Intimate Partner Violence - Term Paper Example

?Running head: INTIMATE PARTNER VIOLENCE Intimate Partner Violence (Domestic Violence) Domestic violence is a widely discussed topic in the contemporary world. Numerous studies have been conducted on Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) and how it evolved into a social problem. The social constructionist perspective of claims, claim-makers and claim-making are adopted in the making of a condition that accounts into a social problem. Claim-makers appeal to their audience who include the general public and politicians. Claims have been made by the concerned parties on IPV, the suggested solutions, traits of the victim and the villain and basis of claim-makers. The power relationship is used to explain the relationship between claim makers. This paper analyzes the use of the constructionist perspective theory in transforming a social condition into a social problem which is IPV. Keywords: IPV (Domestic violence), social constructionist perspective Introduction The number of women being physically abused by their male partners has increased over the years as explained by Barnet, Miller-Perrin and Perrin (2005). The statistics are alarming with most of them sustaining physical injuries or even getting killed. Domestic violence is a prevalent issue globally and measures have been taken to correct this issue (Gordon and Moriarty, 2003). Domestic violence is a broad terminology that covers the different types of violence that occur in the domestic sphere. NYC (2011), states that Intimate Partner Violence (IPV) refers specifically to the coercive behavior or violence in an intimate relationship. It is mainly used by one partner to maintain control and power over the other. The abusive behavior can either be physical, psychological or sexual by a present partner or an ex-partner (NYC, 2011). IPV is common in both same sex and opposite sex relationships. Its impacts are severe and range from health complications, psychological problems and physical injuries. There are different types of IPV which are: sexual which involves kicking, shoving and hitting, sexual which includes rape and forced sexual acts and psychological which involves threats, ridiculing and name calling. Social constructionist perspective on social problems There are different approaches of studying social problems and the social constructionist perspective is one of them as explained by Loseke (2003). Sociologists argue that social conditions develop into social problems through a process referred to as social constructionism as stated by Loseke (2003). Societal reactions are important from this approach and they emerge from the media, religious groups, social organizations just to name but a few. These reactions play a key role in transforming public awareness. Social conditions turn into social problems when the concerned parties are actively involved in raising awareness in the society. This outlook on social problems is significant as it gives a theoretical framework to assist in understanding the discovery, definition and the degree of IPV in the UK and around the globe (Barnet, Miller- Perrin and Perrin, 2005). It also helps to explain the cross-cultural variation in reference to domestic violence and how the debate how evolved over the years. There are important terms that are discussed in relation to this approach. These are claims, claims-making, claims-makers and claims-competitions. The term claim making refers to the actions of individuals or activities of groups making statements and claims or complaints regarding some acknowledged condition (Barnet, Miller- Perrin and Perrin, 2005). In general, this process starts when members of the concerned groups who are in other words known as claim makers express their grievances and consider something as being unacceptable (Barnet, Miller- Perrin and Perrin, 2005). Claims are mainly one sided issues that the claim makers contend against such as drug abuse and domestic violence (Barnet, Miller- Perrin and Perrin, 2005). They comparatively involve unbalanced power on the contending parties. The term claims-competitions refers to as state whereby social problems compete for public attention as stipulated by Loseke (2003). Competing key claims-makers As earlier stated, claim makers refer to people who are mainly involved in the social scene. This varies according to individuals, scientists, professionals, mass media, social workers, scientists, social movement activists and researchers as indicated by Loseke (2003). They share a common primary goal of creating awareness of the social problem by influencing audience to define and respond to it. The term audience refers to different groups of people including the general public, politicians or a segment of the public (Barnet, Miller- Perrin and Perrin, 2005). The views of some audiences are more valued than others for example politicians’ utterances are taken seriously as they may shape the future of a claim while the perceptions of an individual are not regarded that much. The other goal of the claim makers is to recruit new members so as to facilitate the claim making-process. Claims (rhetoric) offered these claims-makers The claim-makers are against IPV based on moral, legal and social grounds. The trend has been on the rise in the UK and other parts of the world. IPV has negative impacts on the victim physically, emotionally and mentally. In the past, many cases have been recorded whereby women die as a result of injuries sustained through domestic violence (Sullivan and Bybee, 1999). This is a clear violation of human rights which is punishable by law (Silverman et al., 2004; Russell and Emerson, 2004). IPV results to fatal mental conditions in adverse situations and no corrective action can be taken for such cases. Victims of IPV exhibit emotional problems such as anxiety, mood swings and depression according to National Institute of Justice (2007). It is morally wrong to inflict pain, torture and suffering on an individual and the claim- makers highly discourage it in intimate relationships. There are some cultures especially in the developing world that support it and the claim-makers are working hard to create awareness in such regions. Claims about morality IPV is considered to be immoral on many grounds. It is wrong to inflict pain on ones partner as it affects them in many ways (Rodriguez, 2001). Most IPV cases show that male partners are the ones who use it to show dominance and power. This is wrong as both partners have equal rights and responsibilities in a relationship. The villains use it as a means of intimidation and this may lead to low self-esteem in the victims (Moran, 2006). In most cases the victims are forced to do things they do not wish to since they are often scared of their partners. Physical abuse has serious implications on ones health and in some instances it has been known to cause death. Murder is among the most serious offenses an individual can commit and this explains why IPV is immoral. Claims about the characteristics of the condition and who is involved as victims and villains IPV involves violence or abuse by an individual against an intimate partner. This shows that that there are two parties involved (the villain and the victim). However, this is different in a family setting where the children may be involved as explained by Silverman (2004). Claims are that the abusers entirely to blame as they choice to lose control and abuse their partners (National Institute of Justice, 2007). This is contrary to common belief that there are other factors leading to one being abusive. People believe that many abusers tend to lose control of their emotions and hence become aggressive (National Institute of Justice, 2007). Some of the men who are abusive tend to be apologetic after an act of domestic violence and vow to never repeat it, the victim will forgive them and a cycle is established (HelpGuide, 2010). A central trait of abusers is that they are dominating. This is because they need to feel in control of the relationship. They expect their partners to obey them and make decision solely. Abusers are humiliating and are always looking for ways to belittle their partners. This may be by verbally abusing their partners through insults, constant criticism and sarcastic comments (National Institute of Justice, 2007). The victims are left feeling worthless and have low self- esteem, they feel that if they leave their abusive partners no one else will want them. Abusers like using threats to scare their partners. They may threaten hurt or kill the individual, their children and their family members if charges are pressed against them. Some abusers threaten to kill their partners then commit suicide and if they make good of their threats the consequences are usually dire. The abusive partners stay in isolation to increase the victims’ dependence on him. The villain may also prevent the victim from attending social gatherings, going to work and visiting friends and family to increase dependence on them. Villains are intimidating to scare the victims into submission. They use threatening gestures, speech and gestures, smash items, display items and hurt pets (National Institute of Justice, 2007). This is to give a demonstration of what will happen if the victim goes against them. The villains blame their abusive behaviour on their past or their environment. On the other hand villains those who are constantly abused may accept that they deserve and work constantly to please the villain. They exhibit low self esteem and lack self confidence (Owusu, 2000). They cannot make their own decisions and always feel inadequate and worthless. The victims always seem to be anxious to obey the villains. They follow the rules set by the victims without any questions. The victims are usually resentful and have bitter feelings towards the villains. The victims feel that they get punished for wrong doing. They tend to be sad and withdrawn owing to the emotional torture inflicted upon them by the villain. In most cases the victims are weaker than the villains hence they are easily physically abused (National Institute of Justice, 2007). The abuse does not stop until the victims decide to get out of the relationship which is the best thing to do. Claims about solutions The solution to IPV lies on all members of society, politicians, activists, social workers and people in all other professions (Russell and Emerson, 2004). It will take the collective action of society in general to win the battle against this social problem that has been in existence for ages. The solutions vary from legal, moral, political, economic and social. The current legal frameworks need to be stricter on abusers. IPV should be highly punishable to deter the abusers. The legal system should also protect the victims by issuing restraining orders against the abusers and also should provide security for the victims (Rodriguez et al., 2001). It is apparent that the abusers are disturbed and they should be visit a psychologist to establish the cause of their abusive behaviour. They should then enrol in counselling programs to control and eventually stop their violent behaviour. The victims are on the receiving end on IPV and they need more help than the abusers. They should be treated for any physical injuries and taken through intensive counselling to help them recover (Sullivan and Bybee, 1999). The society and families should ensure that their children grow in a safe environment and are discouraged from any form of violent activities. Leaders and politicians should openly condemn IPV and the people will follow suit. A major contribution factor to domestic violence is that people tend to act according to the examples and expectations of society. This not withstanding, prevention is better than cure and society should therefore provide learning environments that prevent abuse, role models, economic opportunities and organized programs for youth and families. Domestic violence cannot be fully eradicated but measures have been undertaken to prevent it by establishing safe families, relationships and communities. Audiences to which the claims-makers are appealing The claim- makers aim at convincing the audience to define and respond to domestic violence. They appeal to the general public to take action and put up a spirited fight against domestic violence Loseke, D. R. (2003). They also appeal to the people in abusive relationships (villains and victims) to seek help. The victims are advised to leave abusive relationships for their own safety while legal and corrective action is taken for the villain. The claim makers target the politicians and administrators who are involved in the making laws and policies that determine the handling of domestic abuse cases. The claim- makers focus mainly on the audience that can hugely affect the future of domestic violence mainly politicians and organizations. Claims-makers are appealing to large audiences Claim- makers focus on both large audiences (such as the middle class, active voters, etc.) and very powerful audiences (the rich, big business, large social change groups). However, much emphasis is placed on large audiences as they can attract a high number of people. It is easier to start a project at the grass root level where the masses are then focus on powerful groups later. This is done by creating awareness among the public and the effect is spread to the powerful groups as suggested by Loseke (2003).When it comes to domestic violence, the large audiences are sensitized by the claim- makers and realize the need to change, this attracts the attention of the powerful groups. Claims-makers construct the problem as something with which government should be concerned Claim- makers depict a social problem as something the government should be concerned about (Loseke, 2003). This explains why they appeal to them as they are involved in making policies and legislation in relation to domestic violence and other social problems. They call on every concerned party to work in cohesion in order to deal with domestic violence. IPV is a global concern that is common to all cultures and governments are encouraged to fully participate in fighting it (Owusu, 2000). This leads to the conclusion that claim- makers construct the problem as something the government should get involved in. Basis of claim- makers’ appeals Claim- makers appeal to their audiences through appeals based on both logic and reason and appeals based on logic. Loseke (2003) argues that audience persuasion can take the above forms. Firstly, the audience can examine a social problem when they are convinced by use of logical reasoning that the problem goes against how things should be. This however works for an audience that is adamant to change and accept new ideas. This is also effective for powerful audiences that require facts and figures to be convinced. The claim- makers can report on the finding of the effects of domestic violence and the number of deaths that result from it. Secondly, the audience may be emotionally influenced by the victims of domestic violence. The claim- makers can make documentaries on the victims of domestic violence, publish their stories and arrange for the victims to communicate to the audience. This appeals to both large and powerful groups as all persons are known to be emotional when it comes to the plight of the victims of domestic violence. The claim- makers use both emotions and logic to appeal to different audiences. Power relationships Power and control are central to an intimate relationship as stated by Owusu (2000). Power and control issues are evident in a troubled relationship while they are absent in a healthy and functional relationship. In the real sense, a relationship is meant have minimal prominence on power issues, partners are closely connected while retaining a sense of independence and individuality. There are different types of relationship depending on the balance of power. The traditional patriarchal relationship is based on male dominated aspects and is common in conservative communities (Owusu, 2000). The traditional matriarchal relationship is whereby the male acts as the head but the female plays an important role in decision making (Owusu, 2000). The co- dependent relationship is where the partners ‘work too hard’ to make things work and if they fail, they blame the other partner. The Engulfment-Abandonment relationship is whereby the partners feel that they are controlled by the other (Owusu, 2000). From the above discussion we can conclude that domestic violence in likely to occur in all forms of relationship. The power relationships between the groups of claims-makers in our case are based on the impact each individual claim- maker has on the transforming the condition to a social problem (Owusu, 2000). They constantly disagree on various matters relating to morality and punishment to be administered to domestic abusers. Activists are at the top of the list since they fight aggressively and articulately for the victims followed by people in other professions. Power relationships between those who are making claims about the condition and those who claims-makers claim are affected by the problem are clear in domestic violence. Those who are affected by domestic violence are presumed to be more powerful when handling issues that are in connection with the issues. The social constructionist perspective on social problems is used in the analysis of a condition as a social problem. The condition is identified first by a group of people (claim- makers) who express their grievances concerning the condition and push for the transformation. The claim- makers appeal to their audience to join them in the process of claim- making. If claim- makers recruit a satisfactory number of members, the condition develops into a social problem. This is a brief description of the process of social construction. IPV (domestic violence) was not acknowledged in the past as it has been in the current times. Relationships between partners were not widely discussed and cases of violence were not reported. The society was highly patriarchal and the decisions were made by men however, things have changed. Domestic violence was recognized with the feminism wave whereby women stood up and fought for their rights and against all forms of violence. Domestic violence related deaths have been on the rise and its effects more devastating hence the claim- makers were able to create awareness and appeal to their audience. This led to the transformation of domestic violence as a social problem. The claims about the IPV emerged after the feminism wave as women had learnt about their rights. They were more aggressive in demanding equal treatment with their male counterparts. The claims of the claims-makers resonate with broader cultural worries at the time. The claims-makers succeed in capturing the attention of audiences and in persuading them to accept their claims, while the majority of conditions that could be called social problems remain marginalized and unexamined. This is owing to the changing attitudes in society and the effect of globalization that results to emergence of contemporary values that are against domestic violence. IPV (domestic violence) is here to stay and more efforts need to be made by the claim makers to control its levels globally. There have been positive changes made by society to eradicate IPV and the future is not easy for the claim- maker if at all the fight against it is to be won. References Barnet, O. W., Miller-Perrin, L. and Perrin, R. D. (2005). Family violence across the lifespan: An introduction. (2nd ed.). SAGE. Gordon, J.A., and Moriarty, L.J. (2003). The effects of domestic violence batterer treatment on domestic violence recidivism. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30(1), 118-134. HellpGuide. org. (2010). Domestic violence and abuse: Signs of abuse and abusive relationships. Retrieved from http://www.helpguide.org/mental/domestic_violence_abuse_types_signs_causes_effects.htm Loseke, D. R. (2003). Thinking about social problems: An introduction to constructionist perspective. (2nd ed.). Transaction Publishers. 51- 70. Moran, M. (2006). Partner abuse more common in adults with disorders as teens. Psychiatric News, 41(11), 25- 35. National Institute of Justice. (2007). Intimate Partner Violence. Retrieved from . NYC. (2011). Intimate partner violence. Retrieved from http://www.nyc.gov/html/doh/html/epi/domviol.shtml Owusu, K. (2000). Black British culture and society: A text reader. Routledge. 96- 121. Rodriguez, M. A., McLoughlin, E., Nah, G., and Campbell, J.C. (2001). Mandatory reporting of domestic violence injuries to the police: What do emergency department patients think? Journal of the American Medical Association. 580-583. Russell, P. R. and Emerson, D. R. (2004). Women's violence to men in intimate relationships: Working on a puzzle. The British Journal of Criminology, 44(3), 324-349. Silverman, J.G., Mesh, C.M., Cuthbert, C.V., Slote, K., and Bancroft, L. (2004). Child custody determinations in cases involving intimate partner violence: A human rights analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 94(6), 951-957. Sullivan, C.M., and Bybee, D.I. (1999). Reducing violence using community-based advocacy for women with abusive partners. Journal of Consultation in Clinical Psychology. 67(1), 43-53. Read More