Chapter Eleven. Violence within the family
Neil Frude
Introduction
Although families commonly provide invaluable support, protection, nurturance and guidance for family members, the family is also frequently the context for many forms of abuse including physical (injurious) abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and neglect. Abuse may take place between members of the same generation (marital abuse or sibling abuse) or between different generations (e.g. child abuse by parents, or elder abuse).
Table 11.1 provides an overview of some forms of family-based abuse. The columns specify particular forms of abuse and the rows specify the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator. It would not be difficult to quote cases which illustrate each of the 16 boxes in the grid in Table 11.1. Box 10 for example, would include marital rape, and Box 16 would include cases in which the needs of elderly people are neglected by other family members. This chapter will begin with a general discussion of violence within the family and will then consider four specific types of family violence: marital violence, the physical and sexual abuse of children and abuse of older people.
| Physical | Sexual | Emotional | Neglect | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parent to child | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Sibling | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 |
| Partner | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 |
| Elderly | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 |
Violence within the family
The family is the setting for a substantial proportion of the violence that occurs within society. Most estimates agree that in any average week at least two children in the UK die as a result of a violent attack by a parent or caregiver; many more women are seriously injured as a result of marital battering than as a result of road accidents and street violence; and violence is a significant cause of bruising and more severe injuries among older people living with relatives. Estimates of the prevalence of the various forms of family violence depend to a great extent on the definitions used, and on diagnostic criteria, but it is clear from the available evidence that many forms of family violence are all too common.
Explanations of family violence
The issue of how family violence is best explained is somewhat controversial. Some authorities consider violence in families to be a ‘natural’ effect of the kind of society in which we live, and a reflection of the attitudes that adults generally have towards children and that men generally have towards women. Others, while not denying the relevance of the cultural climate, suggest that acts of domestic violence are ‘deviant’ behaviours that are best explained as aggressive responses to interpersonal conflict. Such ‘interactional’ explanations account for physical abuse by focusing on the relationships and interactions between the assailant and the victim, particularly in conflict and disciplinary situations, and attribute the violence to the assailant’s high level of anger and low level of inhibition regarding the aggressive assault.
In trying to understand particular incidents of family violence it is useful to bear in mind the distinction between hostile and instrumental violence. Hostile violence is driven by anger and the principal motive for the action is that of hurting the victim. Instrumental violence is driven principally by a desire for certain ‘gains’, with aggression being used merely as a means to this end. Thus the ‘mugger’ is aggressive not because he wishes to hurt his victim but because he believes that his attack will enable him to steal money. Some incidents of family violence are best explained as examples of instrumental aggression. A husband may be violent towards his wife, for example, because he believes that if he can make his wife fearful of him then he will be able to totally dominate her. Instrumental violence may also be used strategically to ‘teach’ the wife that a beating will follow if she dares to criticize or to refuse any demand.
On the other hand, most incidents of marital violence, physical child abuse and elder abuse are probably best understood as examples of hostile aggression. Typically, one person does something which makes another person very angry and, in the absence of sufficient inhibitions, the angry person then assaults the victim. This simple model suggests that in order to understand the nature of family violence we need to understand what triggers anger, how people judge (or ‘appraise’) other people’s behaviour, the dynamics of anger, and inhibitions against physical violence. The model also suggests that effective interventions might involve strategies for reducing anger, for increasing inhibitions, and for maintaining self-control (Frude 1991).
The interactional model will form the basis for much of the analysis provided in this chapter, and the discussion will focus, for the most part, on hostile rather than on instrumental violence. Four types of family violence will be examined – marital violence, physical child abuse, child sexual abuse and elder abuse. But first we will consider the general issue of why violent assaults occur so frequently in so many families.
Why is there so much violence within the family?
One reason why family violence may be considerably more common than street violence, or violence towards neighbours, friends and work colleagues, is that contact between family members is prolonged and is often intense. People who live together, eat together, sleep together and play together will be in close proximity for so much of the time that strong emotions, including anger, are likely to be generated at least occasionally. In addition, family members are locked into the family situation. It is possible to avoid or to walk away from an annoying stranger, but a crying baby or a dependent older relative cannot be avoided or ignored.
Irritating behaviours such as constant ‘complaints’ or ‘nags’ by one partner about the other, a child’s persistent attention seeking, or a baby’s continual ‘grizzling’ are likely to lead to extreme annoyance. Family members are interdependent, and the behaviour of one person will affect everyone else. A parent, partner or carer who invests a lot of time and energy in helping or caring for others is likely to feel aggrieved if there is no appreciation of the effort involved. Babies, children and the elderly infirm, especially, demand a great deal of attention and their care involves considerable ‘costs’ to carers in terms of time, effort and money. In such circumstances it is not difficult to appreciate that a carer might become angry in response to an apparent lack of gratitude or when additional demands are made. Thus a parent who is finding it difficult to cope with a demanding child may become angry if an infant soils a nappy immediately following a change, or if a child refuses to eat food that has taken a long time to prepare.
Anger may also result when there is a conflict over the allocation of space, money or other resources, and such disputes may be especially bitter if the relevant resources are very limited (for example, if the family is poor). Thus some marital fights concern money, with one partner being accused of wasting money (for example, on drink or gambling). Other conflicts focus on the allocation of duties, responsibilities and household chores. Those who feel that they are being exploited or ‘taken for granted’ are likely to object, and their complaint will often generate an angry response. Conflicts on such matters may escalate, with accusations being made and insults thrown, until one person becomes physically violent and attacks the other.
Anger is often preceded by the judgement that someone has behaved badly or has ‘broken a rule’. Family life is governed by so many unwritten ‘rules’ that these are likely to be broken frequently even in families that function well. Thus accusations of rule breaking (or ‘transgressions’) are likely to feature prominently in family interactions. Such accusations are usually expressed in terms of what a person ‘should’ or ‘should not’ have done. The person being accused in this way is likely to defend himself or herself and may make a protestation of innocence or a counter-accusation. Real or supposed transgressions frequently initiate an episode that ultimately results in violence. Some parents even judge that very young babies are guilty of rule breaking and regard certain aspects of the infant’s behaviour as ‘naughty’ and ‘blameworthy’.
Family violence is not simply a reflection of the fact that family situations frequently generate anger, but also reflects the fact that people have relatively few inhibitions in the home situation. In most other contexts expressions of anger are regularly inhibited, or at least ‘toned down’, but people often have few reservations about expressing their disagreement with other members of the family, making complaints to them, or even threatening them. In contrast to a disagreement arising in a work situation, for example, or a dispute with a neighbour, family conflicts may involve little verbal sparring before a rapid onslaught of insults and disparagements focuses on particularly sensitive areas. Family members know about each other’s vulnerabilities and therefore have the ‘advantage’ of being able to inflict maximum hurt.
Furthermore, inhibitions against physical aggression are often particularly low in family situations, and many people feel justified in behaving aggressively towards family members within the home. Parents may believe that it is their right to physically discipline children by smacking them, and some men maintain that they have a right to physically abuse a wife who has ‘misbehaved’. If pushing, pulling or slapping a relative is regarded as acceptable, and becomes habitual, then regular low-level physical aggression may occasionally escalate to a dangerous level to include punches, kicks and the use of weapons. In addition, the constraints that normally inhibit violence towards strangers are often absent in the family situation. For example, a man may assume that, if he were to attack his wife, his child or his aged mother, his actions would not come to the attention of the police. In addition, his physical size and strength may eliminate any fear of physical reprisal by his victim. If previous assaults have passed without serious repercussions, then inhibitions about a further assault may be particularly low. Thus it appears that family aggression is relatively common because a good deal of anger is generated in family situations and because there are relatively few inhibitions that prevent this anger from being expressed in the form of physical aggression.
Domestic (partner) violence
The term ‘domestic violence’ is generally confined to partner violence, while ‘family violence’ is a broader term that generally includes physical child abuse, elder abuse and other violent acts between family members. Traditionally, domestic violence tended to remain hidden because this form of abuse occurred ‘behind closed doors’. However, violence against women by their partners became a major focus of social concern as a result of pressure from the women’s movement in the 1970s and since that time it has had a much higher profile. Despite this, it is still only a minority of cases that get reported. Thus in the study based on the British Crime Survey (BCS) of 2001, 31% of female victims of domestic violence and 63% of male victims had not told anyone about the abuse that they had suffered during the past year (Walby and Allen 2004).
The 2001 BCS asked a sample of more than 22 000 women and men about their experiences in order to ascertain the most accurate estimates of the extent and nature of domestic violence for England and Wales. The BCS estimated that 4% of women and 2% of men were subject to domestic violence in the 12 months prior to interview. Among women subjected to domestic violence, the average number of incidents during the year was 20, while 28% experienced only one incident. For men who were victims of domestic violence, the average number of incidents during the 12-month period was seven, although almost half of these men (47%) had experienced a single incident. These figures allowed the number of incidents of domestic violence in England and Wales in the year prior to interview to be estimated as 12.9 million incidents against women and 2.5 million against men (Walby and Allen 2004).
These are figures for domestic violence experienced during ‘the past 12 months’, and the lifetime (adult) prevalence figures will clearly be higher. The BCS estimated that one in five (21%) women and one in ten (10%) men had experienced at least one incident of non-sexual domestic threat or force since they were 16. These figures reveal that men, as well as women, are often victims of domestic violence. The principal focus of domestic violence has always been on women victims, and this is certainly justified because many more women than men are abused in this way and the injuries they sustain are often more severe. In the BCS, of those who were subjected to four or more incidents of domestic violence by the same perpetrator, the overwhelming majority (89%) were women (Walby and Allen 2004). However, it is clear that men can also be victims of domestic violence, and that some men are brutally beaten up by their wives (Archer 2000, Carney et al 2007, Dutton and Nicholls 2005). The rise of the men’s movement, and an increasing focus on men’s rights, has led to a call for men, as well as women, to be offered protection from domestic violence.
Domestic violence in same-sex partnerships
There has recently been a good deal of interest in violence within same-sex relationships, and the research has generally indicated that there are many similarities between the partner abuse that occurs among same-sex couples and that which occurs in heterosexual relationships. Thus Lehman (1997) suggested that the rates of violence are similar, that violence in gay or lesbian couples, as with heterosexual couples, is associated with such conditions as unemployment, substance abuse and low self-esteem, that the victims’ reactions are similar (fear and feelings of helplessness) and that the reasons for staying with an abusive partner are also similar (‘love’, ‘we can work it out’, ‘things will change’ and psychological denial). At the same time, Lehman pointed to certain differences, including a less understanding or sympathetic approach by police to violence in same-sex relationships, and a lack of support from peers who may be reluctant to reinforce negative attitudes to gay people.
A typology of domestic violence
Various analysts and commentators have focused on specific factors to distinguish between different types of domestic violence. Thus one typology (Johnson 2005) focuses on the power relationship between the couple and distinguishes between the following types of domestic violence:
• ‘Situational couple violence’: here, ordinary conflicts and disputes between partners escalate to violence. Violence reflects a flare-up of anger and does not mark a strategic assertion of power. This kind of episodic violence is probably the most common type of violence between partners.
• ‘Intimate terrorism’: here, one partner uses violence systematically to dominate and control the other partner. Intimate terrorism is a characteristic of the relationship as a whole. The level of violence involved often escalates over time and may eventually result in extreme threats and serious injuries.
• ‘Violent resistance’: this is violence perpetrated, usually by a woman, as a form of self-defence against an abusive partner.
• ‘Mutual violent control’: here, both partners engage in a battle for dominance and control. This type of intimate partner violence is relatively rare.
Explanations of domestic violence
Two principal models are used to explain domestic violence. Psychological theories focus on the personality, beliefs and habitual behaviour patterns of the perpetrator as well as on the nature of the relationship and interactions between the offender and the victim. Social theories focus largely on external factors in the perpetrator’s environment, such as cultural attitudes to gender and power. One sociological model suggests that wife battering is a socially approved strategy that reflects patriarchy and is used to maintain women in an inferior position in society (Dobash and Dobash 1979). The psychological interaction model regards marital abuse as a hostile aggressive attack by an assailant on a victim, usually following a conflictual encounter between the two (Frude 1994). It is important to recognize that although the interactional model attempts to explain violent attacks as the outcome of the behaviour of both the aggressor and the victim, the blame for the violence is attributed solely to the assailant.
The interactional explanation
Psychological accounts suggest that the majority of cases of domestic violence arise out of partner conflict and that most violent marriages are generally difficult and quarrelsome. Many men who beat their wives have extreme and objectionable views about how a wife should behave and judge many of the woman’s actions as ‘out of order’. If a man judges his wife to be unsupportive, or believes that she is failing to provide him with due attention, consideration, power or privileges, then the extreme hostility that he feels may lead to physical aggression. The issue of power is clearly central to this analysis, and a wide status difference between the partners is associated with a higher frequency of violence, particularly if the man has lower status than his wife (Holtzworth-Munroe et al 1997).
The marriages of assailant–victim couples are generally tense and conflict ridden, and aggressive attacks usually arise out of conflicts and arguments (Goldsmith 1990). There is generally little power sharing within such relationships, and little discussion or negotiation. Studies have shown that even in those arguments that do not end in violence, physically abusive husbands are likely to be hostile and offensive in their manner and to accuse their wives of many misdemeanours. Conflicts between at-risk couples tend to escalate rapidly, and both partners may fight ‘unfairly’, each attacking their partner’s self-esteem and making serious assertions about the other person’s conduct or personality. Many abusive husbands are aggressive not only to their wives but also to their children, to neighbours and to relatives and strangers (Hamel 2005). They are likely to be jealous (sexual jealousy often features in dangerous conflicts), and they are typically low in self-esteem. Such men also have a high ‘need for power’ and they usually hold strong traditional (‘sexist’) attitudes regarding women and marriage (Frieze and McHugh 1992).
The violent incident
Gelles (1987) maintains that an assailant’s attack is almost always ‘spontaneous’ (i.e. not planned), ‘justified’ from the abuser’s perspective and ‘interactional’ (a reaction to some aspect of the victim’s behaviour). (This last characteristic, which suggests that the victim’s behaviour plays a key role in precipitating the attack, does not mean that the victim is responsible for the violence.) Marital abuse frequently results from conflicts over such issues as child discipline, meals, chores, alcohol, sexual conduct or performance and money (Hamel 2005, Pahl 1985).
Gelles found that physical attacks were often precipitated by some aspect of the victim’s verbal behaviour (including criticizing, name-calling or gibes about sexual performance) and that these usually reflected the victim’s own extreme anger. Partners become experts at identifying each other’s weaknesses, and when one decides to ‘go for the jugular’ or to ‘hit below the belt’, then the other is likely to regard the allegations as outrageous and highly offensive. A man who feels that his wife’s verbal attacks against him are vicious will often, in his rage, feel that he is fully justified in beating her.
Alcohol is often implicated in marital violence. Drunkenness may be a cause for complaint, and alcohol tends to reduce inhibitions, so that a person who is both angry and intoxicated is likely to attack in a violent and uncontrolled way. The abuse of alcohol is often a key factor in marital abuse and efforts to control the drink problem may be highly effective in preventing further attacks on the partner (O’Farrell and Murphy 1995).
Intervention
The physical and psychological effects of marital abuse are often extremely severe, and once a relationship has become violent there is a high probability of recurrent attacks. However, victims of domestic abuse are often reluctant to come forward for medical treatment or to seek legal help. One UK study found that, on average, women experienced 35 incidents of domestic violence before seeking treatment (Bowen et al 2002). In the study based on the British Crime Survey of 2002, only 27% of women and 14% of men who suffered injuries as a result of domestic violence sought medical assistance. Of the women who sought medical assistance, 94% were asked about the cause of their injuries by the attending doctor or nurse and 74% disclosed a cause. However, only 26% were referred on to a potential source of help (Walby and Allen 2004).
The availability of shelters or refuges has been a major contribution to the safety of women and children, but around half of those who enter a shelter eventually return to live with the man who attacked them. Various forms of ‘treatment’ have been developed, some of which focus principally on a violent husband (e.g. anger control training) and some of which focus on the victim’s need to develop an effective ‘personal safety plan’. A number of extensive couple-based intervention programmes aim to modify the couple’s conflict interactions, to teach the assaultive husband anger-control techniques, and to help the victim to promote her own safety (Hamel 2005). Changes in social policy and law enforcement practices in recent decades (for example, the setting up of police domestic violence units and the adoption of a ‘zero tolerance’ philosophy) may have gone some way to reducing the extreme danger that so many women face within their own home, but their effect has clearly been limited.
A great deal more needs to be done, and it is clear that there will never be a universal solution to the problem of domestic violence. Some cases require incarceration of the perpetrator, some require one partner to acquire anger management skills, many cases require the partners to separate, while in some cases the best solution may be family therapy (Cooper and Vetere 2005, Hamel 2005).
Physical child abuse
Definition and prevalence
The ‘physical abuse of children’ refers to aggressive attacks made on children. Most estimates of the prevalence of this form of child abuse are based on extrapolations from injuries that are known to have been deliberately inflicted. Such methods, however, may lead to a serious underestimation, since only a proportion of injuries to children are ever reported, and many injuries that are attributed to accidents may be the results of parental attack. Some people maintain that any assault on a child which leaves a bruise should count as a case of physical child abuse, while others go further and insist that any form of physical disciplining constitutes physical abuse (in which case over 90% of parents in the UK might be described as ‘abusive’ –Nobes and Smith 1997, Nobes et al 1999). Physical methods of discipline are used in the majority of homes and the average child is subjected to hundreds or maybe thousands of slaps before he or she reaches adolescence. The definition of physical child abuse is therefore a matter of some controversy. Some people equate abuse with any physical disciplining method while others maintain a sharp distinction between such ‘ordinary’ behaviours and those which cause injury to a child (see Chapter 12 for further information on associations between physical punishment and physical abuse).
Stay updated, free articles. Join our Telegram channel
Full access? Get Clinical Tree
