Intimate partner violence and gender-based violence in general are issues of global concern. It cuts across gender, sex, class, sexual orientation and other demographics characteristics, though women are disproportionately the victims and men the perpetrators. According to the ABS report (2012), 132 000 women, being 1.5 % experienced violence in the last 12 months from their current or previous partner. It has been reported that at least one in four women above the age of fifteen have experienced at least one intimate partner violence since the age of fifteen. In Australia, two in five women, accumulating to 41% have experienced violence since the age of 15 years, 34% have experienced physical violence and one in five have experienced sexual violence (ABS 2013). Majority of these instances of violence are perpetrated by a man who are known by the victim. Research has in the last decade shown that the unequal distribution of power and resources between men and women, adherence to rigidly defined gender roles, that is, what it means to live as masculine or feminine and are related to intimate partner violence. The gist of this essay is to illuminate how power, structure and agency interact and intersect in intimate partner violence in selected literature in Australia. To buttress the arguments presented in this essay a number of sociological theories such as intersectionality theory by Kimberly Crenshaw, and Power and hegemony by Connell are used. Key terms such as intimate partner violence is also defined.
Virkki (2015) recognizes intimate partner violence as abuse that occur between two people in close relationship. Ahearn (2001) defines agency as socially mediated capacity to take action by the individual. However, in literature agency has been discussed along reporting to the police and leaving the violent relationship. This conceptualization is problematic. In circumstances where men have economic power and women are dependent on them reporting may leads to imprisonment of own bread winner and destitution. Women in these circumstances as elaborated below may see reporting and leaving as not ideal and may conceptualize their agency by staying in an abusive relationship. Dillon etal ( 2016) found out that though intimate partner violence is associated with odds of domestic relocation, lack of affordable accommodation especially to women with children may force them not to leave abusive relationships, and may force others to return to their abuser for accommodation and economic reasons.
Regardless of its forms and or manifestation, violence is oftentimes used by its perpetrators as means to exercise some forms of control and or power over women. This same position is echoed in Stavrou etal ( 2016) as they argue that in intimate partner violence one can notice a series patterns of coercion designed to intimidate, undermine, create fear and control the victims. There is also a relationship between power and intimate partner violence as studies in Australia have revealed that pregnant women are at an increased risk of intimate partner violence as the perpetrators feels as if his primacy in relationship is being undermined ( Stavrou etal, 2016).
Agency is one of the nebulous terms in sociology. Women capacity to respond to and deal with intimate partner violence is related to a number of factors that can largely be termed positionality ( Crenshaw, 1993). However, the term is often used to express the “survivors “ of violence, women response by reporting violence or leaving violent relationships. As argued already, women capacity to respond is mediated by intersecting forms of identities that sometimes limits their agency and in some instances women may exercise their agency by staying in abusive or violent intimate relationships. Women who are victims of ongoing violence have in the recent past been shown to respond violence through self -defense. This has resulted in a number of ‘murders’, where women kill to protect themselves and their children(Dillon etal, 2015). This exercise of agency has been debated in Australia and instead of calling it murder the 2005 Amendment gave room to what is now called self-defense homicides.
Although most Australians have good knowledge about violence and do not endorse actions that are supportive of violence, one in five thinks that men should take control in relationships, and men should be the head of families and or households ( Stavrou etal, 2016). Though this is idealized, it subscribe to notions of hegemonic masculinity and femininity which see the society as a patriarch society run by men that this is outlined by Connell in his theory of gender . Hegemonic masculinity domestic violence and intimate violence can be attributed to power relations between men and women is “Hegemonic masculinity is the configuration of gender practice that embodies the currently accepted answer to the problem of the legitimacy of patriarchy—which guarantees (or is taken to guarantee) the dominant position of men and the subordination of women.”(Scott, 2014) .
Such structural arrangement perpetuates violence. Men are seen as strong, head of the house and women are weak, caring and they are meant to be submitting to men. This has implications on gendered patterns of violence as men use violence to control and dominate women whom they see as defying the idealized femininities or at least challenging their masculinity.
Structure, that is the culture, tradition and norms and customs, can affect the way in which intimate partner violence manifest and is responded to. Because people do not live in a vacuum but a society, the structural and institutional fabric can exacerbate violence. Crenshaw (1993) argues that intimate partner violence, rather than largely seen as a private matter and aberrational can be seen as a part of broad scale system of domination that affects women as a class.
Economically, class is a structural issue of concern as well. This is not meant to say that only a certain class experiences intimate partner violence. Research shows that women experiencing personal and financial stress are more vulnerable to violence. Stravou and Colleagues (2016) argues that in Australia, a single parent mother in an unregistered marriage who has been a victim of child abuse, and unable to pay rents at that time in moment is 97% likely to experience intimate partner violence over the last two years. This, therefore means that economic positionality of women affects their agency in seeking avenues of out abusive relationships and at the same time predisposes them to abuse. In the very same study, it was observed that though not being a cause of intimate partner violence leaving an abusive intimate relationship may lead to increased financial difficulties which also heightens chances of intimate partner violence as the victim may return to the perpetrator household after a series of homeless encounters and destitution especially when they were dependent on the perpetrator. Attempts to run away may also be interpreted by the perpetrator as loss of control and may become more aggressive and may use further violence to demonstrate control and power over the victim.
Structural institutions further promote patriarchy, Althusser talks about how institutions such as churches, media and schools are Ideological State Apparatus used to mold people into socially constructed roles and this is absorbed into our minds subconsciously to accept dominant ideologies. (O'Shaughnessy & Stadler, 2005)
Though Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islanders are more vulnerable of concern also are immigrant and refugee women. These women may face structural barriers that increases their vulnerability such as racism, sexism and stereotyping by the community. There are also structural barriers in terms of language barriers. Those on partner visas are also vulnerable as they lack power in terms of their legality and stay in the country, they are primarily dependent on their primary visa holders, who may be their abusers. In the same study it is revealed that male partners have in some instances used their visa as a tool for power and control, with deportation threats keeping the victim in a constant state of fear and reluctant to leave the violent relationship. Crenshaw (1993) argues that given the choice between reporting the abuser and facing deportation or remaining silent immigrant women are likely to choose the later. In that regard women experiences of violence also structural shaped as well as shaped by power dynamics between the victim and perpetrator. The structure may fail to respond to the victim concerns, of course not intentionally but can consequently affects intimate partner violence as the victim are structural disempowered and their perpetrator can use this entrapment to further abuse the victim. The perpetrator can in these circumstances control employment efforts, social interactions and other facets of the victim thus making them wholly dependent on them and thus vulnerable. This limits their agency.
Intimate partner violence is a pressing social issue both globally and locally in Australia, although Australia is one of the countries with low prevalence rates according to WHO statistics, intimate partner violence contributes to the disease burden for women between the ages 18 and 41 than any other well-known risk factors such as tobacco, high cholesterol and the use of illicit drugs. As illustrated above, hegemonic views regarding masculinity and femininity, unequal distribution of power, condoning of violence against women, men’s control of decision making and patriarchy, have in many instances been related to the manifestation of intimate partner violence. Norms, institutions, values and laws are a form of structure that affects the distribution of power and consequently the exercise of agency by victims of intimate partner violence. Using Giddens structuration theory, it can however be argued that the process is however not unidimensional. Using Crenshaw (1993) Intersectional theory it has been argued that a number of interacting and intersecting positionalities and identities can be a source of disempowerment. An attempt was also made to illustrate the fact that agency goes beyond leaving the intimate abusive partner or seeking police help, but even staying in in the very abusive relationship after a calculative reflection in which the victim sees themselves with limited opportunities outside of the abusive relationship.
References
Ahearn, L. (2001) Language and Agency, Annual Review of Anthropology, 30 PP 109-137
Crenshaw, K. (1993) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics and violence against women of colour, Stanford Law Review Vol 34
Dillon G, Hussain R, Kibele E, Rahman S and Loxton D (2016) Influence of intimate partner violence in Metropolitan young Australian women, Violence against Women Vol 22 NO 13 PP 1597-1620
O'Shaughnessy, M., & Stadler, J. (2005). Media and society: An introduction (3rd ed.). South Melbourne, Vic.: Oxford University Press.
Scott, J. (2014). Hegemonic masculinity. A Dictionary of Sociology, A Dictionary of Sociology.
Stavrou E, Poynton S and Weatherburn D (2016) Intimate partner violence against women in Australia: Related factors and help seeking behaviors, Crime and justice Bulletin, NO 200, NSW Bureau of crime and creative research
Tyson D, Kirkwood D and Mckenzie M (2017) Family violence in domestic homicides: A case study of women who killed intimate partners post-legislative reform in Victoria, Australia, Violence against women Vol 23 NO 5 pp 559-583