COE 1999 : SEMINAR
ON
MEN AND VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
 |
 |
|
|
COE 1999 : SEMINAR
ON |
|
|
|
EuoPROFEM - The European Men Profeminist Network http://www.europrofem.org
|
|
European
Council of Europe Strasbourg,
8 October 1999 |
SEMINAR: Contact: |
Conclusions
by the General Rapporteur Mesdames et Messieurs, Ladies and Gentlemen,
The
seminar on men and violence against women provided an unusual
opportunity to bring together over one hundred researchers,
practitioners and policy makers to discuss a wide range of topics
related to men’s violence against women.
In the course of two days we addressed exceedingly complex
issues, explored layers of meaning around men’s violence, and raised
many more questions for future meetings of this kind.
I
applaud and sincerely thank the Council of Europe, and in particular the
Steering Committee for Equality between Women and Men, and Ms. Ólöf Ólafsdóttir
and her formidable team for making this meeting possible and providing a
forum for the necessary interdisciplinary and international debate that needs to happen around men’s violence against
women. Because the details
of the reports presented at the seminar are available in print, I shall
focus my conclusion on recurring themes and contested understandings. Methodology
and the Evaluation of Research
Several
experts addressed the need for quantitative surveys in order to obtain
data on the extent of violence against women.
Ideally, such data would be
reliable, valid, and comparable across different regional and
national contexts. Although
there has been a development in surveys from an early focus on crime in
general to a recent, more specific focus on violence against women,
survey design and use are far from perfect.
As a minimum, a good survey needs to pay careful attention to the
wording of its questions and incorporate language that makes sense to
the women who respond to it. Terminology
and language are extremely important.
One example for this is the differential estimates of sexual
assault when women are asked if they have experienced ‘rape’ or
‘coerced sex’. Other
important issues in survey research include the matching and training of
interviewers, the use of various response formats including closed and
open questions, sampling frames, and access strategies that do not
exclude those women who are marginalised and particularly at risk of
being attacked or assaulted (e.g. elderly women, women belonging to
ethnic minorities, immigrants, or the disabled).
The
meaning of violence can vary considerably within individual respondents
who reflect on different experiences with violence. it can vary within
countries and across countries. and last but not least between men
and women. While there are
some examples of strategies to address the meaning of violence in the
context of survey research, there are also many examples of surveys that
do not address such variability of meaning but presuppose that violence
means the same to women and men. Therefore,
caution needs to be exercised in the uncritical design of surveys, and
in the uncritical interpretation of their findings.
This
note of caution needs to be extended to the evaluation of research in
general. No research
produces facts that speak for themselves.
Data, whether quantitative or qualitative, need to be interpreted
and organised within frames of reference.
Therefore, it is also important to interrogate those frames of
reference and ask to what extent they contribute to gender equality and
the dignity of women. This
is particularly important with regard to statistical data, because most
of us are used to thinking of numbers as something ‘objective’, and
considering the privileged position of the notion of ‘objectivity’
in contemporary science, numbers can be powerful tools of influencing
the decision making of scholars, practitioners,
or policy makers. It is also necessary to weigh the need for more data on
women’s victimisation against the need of those women for safety, and
to be careful not to ‘plunder’ women’s experiences with violence
in the name of science. Gender
as a Fundamental Social Division
Several
experts noted that research on violence as well as research on the
development, maintenance, and change of feminine and masculine
identities needed to be gendered in a way that recognises gender as a
fundamental social division. This
includes recognising that thinking in relatively rigid dichotomies of
male and female difference may itself obscure our understanding of how
gender identity develops, is solidified, or can be reconceptualised.
It also includes recognising that adding women to masculine
social contexts does not automatically deconstruct rigid notions of
gender difference, as the example of women in the Israeli military
shows. Focus
on the ‘Imaginary’ Another recurring theme concerns the inclination to interpret men’s violence against constructions of imaginary femininity or masculinity as compared to what women and men actually do or experience. For example, traditional psychoanalytic theory as well as some strands in recent men’s literature seem focused on imaginary notions of women, in which women and in particular mothers are constructed as overpowering, omnipotent beings. Such notions of female power are at odds both with the lack of power women in abusive relationships experience and with the perception of teenagers who grew up with violence in the home and who, even under considerable adversity, can have very positive images of their mothers that acknowledge the real-life dilemmas of mothers living with violent husbands or partners.
A
second example is the rhetoric of men as the protectors of women during
warfare, which is at odds with the reports of men leaving women (as well
as children and elderly men) behind in villages where they are attacked
and/or sexually assaulted by male soldiers from the enemy camp. No doubt, individual men seriously wish to protect their
families from harm. And
yet, it is painful to witness how often women find themselves unarmed in
war, and vulnerable in peace. 4.
Four Perspectives on Explanations for Men’s Violence
The
experts presented many complex explanations and social theories to
explain men’s violence that can be highlighted from at least four
different perspectives: explanations focusing on internal processes of
the integration of violence into masculine identities, explanations
focusing on external circumstances presumed to encourage male violence,
the risk factor approach, and explanations focusing on the deliberate
social construction of institutions that foster those masculine
identities in which violence takes a central place.
a. Internal Processes: Gender Identity Development and Social Learning
At
this meeting we have addressed explanations that detail internal
processes underlying violent behaviour and that draw on psychoanalytic
theory, socialisation theory, and to some extent learning theory.
Psychoanalytic concepts tend to focus on early childhood
experiences around the differentiation of Self and Other that lead to
complex patterns of the construction of Self and Other.
More recent psychoanalytic work includes experiences during
adolescence in the formation of gender identity and posits the
possibility that, during this period of life, gender identities may in
fact be revised.
Similarly,
notions of social learning tend to focus on early childhood experiences,
although social learning continues into adulthood and indeed happens
everyday throughout our lives. In
fact, we usually do not enter some settings for social learning, such as
the workplace or volunteer organisations, until we are adults and other
settings, such as the family, may stay with us throughout our lives.
If
socialisation experiences and the construction of Self and Other do
indeed contribute to the formation of violence-identified masculinities
and men’s violence against women, we need to be open to the
possibility that such processes continue throughout life, and likely in
settings that are crucial for other purposes as well such as earning a
living, or being integrated into the community.
That is, it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the
‘normal’ institutions of daily life and social organisation from the
formation of masculine identities, including those identities that are
ingrained with violence. What
this means is that throughout life there is considerable opportunity
both for reinforcing violence-identified masculinities and for revising
them. b. External Circumstances: Rapid Social Change, Instability, and War
The
experts also addressed explanations that relate men’s violence
implicitly or explicitly to social circumstances, in particular to
notions of rapid social change and social instability, as well as to
warfare and its societal aftermath.
It is important to acknowledge the hardship that warfare and
social upheaval create for those who have to live through it, and to
investigate the potential role of international inequality in creating
or perpetuating localised instability or war, and to understand the
toxic effects on civic society ‘at home’ of wars waged in
neighbouring territory. It
is also important to explore how social change and war influence people differently
and to examine who benefits from such changes and who becomes more
vulnerable.
A
largely unexplored area concerns the transitions from periods of
relative stability to relative instability and on to relative stability.
For example, how do we come to terms with reports that individual
men who appeared to be ‘peaceful’ before war seem to turn into
violent women haters during the war?
The experts debated whether violence against women during armed
conflict was primarily a matter of permission to be violent and access
to vulnerable victims, or whether there are other things going on in
terms of gender relations and the construction of Self and Other, friend
or foe. Such explanations
are probably not mutually exclusive.
Brutalisation of men in the context of armed conflict may be a
multifaceted process that may include permission to be violent as well
as training to be violent and training to dehumanise and objectify those
who, by official propaganda or the memories of deep-seated humiliation,
become the designated enemy.
In
this context, the experts discussed the role of shame, and the silence
around shame, which may continue across generations.
As mass rapes of women during warfare have happened throughout
history and continue to happen to the present day, women have been
carrying a suffocating burden of shame that manifests itself in deep
depression and is cloaked in silence.
It is necessary to create conditions in which we
learn to listen to those who learned to live with their shame in
silence. It is unclear how women’s experiences of shame compare to the shame that they bring onto their families and countries in those contexts where family honour is defined through women’s chastity. While the connections between the shame of individual women and the shame attached to notions of idealised femininity are not well understood, we noticed that the shame of individual women seems to contribute to their isolation and being outcasts of society, and is related to loss of control, whereas men in such contexts seem to have the option to clear their families’ names of shame through the honour killing of women and thus remain a respected member of their communities. That is not to say that individual men in such contexts are not conflicted over the issue of honour killings. It was also noted that sexual violence against women in situations of armed conflict involves attacks that may be tools to shame their husbands, fathers, and brothers, but are still attacks on the women themselves and their sexual and national identities. c. Risk Factors
The
concept of risk factors derives largely from research on public health.
When applied to men’s violence against women, we need to
distinguish between risk factors for being violent (such as believing
that women are subordinate to men) and risk factors for being victimised
(such as separating from a violent man). Our discussion of stress as a risk factor showed that the
relationship between men’s experience of stress and their violence
against women is controversial. In
part, this controversy seems to result from the different perspectives
different experts take on stress, the wide range of men’s stress
experiences in different settings such as family, work, the military, or
combat as well as the frequent observations of those who work with
violent men that violent men do not seek out such programmes until they
are experiencing sufficient stress.
To advance this fruitful debate, it seems necessary to
distinguish between different forms of stress (e.g., career-related
stress versus the fear of losing one’s wife) and to analyse the
relationship between stress and violence for different groups, not just
for men, but for women as well.
With
all risk factors we need to pay attention not only to the correlation
between risk factor and men’s violence, but to the patterning of that
violence and thus to the targets of potentially stress-induced violence. To illustrate the importance of attending to the patterning
of violence, so-called random sprees of violence by individual violent
men often turn out to be directed rather systematically against
individuals who may not have had any personal relationship with the
aggressor but happen to belong to groups that the aggressor defined as
worthy of being attacked or killed. d. Explanations Focusing on Deliberate Social
Enterprises
Finally,
the military is an example of an institution that deliberately and
systematically constructs masculine identities in which violence plays a
crucial role. A gendered
analysis of the military also makes clear that, at least in the case of
Israel, men’s successful participation in the military, and thus their
likely adoption of a violence-identified masculinity, is rewarded with
considerable perks in civil society such as access to prestigious jobs
and political influence. Mentioned
only cursorily was the role of organised religion in the construction of
gender identities and gender hierarchies, and the relative acceptance of
violence against women.
We
heard more of efforts to reform
deliberate social enterprises such as the police and the legal system
with the goal to reduce violence against women.
Police training by battered women’s advocates has been
instrumental in beginning to change the police response to violence
against women, at least as far as violence in the home is concerned.
Similarly, there have been many impressive, if recent, efforts
towards changing laws and legislation so as to acknowledge more fully
women’s right to safety, dignity, and integrity.
However,
there is an important difference between the examples of the military,
the police, and the legal system. Legal
reforms and reforms of police response for the most part are directed at
the punishment of the
perpetrator. In contrast,
we saw how the military is instrumental in the construction, and
subsequent reward, of violence-identified masculine identity, and thus
in the production of potential
perpetrators. So far, there
has been no comparably developed, defined, and resourceful social
enterprise instrumental in the construction of non-violence-identified
masculinity.
Considering
the frequent references to societal turmoil and warfare during this
meeting we may note that the deliberateness of the construction of
violence-identified masculinity may become invisible over time, and that
such violence-identified masculinity in due time may appear to be an
‘inevitable’ response to social change. 5.
Role of Community
Several
experts spoke of the role of community in either encouraging or
discouraging men’s violence against women.
Communities include real people and the messages they send about
men’s violence against women. Community
includes family members and pre-school teachers, social workers, police
officers or those who run intervention programmes for violent men.
Community also includes the media and the imagery of men’s
violence against women that is perpetuated by the media such as notions
of stranger rape. Community
also includes supranational organisations such as the Council of Europe,
and the messages that come from such prestigious international
communities.
Community
provides, or withholds, support structures.
We discussed which support structures communities provide for
women and men, respectively, and to what extent communities encourage or
discourage men’s violence and non-violence.
Several experts argued that such structures change as communities
move from periods of relative stability to periods of upheaval or war,
and may not revert entirely to the original levels of stability after
periods of crises. What
happens to women and men’s support networks during such changes?
For example, to what extent does the formation of armed militias
or guerillas erode social support from men for men’s non-violence?
Occasional reports suggest that there are individual soldiers who
try not to participate in organised rape, and who implore the women they
encounter to pretend they had been raped so as to protect the soldier
from being killed by his male peers for not raping.
From
a different angle, the role of community support becomes chillingly
clear in the lives of children and teenagers who have none.
We heard about children who grew up in violent homes or in
complete societal neglect. Too
many find themselves with no support network, alone with their legacy of
violence, shame, and confusion, and without a trustworthy adult role
model who might be able to help them with the transition from
fantasising a life of respect and harmony to actually living it.
Finally,
communities bear some of the societal costs of violence against women.
While cost estimates are fraught with methodological and ethical
problems, putting monetary values on individual suffering may convince
reluctant policy makers to invest more money in the
prevention of violence against women. 6. Non-Violence and Non-Violent Masculinities
We
need to know more about the creation of non-violence and the conditions
under which non-violent masculinities flourish, just as we need to
conceive of different trajectories towards violent masculinities.
Not all men are violent, and not all men rape, even if they
could. Why not?
As research and practical work with violent men is just
beginning, we also need to pay attention to non-violent men, their
experiences, and their strategies of non-violence.
With
regard to the individual or psychological level, recent psychoanalytical
work highlights the creative potential of the tension between the
assertion of the Self and the mutual recognition of the Other.
While this tension may arise for the first time in infancy, it
likely will continue throughout life.
Some experts suggested that men’s ability to tolerate such
tension might be related to their non-violence, whereas the
‘resolution’ of that tension through the construction of rigid
gender or ethnic identities may encourage violence.
With more fluid approaches to gender identity boys may be able to
identify with mothers and feminine role models without ridicule, and
girls may be able to identify with fathers and masculine role models
without rejection.
On
a societal level, creative potential may arise from sustaining the
tension between privilege and equality.
Often, this tension is resolved in the form of hierarchies and
pecking orders, which leave some men relatively privileged and
protected, and most women, as well as many men, relatively vulnerable.
Most of us have lived within hierarchical social institutions for
our entire lives, from the family, through formal schooling, to the
workforce. That makes it
difficult to conceive of less hierarchical social organisations.
Nevertheless the efforts seems worthwhile so that “le savoir ne
sera pas subordonné au pouvoir” (knowledge or wisdom will not
be subject to power).
The
promise of sustaining the tension between self-assertion and mutual
recognition is also to fully realise one’s human potential. But why be fully realised if you can be partially realised
and be president of a large corporation and drive an expensive car?
The answer is, once you have tasted this creative tension,
everything else is bland.
I
thank the Council of Europe for organising this meeting, and I thank all
participants for coming together and sharing their invaluable knowledge
and insights. |
|
|
|
|
