|
By Jim Morin, Emerge Group Leader
It may just be that my co-worker and I are working with
a very challenging group of abusive men right now. Some
nights we just shake our heads in frustration. The
problem is they just don’t seem convinced that giving up
control over their partners is the right thing to do.
While they might give lip service to the idea that
abusive and controlling behavior is not right, an
off-hand comment or some conspiratorial snickering
exposes an alternative conviction that sometimes a man
is justified in taking control. They have heard our
message of respect and tolerance, but they don’t buy it.
When considering why some of these men seem so reluctant
to give up their ultimate right to control their
partner, I recall the anecdote of the down stream life
guard who, day after day, keeps pulling drowning people
out of the river, and then one day realizes that a more
effective rescue effort may be to find out how so many
people are getting into the river upstream in the first
place. The point of the anecdote is, of course, to raise
the question of the source of the problem. When it comes
to addressing the abusive and controlling behavior of
men in intimate relationships, where is the best place
to intervene? Is abusive behavior toward a partner a
problem of the individual abuser? Or is it a social
problem, better understood as suggested, sanctioned, and
maintained by social and cultural institutions?
It probably comes as no surprise to any of us that work
with abusive men that there are, in American society,
powerful forces promoting violence and domination in the
service of a supposedly virtuous identity. There are
many ways this message is delivered. Watch almost any
video game and you can see that it’s now cool to be a
killer. Weapons are shiny, high-tech products that
bestow power. They are plentiful on the streets from
Boston to Baghdad, and are mostly in the hands of men. I
have been struck lately by some of the messages coming
from the White House seeking to justify the use of
American force against our enemies. Judging by his words
and deeds, we not only have the right to defend
ourselves with military force when attacked by our
enemies, “the terrorists,” we also have the right to
destroy them if we believe they may someday intend to do
us harm.
Of course this isn’t just the current administration who
is promoting this right to use force in self-defense.
There are many institutions dedicated to promoting this
point of view as patriotic. The message is promoted in
the media, supported by our governmental agencies,
considered in our schools, and lauded on our car bumpers
with yellow ribbons. Consider this: Today it is
patriotic to support the killing of thousands of people
throughout Iraq and Afghanistan and other Middle East
countries. Our government trains thousands of our young
men and women to take up arms to execute this mission.
You are a brave American if you are serving in uniform,
willing to risk your life for this cause. You are a
patriotic American if you endorse this mission and honor
the troops who implement this violent imposition of our
will. Make an informed decision to end the use of
violence, “cut and run,” and your loyalty and judgment
are suspect.
What are we to make of the mixed messages about
international violence and domestic violence? The idea
that force is justified to control situations receives a
great deal of exposure and promotion. In comparison, the
idea that force is not justified in domestic situations,
receives much less exposure and much less promotion. If
we can believe the men in our groups, they claim this is
new information. They say they didn’t know that threats
and intimidation were controlling, or that put downs and
sarcasm were forms of abuse. Of course such remarks are
self-serving on their part, but there is an element of
truth in their claim that they did not know control that
control of one’s partner was unacceptable. So many
messages tell us that control over others is justified;
so few tell us that control of others is unjustified.
I am not suggesting that domestic violence is caused by
this country’s foreign policy. As is the case with other
social values, many men are exposed to these messages
yet do not attempt to control their partners. Many
factors influence the choices we make, and the choices
we have. My point is about mixed messages. Particularly,
messages about how men should respond to conflict. Our
national policy is to respond with force and to valorize
those who serve that policy. Our commitment to
respectful relationships with partners and to peaceful
problem-solving is promoted much more equivocally.
Is domestic violence an individual problem, or is it
better understood as a societal problem? Do we best
address the problem of domestic violence by treating
each abusive man as an individual who, for whatever
reasons and circumstances, has decided to employ
violence in an attempt to control his female partner? Do
we pull them out of the water, one guy at a time? Or do
we better address the problem of domestic violence by
identifying, confronting, and reshaping the societal
institutions, structures and attitudes that legitimize
domestic violence and the privilege of men to control
women? Do we stop them from falling in upstream?
(To discuss this article on the Emerge
Discussion Forum,
CLICK HERE)
|
