Domestic Violence in Families - Research Paper Example

?Domestic violence in families is so often connected to the uneven distribution of responsibilities. It is also an outcome of someone’s (in most cases coming from the male part) aggression and impulsiveness. Thus, when speaking about domestic violence, there is nothing to do with the notion of freedom. However, the main attention is grabbed by the social perspectives on domestic violence. In this respect the theory of symbolic interactionism takes place as one of the theoretical methods explaining the nature of violence in families. First and foremost, the construction of meaning and roles within families is under analysis, since symbolic interactionism is well based on the assumption that such features define behaviors of the main participants toward each other (Andersen & Taylor, 2007). Thereupon, integrationists seek to develop a line of particular features indicative of this or that family. It is all about the signs and symbols people share within their family, as having relation to possible conflicts thereafter. Notably, family is one of the main social institutions. It is vital for sociologists to have a clear idea on why domestic violence still happens, and what the ways toward its decrease are. In this vein, most people think that violence is likely to be partly connected to the environmental factors and to the psychological conditions of the individuals. This simple assumption takes its grounds form another one stating that “the acquisition and generation of meaning is at the heart of human social interactions” (Chibucos, Leite, & Weis, 2005, p. 237). Needless to say, human being is a biosocial creature. Thus, the meaning of human behavior is in focus of symbolic interactionism so as to rectify the nature of violence within the family. Thus, given that symbolic interactionism delves into the meaning of the behaviors within the family, one should bear it in mind that a scientific research on domestic violence should have some relation to what family members say about them (White & Klein, 2002). In its turn, this strategically significant approach would say more about the overall atmosphere within the family. Hence, scientists should be more accurate in identifying the core values and prospects amplified in a definite family. In this case the character of neighborhood and the conditions of living plays a special role. Looking at the fact that interactionists spark their interest to the topic of domestic violence, their main suggestions to the problem presuppose a set of peculiarities. All of them serve the main task of realizing the concept of violence in a definite setting, i.e. family. The three main premises provide one with a complete picture of why violence takes place in families, namely: 1) Behavior always takes place within a situation; 2) Actors construct their behavior based on their definition of this situation; 3) All situations involve the self and at least one other identity (Reynolds & Herman-Kinney, 2003, p. 529). Thus, situations and actors are well involved in the construct of violence. Definitely, the majority of situations when women or children get battered by male actors require that the latter is either drunk or abnormal from the psychological point of view. Violence gives birth to violence in reply, as might be seen. Thus, violence committed today is a response to violence afflicted to a violator in the past. This cycle is always running forth from one generation to another. Besides, the aforementioned look at the problem like violence is also linked by interactionists to the concept of “looking-glass self” when “individuals form a self-concept based on how others interact with them” (Mooney, Knox, & Schacht, 2010, p.. 158). Thus, this process is never-ending until the violence is in power to be present within the family. Moreover, it always touches upon all members of family even those who commit violence. Admittedly, most of women are inclined to think of domestic violence as the outcome of the unequal distribution of power. Another assumption may state that it was traditionally accepted throughout the history that a woman is a property of a man. Thus, these symbolic interactions are still lively present among people. To say more, this message is welcomed throughout generations due to a fragile nature of a woman and a predominant aggressiveness of men. Due to the fact that in terms of symbolic interactionism meanings are negotiated, it is likely that different conflicts at their outset vex family members (Brinkerhoff, White, & Ortega, 2007). In turn, women and children become subjugated to cases of violence each time they occur within the family. It nudges one into keeping track to the normality of communication since the family creation and throughout the family life until the last day. However, this “ideal” identification of normal family life usually proves people wrong, as life is not an easy thing to run it. Family therapy as the remedy against violence is widely practiced in order to save the families in their completeness. In this respect nuclear families are usually broken down due to the mutual initiatives on the part of women and men. There is plenty to talk about causative-consecutive line of reasons and outcomes. However, Winkelmann (2004) gives a fair reasoning on why domestic violence still happens: “Women initiate or contribute to violence through their own aggressive language practices or physical violence; men initiate violence or respond to women’s violence” (p. 23). This is why it would be incomplete to state that men do not share the meaning and the symbolic characterization of living peacefully in a family. Hence, theory of symbolic interactionism pays special attention to the way individuals contribute to the efficient communication whilst omitting individual pathology and denigration. This trend of emotional and social state of individuals should be taken into consideration as the pivot pursuant to further possibilities of violence. What is more, the social situation has also a detrimental factor based on the multinationalism and discrimination accordingly. Families suffer from violence due to their identities and aggression imposed form the majority. It goes without saying that it is really dangerous to live in ghettos where poverty and criminal activity are too high. On the other hand, it is symbolically connected to how these individuals were treated in the historical cut as well as how they are treated now. Hence, in one study it is noted that families are largely affected by “institutions and societal factors” (Boss, Doherty, & LaRossa, 2008, p. 141). It pre-describes the idea of social interactionism as an additional factor to add to the problem of the domestic violence. All in all, the theory of symbolic interactionism presupposes that meanings within the family correlate the overall situation on whether or not the violence would take place in a particular setting (Loseke, Gelles, & Cavanaugh, 2005). The theory of symbolic interactionism takes place as one of the theoretical methods explaining the nature of violence in families. This implication is, therefore, followed by the assumption that individuals bear different roles, and its unequal distribution gives rise to violence as a fact of a particular reaction on some provoking features. This is why, the society is organized around some kinship systems urging for getting the meaning of family as a stable structure of relationships for the sake of making the nation fecund and healthy (Andersen & Taylor, Sociology: The Essentials, 2010). Hence, in a diverse society, there is plenty to talk about the domestic violence through the lenses of the theory of symbolic interactionism. The only thing to be kept in mind is that the communication may be finally broken down into pieces coming as a result of disintegration of the optimal model of living peacefully. Reference Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2010). Sociology: The Essentials (6 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Cengage Learning. Andersen, M. L., & Taylor, H. F. (2007). Sociology: understanding a diverse society (4 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Cengage Learning. Boss, P., Doherty, W. J., & LaRossa, R. (2008). Sourcebook of Family Theories and Methods: A Contextual Approach. Berlin: Springer. Brinkerhoff, D. B., White, L. K., & Ortega, S. T. (2007). Essentials of Sociology (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Cengage Learning. Chibucos, T. R., Leite, R. W., & Weis, D. L. (2005). Readings in family theory. New York, NY: SAGE. Loseke, D. R., Gelles, R. J., & Cavanaugh, M. M. (2005). Current controversies on family violence (2 ed.). New York, NY: SAGE. Mooney, L. A., Knox, D., & Schacht, C. (2010). Understanding Social Problems (7 ed.). Upper Saddle River: Cengage Learning. Reynolds, L. T., & Herman-Kinney, N. J. (2003). Handbook of symbolic interactionism. Lanham, MD: Rowman Altamira. White, J. M., & Klein, D. M. (2002). Family theories (2 ed.). New York, NY: SAGE. Winkelmann, C. L. (2004). The language of battered women: a rhetorical analysis of personal theologies. New York, NY: SUNY Press. Read More