MEN AS VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Get Complete Project Material File(s) Now! »

CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES: THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE ON THE MALE VICTIM OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE

Introduction

“Research without theory is blind, and theory without research is empty” (Bourdieu and Wacquant in Ritzer, 1996:62)
A theoretical perspective is the basis for understanding social phenomena. Theory stimulates, simplifies and directs research, so that information can be organised and integrated effectively. Bailey (1994:39) adds that, without theory, it would be difficult to explain and analyse the complex and multi-faceted dynamics of social reality.
Theory forms an integral part of scientific research as it guides and explains how research will be done and in so doing provides an understanding of the topic being researched. The aims and research expectations of the study are the links between the theory and the interview schedule. These “links” aid the researcher in formulating a relatively clear foundation for the direction and purpose of the research. As Bourdieu and Wacquant (in Ritzer, 1996:162) aptly state: “Research without theory is blind, in other words it does not know where to look for what; and theory without research is empty, in other words, it is nothing more but a mere speculation without any substance or knowledge to support it”.
For the purposes of this study researcher will not only make use of established theories within the realm of the social sciences but will also include popular perspectives and models upon which certain research is based, for example, the culture of violence perspective and the model of transgenerational abuse.
The theories and perspectives which will be utilised for this research will include a general systems theory with specific insights into family systems where domestic violence takes place within a broader social environment. This will further be explored by looking at the models of Gelles and Straus and later Siegel which investigates the unique characteristics of the family as a social group that contribute to making it a violence-prone institution, and how spousal abuse can be predicted. The culture of violence perspective will also be discussed with reference to Wolfgang and Ferracuti’s subculture of violence theory, and in addition, how the “American dream”, which advocates the Westernised goals of individualism and materialism, has influenced the rise in domestic violence.
Further the social structural theory of violence will be utilised as a starting point for the theoretical conceptualisation of family violence, and the social learning theory will explain how violent behaviour is learned within the family system. This will be demonstrated even further with the use of Viano’s (1992:16) model of transgenerational abuse. Remaining under the umbrella of social learning theory, issues such as gender roles and expectations and stereotyping, will also be discussed. Researcher will then make use of some of the concepts within social exchange theory (Viano, 1992:8), and those issues of exchange theory which closely link with rational choice theory, to render an understanding of certain aspects of domestic violence or spousal abuse.
Because various theories, perspectives and models have been used to form a theoretical basis for the purposes of constructing a model specific to the needs of this study, it is also necessary to discuss the use of integrated theory. Because crime is such a complex phenomenon more criminologists and theorists are considering the adoption of integrated and/or interdisciplinary frameworks for new research. According to Barak (1998), integration involves linking and synthesising the different models and theories into formulations that are more comprehensive. In light of this researcher will introduce and explain an integrated systems model of abuse of the male victim of domestic violence with the use of a schematic representation thereof (refer Figure 3.1) in this chapter.
This model is the result of theory integration, by researcher, for the purposes of exploring the victimisation of the men in this study. The motivation behind the construction of a theoretical model using interdisciplinary theories is that researcher was unsuccessful in finding a specific criminological or victimological theory which was based on the victimisation of men in a domestic violence context. Researcher found no existing theories which could assist in holistically exploring the male victim of physical and emotional abuse, within a heterosexual marriage or cohabitating relationship, and thus integrated several theories and perspectives in an attempt to achieve this goal.

General systems theory

Systems theory was proposed in the 1940’s by the biologist Ludwig von Bertalanffy and furthered by Ross Ashby in his book Introduction to Cybernetics in 1956. Von Bertalanffy proposed that systems are open to, and interact with, their environments, and that they can acquire new properties through emergence, resulting in continual evolution or change. Rather than reducing an entity (for example, a family unit) to the properties of its parts or elements (for example, father, mother and siblings), systems theory focuses on the arrangement of and relations between the parts which connect them into a whole, referred to as holism (2008, http://pespmcl.vub.ac.be/SYSTHEOR.html).
A system can be said to consist of four components:
 Objects – These are the parts, elements or variables within the system. They may be physical or abstract or both, depending on the nature of the system.
 Attributes – These are the qualities or properties of the system and its objects.
 A system has internal relationships amongst its objects.
 Systems exist in an environment.
A system, therefore, is a set of organisms or objects that affect one another within an environment and forms a larger pattern that is different from any of the parts. The fundamental systems-interactive paradigm of organisational analysis features the continual stages of input, throughput (processing), and output, which demonstrates the concept of openness or closedness. A closed system does not interact with its environment. It does not take in information and therefore is likely to disappear (atrophy). An open system on the other hand, receives information, which it uses to interact dynamically with its environment. This openness increases its likelihood to survive and prosper (2008, http://www.tcw.utwente.nl/theorieenoverzicht).
Systems theory is closely connected to cybernetics and the terms “systems theory” and “cybernetics” have been widely used as synonyms (2008, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems-theory). Cybernetics is however, a proper subset of the class of general systems, namely those systems that include feedback loops. Cybernetics is therefore, the study of feedback and derived concepts such as communication and control in living organisms, machines and organisations. Its focus is how anything (digital, mechanical or biological) processes information, reacts to information and changes or can be changed to better accomplish the first two tasks. The goal of cybernetics is, to explain complex systems that consist of a large number of mutually interacting and interrelated parts, in terms of those interactions.
In accordance with cybernetic principles an individual is continually interacting with the environment, which in turn influences the individual, thus the individual as a system changes as the environment changes. The family is also viewed as an integrated whole or a system, or as a subsystem, where its members belong to other systems (for example, agencies or organisations). Other subsystems such as the spousal, parental and sibling subsystems can also be differentiated (Umbager, 1983:21).
In simple cybernetics rules distinguish one system from another and thus form the boundary of such a system. Boundaries imply that there is a hierarchy of systems which means a system can exist within a system, for instance, a sibling subsystem can exist within a parental subsystem. The boundary of a system acts as a screen for information permeating in and out of the system. There is a continuum between openness and closedness of a system. The more information that is allowed in or out, the more open the system is. A balance needs to be maintained for the system to be healthy as the system must not be too open or closed. The system, however, is always open to a certain extent, and has invisible boundaries which are defined by rules. Differences occur within the system according to the rules of the system (Levant, 1984:141). These rules may be certain disciplinary measures used within the family system to regulate the behaviour of its members.
The boundaries protect the differentiation of the system. Therefore, the clearer the boundaries, the easier it is to differentiate the system. There are three categories of boundaries, namely clear, rigid and diffuse boundaries. Clear boundaries are firm, yet flexible, and are considered ideal for a stable family system as opposed to rigid boundaries where family members are isolated from one another as well as from systems within the community of which the system is a part of. Family members within a system of clear boundaries support and nurture each other and yet allow each other a degree of freedom to act autonomously. There is a clear balance between support, nurturing and freedom. Diffuse boundaries are the polar opposite of rigid boundaries where everybody’s personal space is invaded even when it is not necessary. From different kinds of boundaries it is clear that certain pathologies are likely to occur in family systems with either rigid or diffuse boundaries (Becvar & Becvar, 1996:192).

Systems theory and the communication perspective

Violence is considered to be a mutual problem of couples, and that the violence has a specific function within the relationship, for example, it is used to regulate closeness and distance between the couple (Schurink, Snyman & Krugel, 1992:247). These researchers postulate that such a relationship continues because the interpersonal interactions obtain an explosive momentum but remains stable, which keeps the relationship intact. Loring (1994:63) states that according to systemic theorists, the initial abusive incident is rooted in a pattern learned in the past where the abuse is maintained and made predictable by a system of developing family rules. The pattern develops and continues because it serves a function, such as maintaining the system. Another application by Loring (1994:64) of the systems perspective explains abuse in terms of the abuser’s sense of inadequacy and the victim’s need to feel that his partner is dependent on him. Feeling inferior to her partner (who is described as behaving in an “over adequate” manner), the abuser uses violence to bring the relationship back into equilibrium. The victim accepts the abuse and his powerlessness is accepted by both parties and serves as a security bond between them.
Stark and Flitcraft (1996:67) state that the family may be viewed as a system of interacting individuals and relationships. It is part of larger systems or supra-systems, and it encompasses individuals and multiple interdependent relationships or sub-systems, for example, marital or sibling subsystems. Individuals and internal subsystems are locked together by the complex interdependency of mutual needs, communication patterns, commitments and loyalties. Thus, the family is more than the sum of its parts, and any action by one person or sub-system could affect all other members of the system. In addition, family members rely on each other to balance the tasks of maintaining the family structure (status quo) while adapting to internal (developmental) and external (societal) changes.
Communication is inherent to the understanding of family systems theory. Messages are continually being conveyed verbally and nonverbally in an organised process of feedback loops. Negative feedback loops serve to maintain the previously known state or homeostasis. Each communicated action serves to maintain the familiar and thus the predictability of future events and equilibrium is preserved. This view interprets the abusive action as important in maintaining the family’s patterns of interaction. Family boundaries with regards to who is “in”, and who is “out” of the system, act as barriers to regulate the flow (input and output) of information and resources into and out of the family system or subsystems. In abusive families, boundaries are thought to be overly fluid or overly rigid (too few or too stringent restrictions). Stark and Flitcraft (1996:68) mention that Rosenblatt, argues that societal views and expectations provide a context for permeability, for example, because of generally sexist societal views, women may be granted less privacy in the home than men, resulting in greater frustration and anger. The expectation that the family is a “haven from a heartless world” (Stark & Flitcraft, 1996:68) reinforces the sanctity of the nuclear family unit. In a dysfunctional family, the strong boundary may protect the family as a prison would, and not as a haven would.

CHAPTER 1: GENERAL ORIENTATION OF THESIS
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Statement of the problem
1.3 Definition of key concepts and terminology list
1.4 Aims of the study
1.5 Literature survey
1.6 Demarcation of the study
1.7 PROGRAM FOR THE REMAINDER OF THE RESEARCH
CHAPTER 2: HISTORICAL AND LITERATURE OVERVIEW: MEN AS VICTIMS OF DOMESTIC VIOLENCE
2.1 Historical overview
2.2 Literature survey
2.3 Conclusion of literature overview
CHAPTER 3: THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES: THE IMPACT OF PHYSICAL AND EMOTIONAL ABUSE ON THE
3.1 Introduction
3.2 General systems theory
3.3 The culture of violence perspective
3.4 Social structural theory of violence
3.5 Social learning theory
3.6 The social exchange theory/rational choice theory
3.7 Integrated theory
3.8 An integrated systems model of abuse of the male victim of domestic violence
3.9 Conclusion of theoretical perspectives
CHAPTER 4: METHODOLOGY, PROCEDURES AND TECHNIQUES
4.1 Introduction
4.2 Methodological approach
4.3 Research procedures
4.4 Case analysis
4.5 Observation
4.6 Scientific validity and reliability of the study
4.7 Techniques used to analyse data
4.8 Profile of the victim respondents
4.9 Conclusion of methodology
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
5.1 Introduction
5.2 Case analysis
5.3 The voice of Tom
5.4 Background and family: Effects of abuse on Tom’s relationships
5.5 Culture and community: Tom’s victimisation in terms of cultural perspectives and systems theory at the meso level
5.6 Society: Tom’s victimisation in terms of the culture of violence perspective and systems theory at the macro level
5.7 Global: Tom’s victimisation in terms of Westernised goals and systems  theory at the macro level (Materialism, Individualism and Economic Political influences)
5.8 Conclusion of Tom’s voice
5.9 The voice of Dick
5.10 Background and family: Effects of abuse on Dick’s relationships
5.11 Culture and community: Dick’s victimisation in terms of cultural perspectives and systems theory at the meso level
5.12 Society: Dick’s victimisation in terms of the culture of violence perspective and systems theory at the macro level
5.13 Conclusion of Dick’s voice
5.14 The voice of Harry
5.15 Background and family: Effects of abuse on Harry’s relationships
5.16 Culture and community: Harry’s victimisation in terms of cultural perspectives and systems theory at the meso level
5.17 Society: Harry’s victimisation in terms of the culture of violence perspective and systems theory at the macro level
5.18 Global: Harry’s victimisation in terms of Westernised goals and systems theory at the macro level (Materialism, Individualism and Economic Political influences)
5.19 Conclusion of Harry’s voice
5.20 The voice of Paul
5.21 Background and family: Effects of abuse on Paul’s relationships
5.22 Culture and community: Paul’s victimisation in terms of cultural perspectives and systems theory at the meso level
5.23 Society: Paul’s victimisation in terms of the culture of violence perspective and systems theory at the macro level
5.24 Global: Paul’s victimisation in terms of Westernised goals and systems theory at the macro level (Materialism, Individualism and Economic Political influences)
5.25 Conclusion of Paul’s voice
5.26 The voice of Blogger
5.27 The voice of telephonic interviewee (T I)
5.28 Background and family: Effects of abuse on telephonic interviewee’s relationships
5.29 Culture and community: Telephonic interviewee’s victimisation in terms of cultural perspectives and systems theory at the meso level
5.30 Global: Telephonic interviewee’s victimisation in terms of Westernised goals and systems theory at the macro level (Materialism, Individualism and Economic and Political influences)
5.32 The voice of e-mail respondent (quoted verbatim)
5.33 Conclusion of victims’ voices
5.34 The victims’ experiences in terms of general systems theory
5.35 The victims’ experiences in terms of the culture of violence perspective
5.36 The victims’ experiences in terms of Westernised goals
5.37 The victims’ experiences in terms of social structural theory of violence
5.38 The victims’ experiences in terms of social learning theory
5.39 The victims’ experiences in terms of social exchange theory/rational choice theory
5.40 Conclusion of analysis and interpretation of data
CHAPTER 6: CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
6.1 Introduction
6.2 Conclusions
6.3 Recommendations
6.4 Conclusion
LIST OF REFERENCES
GET THE COMPLETE PROJECT