Written Thesis

Roots of Violence

“Violence against women is perhaps the most shameful human rights violation. And it is perhaps the most pervasive. It knows no boundaries of geography, culture or wealth. As long as it continues, we cannot claim to be making real progress towards equality, development, and peace.” ~ Kofi Annan, former Secretary-General of the United Nations

The World Health Organization estimates that at least one of every three women experience gender-based violence (and one in four during pregnancy). They predict that globally, 33% of women will be beaten, raped, or otherwise abused at least once during their lifetime. In most cases, the abuser is a member of her own family. Gender-based violence also affects men (about 3% in the United States). Gender-based violence includes economic, emotional, physical, or sexual abuse, most often by someone the victim knows, including by a husband or another male family member.

Gender-based violence is both a reflection and a reinforcement of gender inequality between men and women. It compromised the safety, dignity, health, and agency of victims. Gender-based violence includes a wide array of human rights violations including rape, domestic violence, sexual assault, human trafficking and harmful “traditions” including FGM. All of these forms of violence have traumatizing affects on victims including mental health, cognitive functioning, reproductive and sexual health. In some cases, they can result in death.

The Roots of Domestic/Gender-Based Violence

Gender-based/sexual identity-based violence stems from one group exerting dominance and demonstrating authority other another to reinforce power differences. There are multiple roots of violence. The American College Health Association emphasizes that violence is a “learned and gendered behavior” that stems from a desire for power and control, and this violence is normalized through media, popular culture, and sports culture where “competition, status, bonding, entitlement, hypermasculinity, power, and sexual conquest” are celebrated qualities (ACHA 8).

Bell Hooks suggests that violence is in a desire to exert authority over another individual or group. She writes: “It is the Western philosophical notion of hierarchical rule and coercive authority that is the root abuse of violence against women…[and] of all violence between those who dominate and those who are dominated” (118). She specifically notes that the idea of male supremacy is ingrained into our culture through various political and social establishments:

The ideology of male supremacy both encourages and supports violence again women…Woman abuse is viewed here as an historical expression of male domination manifested with the family and currently reinforced by the institutions, economic arrangement, and sexist division of labor within capitalist society (Hooks 118).

Violence against LGBTQ and two-spirit groups and individuals have similar roots. When the violence comes in the form of a hate crime, it is done to instill fear on entire group of people. This violence stems out of a deep sense of xenophobia and the desire to exert dominance and affirm what is understood as the “norm”. It signals to society who is powerful and who is weak. Heterosexism is also a cause of gender-based violence. Hooks writes that even heterosexual women’s prejudices against lesbians “support and perpetuate compulsory heterosexuality” and eliminating heterosexism is a step toward ending all gender-based oppressions (153).

The institution of the Western traditional heterosexual family model normalizes the idea of authoritarian male rule. Philosopher John Hodge notes that, “most of us are socialized to accept group oppression and the use of force to uphold authority…we have just considered the relationship…where...males rule over females in the accepted norm” (120). Because male dominance is standardized, the way of gaining such dominance is often considered acceptable as well. In this way, patriarchal rule supports heterosexual and male rule through the use of force (121).

ACHA cites educator Kilmartin as he discusses underlying issues related to college campus rape and other forms of violence. He explains that rape is a form of a larger social problem: “a continuum of disrespect toward women”, which includes “misogynist jokes [and] demeaning pornography”. He emphasizes that this demonstrates a “power imbalance” between groups and this is institutionalized through “social forces that create and maintain these imbalances” (ACHA 7). Cynthia Enloe writes about female factory works in South Korea who are sexually assaulted as a form of a control. She writes: “[It is] a mechanism for suppressing women’s engagement in the labor movement” (Enloe 12). And, indeed, it is a way of suppressing women’s voices, whatever they might be advocating for. It is a way to exerting and asserting dominance in the most fear inducing and violating ways.

Another root of violence is the limited view of masculinity and the pressure for men to conform to its restrictive requirements, which lead to a masculine socialization of violence. According to Hooks, the cycle of violence begins in a public place where a man experiences psychological abuse from another person who subjects them to control through humiliation. The man then suppresses this violence in the public sphere but releases it in a “control situation” where he is not likely to suffer consequences for his actions (122). The limiting ideas of masculinity only serve to exacerbate the problem more. Hooks writes that men are taught to suppress emotions because a demonstration of them would be a “symbolic castration” (122). So, instead, they are taught that, “causing pain, rather than expressing it, restores men’s sense of completeness, of wholeness, [and] of masculinity” (122).

Another root of violence stems from the sexual objectification of women. In sexist societies, men are taught to assume they “should have access to the bodies of all women”, breeding the idea that “female sexuality exists to serve the sexual needs of men” (Hooks 157). This leads to the commodification of love and sexuality, internalizing assumptions about women’s inferiority and degrading women to the status of physical property to be exploited (Hooks 157, Kimmel 55). Michael Kimmel declares that violence among men is a learned (and even encouraged) behavior. He admits: “Basically, [men are] taught to sexually harass women…what I learned from my peers was that on a date, the goal was to score…[I was taught that] if she says no, keep going” (Kimmel 55). He later equates the socialization of masculinity to a kind of “basic training for sexual assault” and a “boot camp for predation” (55).

Consequences

Consequences of this “normalization” of violence, especially within the family structure, often lead to a blurry line between love and violence. Jane Patrick explains the danger in this thinking. She states: “By saying things like ‘I’m only doing this because I love you’ while they are using physical abuse to control children, parents are not only equating violence with love, they are also offering a notion of love synonymous with passive acceptance, the absence of explanation and discussion” (122). This same confusion of love and violence occurs between intimate partners as well. She continues that women accept violence because they “fear that eliminating [it] will lead to the loss of love” (125). Through various forms of media, women are encouraged to  “accept the idea that violence heightens and intensifies sexual pleasure” and to believe that violence is a sign of “’male care’...[and] they seen enduring abuse as the price they pay” (125).

Women who are victims of violence and abuse often believe that “the person in authority has the right to use force to maintain authority” (119). These women who are victims of violence then perpetuate the violence by exerting coercive authority over their children (119). The cycle of violence births a cycle of shame in which a victim/survivor of violence is disgraced into silence. The American College Health Association (ACHA 3) writes that, “The individual…may be too ashamed to report interpersonal violence or to get help for her/his victimization…If they do not sense that this support is there, they will be less likely to report and seek help” (ACHA 3). Shame, silence, and isolation are all consequences of gender-based violence.

**********************************************************************

Literature Review

Keith Knight’s work Beginner’s Guide to Community-based Arts provides an excellent example of the power of community-based arts projects. His graphic novel chronicles stores of social change artists around the United States and their projects that “tangibly transform their communities” through art. Knight highlights that this model of community-based arts is powerful because is “live[s] at the cross roads of three things we normally think of separately: art, learning and social change”. Knight guides readers about how to explore the power of art and story telling while working with a community to build something greater. The collaborative nature of the community-based arts model poses a unique challenge to artists and encourages readers to see that there is immense power in community. Knight confirms that: “Building consensus among people with different perspectives, gifts, talents and skills is one of the thing community-based art does best” (Knight xii). Knight looks at five conceptual territories of the creative process: Contact, Research, Action, Feedback, and Training (CRAFT) (xiii). Through this, Knight builds a solid foundation for artistic exploration and social justice research.

Why is art important? What can art do to help anyone? Knight provides a helpful answer as he suggests:

“In today’s world, it can take a problem or injustice, bad economy or the need for better schools, for people to rediscover their sense of people power – this is where community-based arts often come into play. But whether it is a week-long workshop, a year-long project or a permanent program, the skills enhanced through community-based arts have the potential to go beyond fixing problems to developing solutions. This ability to unleash our “social imagination” – to help us envision the world differently – makes community-based arts a uniquely important type of social change strategy” (xxiv).

This idea of “social imagination” speaks loudly to the transformative nature of art. If we are to create community and share stories about violence, we must do so in a way that works toward envisioning – and repainting – the world in a new way.

Knight provides helpful definitions for this process. He defines community as “an interdependent group of people defined by a common place, intention, tradition or spirit” and defines community-based art as “any form or work of art that emerges from a community and consciously seeks to increase the social, economic and political power of that community”. He describes social change as “transformation in the formal and informal systems of society that lead to positive outcomes such as greater openness, equality and appreciation among people” (xvii).

In order to study the impact of community-based arts projects, an ethnographic approach works well. John Creswell’s Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions guides ethnographers to structure the project and the written product. He notes that ethnographers “write extensively about narrative construction, such as how the nature of the text shapes the subject matter, to the “literary” conventions and devices used by authors” (Creswell 181). He introduces “impressionistic tale” ethnographies: “personalized accounts of fieldwork case in dramatic form [that includes] elements of both realist and confessional writing” (Creswell 182). He highlights the need for excellent qualitative inquiry methods that are a “centerpiece of good ethnographic writing as well as steps in data analysis” (182). He notes that when observing a group, it is important to start with a description of the group and then ask: “what is going on here?” He identifies the need to include details about “chronological order, the researcher or narrator order, a progressive focusing, a critical or key event, plots and character, groups in interaction, an analytical framework, and a story told through several perspectives” (182). Then, this must be analyzed to make meaning. This analysis includes: “highlighting findings…reporting fieldwork procedures, identifying patterned regularities in the data, comparing the case with a known case, evaluating the information, contextualizing the information within a broader analytic frame working, critiquing the [observatory] process, and proposing a redesign” (182). Although these steps contain elements of a quantitative scientific research design, it is important to remember that this is not a research project that will result in measurable data. This design will instead generate a collection of spoken, written, and visual products about a community that used art as a means of dialoguing about domestic violence.

Because this is not a scientific research project, interpretation of data, as Creswell reminds readers, “should be involved in the rhetorical structure. This means that the researcher can extend the analysis, make inferences from the information, do as direct or as suggested by gatekeepers, turn to theory, refocus the interpretation itself, connect with personal experience, analyze or interpret the interpretive process, or explore alternative formats” (183).

Participatory Action Research

Thomas Schwandt, in his work Dictionary of Qualitative Inquiry provides clarification on this type of participatory project with his description of a participatory action research (PAR) project. He explains that is a “broad designation for several kinds of action research that place a premium on the politics and power of knowledge production and use. Participatory action researchers typically work with groups and communities experiencing or subject to control [via] oppression, or colonization by a more dominant group or culture”. Three characteristics appear to distinguish the forms of this practice from other forms of social inquiry: “(a) its participatory character – cooperation and collaboration between the researcher(s) and other participants in problem definition, choice of methods, data analysis, and use of findings” (187). He points out that there are various ways of participating/collaborating including: “participant-as-researcher, participants networked to share knowledge, participants as problem formulators, research-as-colleague, and researcher-as-participant” (187). He claims that PAR has a democratic aspect to it as it “embodies democratic ideals or principles, but it is not necessarily a recipe for bringing about democratic change; and its objective of producing both useful knowledge and action as well as consciousness raising – empowering people through the process of constructing and using their own knowledge”. PAR is also unique in its focus towards the tension surrounding the “simultaneous realization of the aims of participant involvement, social improvement, and knowledge production” (188). PAR an empowering process because of its inclusive nature. Schwandt’s emphasis on “knowledge production” underscores the notion that all participants’ understandings of the world are influenced by each other. It is a transformative and progressive activity that is narrow in focus but constantly evolving and reshaping itself.

Feminism and Qualitative Inquiry

I hope this project will allow me to explore feminism through a different hands-on lens. Studies about human interaction via a qualitative approach have a strong position within feminist research. Kvale notes that:

 “In contrast to an often eclectic qualitative research, feminist approaches have in common a focus on the everyday world of women, work with methods appropriate for understanding the very lives and situations of women, and understanding is a means for changing the conditions studied. Feminist research center of women’s diverse situations and the frames that influence those situations, based on the assumption that interpretive human actions can be the focus of research (Olesen, 1994). Feminist research is ‘qualitative research by women ‘on’ women’ with a desire to make sense of women’s lives and experiences; it ‘must take women’s oppression as one of its basic assumptions’; it is research informed at every stage by an acknowledged political commitment” (73).

Gender is a fundamental organizing principle in feminist research. Kvale writes: “Very simply, to do feminist research is to put the social construction of gender at the center of one’s inquiry…The overt ideological goal of feminist research in the human sciences is to correct both the invisibility and distortion of female experience in ways relevant to ending women’s unequal social position” (73).

Feminist research focuses on “feeling and research motivated by…receptivity and listening, subjectivity, multiplicity and webs of interaction…cooperation and working in harmony, intuition, relatedness and a vision of wholeness, and the social responsibility of science” (73). Postmodern feminist thinker Maureen O’Hara speaks of the power of feminist research with its focus on relationships and qualitative inquiry when she writes:

Far from despair, the idea that each of us recreates reality with each encounter fills me with wondrous hope, empowerment and community connection. If there is no absolute truth “out there” to create pristine ‘expert systems’ that can somehow solve our problems mathematically;…if we accept that when we enter into dialogue we both change; if it is true that we co-create reality, which in turn creates us – then we are called to a new community. If I can make culture I must act responsibly” (O’Hara 6).

In this way, feminist research is about community connection that works to co-create reality to work towards empowering women and is an important hermeneutic with which to approach this project.