the criminal justice system. This is not to say that this is the sole perspective on domestic violence within the feminist theory field. A third wave of feminist literature has focused on diverse experience of oppression and the relevance of intersections in the experience of domestic violence. Contrary to the radical feminists, this group has sought to bring a nuanced approach to both the explanation of domestic violence as well as the responses to the same. Therefore, unlike the radical feminists, the third wave feminists who consider intersectionality as an important factor for explaining domestic violence, do not deny the incidence of domestic violence in lesbian and same sex relationships, do not deny the fact that men can also be victims of domestic violence and do not deny the relevance of factors other than gender that can be used for explaining domestic violence. It can be said that the nuanced approach to explaining domestic violence, while within the framework of oppression, lends more strength to the feminist perspectives on domestic violence. While the radical feminist movement was instrumental in bringing domestic violence into the public domain, including for the purposes of criminal law, the nuanced and intersectionality oriented approach has allowed consideration of different factors that can give rise to domestic violence.

Bibliography

Abramsky, T., Watts, C., Garcia-Moreno, C., Devries, K., Kiss, L., Ellsberg, M., . . . Heise, L.

(2011). What factors are associated with recent intimate partner violence? findings from the WHO multi-country study on women's health and domestic violence. World Health Organisation.

Bagshaw, D., & Chung, D. (2000). Women, men and domestic violence. Canberra: Partnerships Against Domestic Violence.

Carrington, K. (2002). Feminism and Critical Criminology: Confronting Genealogies. In K. Carrington, & R. Hogg, Critical Criminology: Issues, Debates, Challenges (pp. 114-137). Devon: Willan Publishing.

Carter, J. (2015). Patriarchy and violence against women and girls. The Lancet, 385(9978), e40-e41.

Collins, P. H. (2000). Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment . New York: Routledge.

DeKeseredy, W. S., & Dragiewicz, M. (2007). Understanding the complexities of feminist perspectives on woman abuse: A commentary on Donald G. Dutton's Rethinking domestic violence. Violence against women, 13(8), 874-884.

Dickerson, V. (2013). Patriarchy, power, and privilege: A narrative/poststructural view of work with couples. Family Process, 52(1), 102-114.

Fisher, B., & Lab, S. (2010). Encyclopedia of Victimology and Crime Prevention. New York: Sage Publications.

George, J., & Stith, S. M. (2014). An updated feminist view of intimate partner violence. Family Process, 53(2), 179-193.

Groves, N., & Thomas, T. (2013). Domestic violence and criminal justice . Oxon: Routledge.

Han Almis, B., Koyuncu Kutuk, E., Gumustas, F., & Celik, M. (2018). Risk Factors For Domestic Violence In Women And Predictors Of Development Of Mental Disorders In These Women. Archives of Neuropsychiatry.

Houston, C. (2014). How feminist theory became (criminal) law: Tracing the path to mandatory criminal intervention in domestic violence cases. Mich. J. Gender & L., 21, 217.

Kesselman, A., McNair, L. D., & Schniedewind, N. (2008). Women: Images and realities. A multicultural anthology . Boston : McGraw-Hill.

McPhail, B. A., Busch, N. B., Kulkarni, S., & Rice, G. (2007). An integrative feminist model: The evolving feminist perspective on intimate partner violence. Violence against women, 13(8), 817-841.

Price, J., & Shildrick, M. (2017). Feminist Theory and the Body.

Renzetti, C. M. (1997). Violence in lesbian and gay relationships. In L. L. O’Toole, & J. R. Schiffman, Gender violence: Inter- disciplinary perspectives (pp. 230–266). New York: New York University.

Ugwudike, P. (2015). An Introduction to critical criminology . Bristol: Policy Press.

Winstock, Z. (2013). What can we learn from the controversy over the role of gender in partner violence? Partner Abuse, 4(3), 399-412.