The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence

The John K. Fesler Memorial Fund provided assistance in the publication of this volume, for which the University of Minn...

Author: Murray A. Straus

48 downloads 1203 Views 10MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

The John K. Fesler Memorial Fund provided assistance in the publication of this volume, for which the University of Minnesota Press is grateful.

The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence Murray A. Straus and Gerald T . Hotaling Editors

UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA PRESS OMINNEAPOLIS

1786

Copyright a 1980 by the Vniverrity of Minnesota All rights reserved. Published by the University of Minnesota Press, 2037 University Avenue Southeast, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55414

~ i b r a r yof Congress Caralosng in Publication Data Srraus, Murray Arnold. 1926The social causes of husbandwife violence. Bibliogiaphy: p. Includes indexes. 1. Conjugal vioience-Social aspecrr-Unired StatesAddresses, essays, lectures. I. Horaling, Gerald T., joint aurhor. 11. Tide. HQ809.3.U5S88 306.8'7 79-27071 ISBN 0-8166-0886-5 ISBN 0-81664955-1 pbk.

The University of Minnesota is an equal-opporurnity educator and employer.

Foreword

Despite t h e l i p s e r v i c e r i t u a l i s t i c a l l p paid t o t h e need to integrate s o c i o l o g i c a l t h e o r y and e m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h , t o o o f t e n r e s e a r c h on t h e c a u s e s and c o n s e q u e n c e s of social problems l a c k s t h D o r e t i C a 1 guidance. Much t h e o r i z i n g i n s u c h a r e a s , o n t h e o t h e r hand. procee9s i n b l i s s f u l ignorance of s c i e n t i f i c aata. The v i r t u e of t h i s book i s t h a t i t a v o i d s t h e s e p i t f a l l s . It p r e s e n t s r e s e a r c h f i n d i n g s v i t h i n a f i r m l y h e l d t h e o r e t i c a l framework, a t t h e same t i m e t h a t some o f t h e e m p i r i c a l f i n d i r g s r i f i n s existino theories. T h e s e f i n d i n a-s .. t o borrow R o b e r t K. nerton's formulation. help to initiare, refornulate, deflect. and c l a r i f y t h e o r i e s , r a t h e r than simply t e s t i n g them; and t h u s c o n t r i b u t e n o t o n l y t o e m p i r i c a l knowledge but also to the consolidation of t h a t h e o r e t i c a l p r o p o s i t i o n s i n t h e a r e a o f f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s and i n t h e g e n e r a l f i e l d of s o c i a l c o n f l i c t a n d v i o l e n c e . what I l i k e p a r t i c u l a r l y i n t h e a p p r o a c h o f f l u r r a y S t r a u s a n d h i s a s s o c i a t e s i s t h e i r commitment t o a n i r o n i c perspective. They h a v e a f i n e s e n s e o f t h e i n c o n g r u i t i e s between t h e p u b l i c image of a n i n s t i t u t i o n , :n t h i s c a s e t h e family, and t h e u n d e r l y i n g r e a l i t y . Just as medical r e s e a r c h h a s shown t h a t h o s p i t a l s , which a r e s u p p o s e d t o make p e o p l e w e l l , may make them s i c k and p r o d u c e i a t r o g e n i c d i s e a s e s , s o t h e a u t h o r s show t h a t f a m i l y l i v i n g , s u p p o s e d l y p r e d i c a t e d o n c o n s e n s u s , i n t e g r a t i o n . a 3 d harmony, may l e a d t o f o r m s o f c o n f l i c t a n d v;olence r a r e l y f o u n d o u t s i d e t h e family context. The v e r y f e a t u r e s o f f a m i l y l i f e t h a t c o n t r i b n t a t o intimacy, it t u r n s out, a l s o f a c i l i t a t e high d e g r e e s of v i o l m c e b e t w e e n s p o u s e s . Murray S t r a u s a n d h i s a s s o c i a t e s a r e f i n e l y a t t u n e a t o t h e n e e d t o a t t e n d t o t h e u n a n t i c i p a t e d a s well a s t h e a n t i c i p a t e d consequences o r s o c i a l actions. They a r e a w a r e that although evil intents may lead t o desirable c o n s e q n e n c e s , good i n t e n t i o n s may l e a d t o u n d e s i r a b l e ones.

we l e a r n h e r e , f o r example, t h a t more e g a l i t a r i a n

relations b e t v e e n h u s b a n d s a n d u i v e s may h a v e t h e i r o n i c c o n s e q u e n c e o r i t c r e a s i n g r a t h e r t h a n d e c r e a s i n g c o n f l i c t b e t v e e n them, a t l e a s t i n t h e s h o r t rur. The a u t h o r s ' o r i e n t a t i o n t o t h e i r o n i c p e r s p e c t i v e on human a f f a i r s y i e l d s s i g n i f i c a n t i n s i g h t s t h a t c o u l d probably c o u l d n o t have been reached without t h i s stance. ThrOnghcUt t h i s book, t h e a u t h o r s eschew what G e o r g S i a m e l o n c e c a l l e d t h e " f a l l a c y cf s e p a r a t e n e s s . " T h a t is, t h e y n e v e r succumb t o t h e t e m p t a t i o n t o r e g + r d f a m i l y conflicts i n terms o f t h e p e r s o n a l i t i e s c f h u s b a n d s and vives. They a r e s u c c ~ s s f u l a t c o n v e y i n g t h e i d e a t h a t family conflicts, a s a l l t y p e s of i r t e r a c t i o n s w i t h i n t h e f a m i l y , c a n n o t be understood w i t h o u t t h e r e a l i z a t i o n t h a t t h e y t e n d t o d e r i v e irom s o c i a l s r r u c t u r e s and c u l t u r a l norms. The h i g h i n c i d e n c e o f c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c e i n conzemporary f a m i l i e s , they argue persuasively, ousr b? nnderstood i n t e r m s of f u r d a n e n t a l c o 2 t r a d i c t i 3 ; s buil; i n t o t h e f o u n d a t i o n s of family l i f e . They a r g u e , f o r example, t h a t when t h e r e s o u r c e s o f a s p o u s e a r e low--when that spouse has, f o r example. a low s t a t u s p o s i t i o n i n t h e o c c o p a t i o n a l world--the c h a n c e s a r e h i g h e r t h a t h e o r s h e w i l l resort t o violence in marital quarrels. They draw attention t o the interfamilial consequences of the d e p r i v a t l o n of valued s t a t u s p o s i t i o n with a t t e n d a n t l o s s e s o f e g o i d e n t i t y and s y m b o l i c r e i n f o r c e m e n t of s e l f - w o r t h . Bence, t h e I r o n i c t i n d i n g t h a t w o r k i n g - c l a s s h u s b a n d s , r h o t e n d t o c l i n g t o a n i d e o l o g y o f m a l e dominance more d e t e r m i n e d l y t h a n middle c l a s s husbands. i n f a c t p o s s e s s f e w e r r e s o u r c e s f o r e x e r c i s i n g power i n t h e f a m i l y and t h u s r e s o r t t o v i o l e n c e more f r e q u e n t l y t o compensate. An i r o n i c p e r s p e c t i v e , a l e r t t o t h e ambivalence of homan r e l a t i o n s h i p s , e s p e c i a l l y i n i n t i m a t s s e t t i n g s , has b o r n e c o n s i d e r a b l e f r u i t i n t h i s work. Aware t h a t (to borrow from Bronislaw n a l i n o u s k i ) a g g r e s s i o n l i k e c h a r i t y b e g i n s a t home, t h e y h a v e documented w i t h i n s t r u c t i v e t h o r o u g h n e s s t h a t , c c n t r a r y t o t h e p r e v a i l i n g image, f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s a r e t h e breeaing ground of both love ana h o s t z l i t y , of s e l f l e s s d e v o t i o r and o f d e s t r u c t i v e v i o l e n c e . w h a t i s more, t h e y h a v e shown t h a t t o d e c r e a s e r h e l e v e l o f v i o l e n c e i n f a m i l y s e t t i n g s i x v o l v e s more t h a n c o u n s e l i n g and therapy. It i n v o l v e s E O l e s s t h a n a r e s t r u c t u r i n g of r e l a r i o n s b e t w e e n men a n d women, which, i n i t s t u r n , i s l a r g e l y dependent on a iundamental r e s t r n c t u r i r g of t h e a l l o c a t i o n of power and s t a t u s i n t h e s o c i e t y a t l a r g e . I h o p e t h a t t h e i r s e m l n a l c o n t r i b u t i o n w i l l f i n d a n e c h o among s c h o l a r l y i n v e s t i g + t o r s and s c c i a l p r s c t l t i o n e r s a l i k e . S t o n y Brook.

N.I.

L e w i s A.

Coser

Acknowledgments

T h i s book i s a p r o d u c t o f t h e F a m i l y V i o l e n c e R e s e a r c h Program a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f New S a m p s h i r e . The program began a s a r e s u l t o f t h e s t i m u l u s p r o v i d e d by t h e 1 9 7 0 a n n u a l m e e t i n g of t h e B a t i o r a l C o u n c i l O L P a m i l p R e l a t i o n s . T h e theme o f t h a t c o n f e r e r c e was " V i o l e n c e And The Family." P r e p a r i n g a p a p e r t o r t h e c o n f e r e n c e ( S t r a u s , 1971) and t h e d i s c u s s i o n t h a t f o l l o w e d . made u s s e e b o t h t h e t h e o r e t i c a l and t h e p r a c t i c a l i m p o r t a n c e o f r e s e a r c h on p h y s i c a l ViOlSnce i n f a m i l i e s . R E a r e now e v e n more c o n v i n c e d t h a t s u c h r e s e a r c h w i l l i n c r e a s e o u r g e l e r a 1 u n d s r s ; a n d i n g of t h b human f a m i l y a n d w i l l p r o v i d e knowledge t h a r w i l l r s d u c ~ a S o u r c e o f v a s t human m i s e r y . The P a a i l y VLolence R e s e a r c h Program a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s what c a n b e a c c o m p l i r h e d when a g r o u p o f g r a d u a t e s t u d e n t s a n d f a c u l t y f o c u s on a s i n g l e t o p i c o r e s e v e n a r e l a t i v e l y s h o r t p e r i o d of t i m e . u r hope i t c o n f i r m s t h e f a i t h i r o u r work Shown i n t h e f i n a n c i a l s u p p o r t p r o v i d e d by +h.e U n i v e r s i t y o r new Hampshire a n d by t h e N a t i o n a l I n s t t t u t e o f n e n t a l H e a l t h ( g r a n t s number nH27557. nR13050. and ME15161). A l i s t of p u b l i c a t i o n s from t h e P a e i l y V i o l e n c e R e s e a r c h i s a v a i l a b l e on request. we a l s o want t o e x p r e s s o u r a p p r e c i a t i o n t o t h e anonymous r e f e r e e s who r e v i e w e d t h e book. a n d '0 many c o l l e a g u e s , b o t h a t t h e U n i v e r s i t y o f New S a m p s h i r e a n a elsewhere, whose comments, criticisms, a n d s u g g a s t i o n s h a v e b e e n i m p o r t a n t t o t h e d e v e l o p m e n t of t h e F a m i l y v i o l e n c e R e s e a r c h Program i n g e n e r a l a n d / o r t h e s p e c i f i c c h a p t e r s i n t h i s book. A Special thanks t o Sieglinde Fizz f o r her Conscientioos typing of t h i s manuscript and f o r h e r p a t i e n c e a c d good n a t u r e t h r o u g h o u t t h i s p r o j e c t . Durham.

New Hampshlre

nurray E . Skraus G e r a l d T. E o t a l i n g

vii

Contents

FOREWORD b y L e v i s L.

Coser

ACKBOYLEDGBENTS

Ex:

L

eBisu

C u l t u r e , S o c i a l Organization, and I r o n p i n r h e Study o f P a m i l y V i o l e n c e , by G e r a l d 1. B o t a l i n g a n d K u r r a y A. s t r a u s Uife-Beating: Bow Common a n d Why? bp t l u r r a p 8. S t r a u s

Evidence The f i a r r i a g e L l c e n s e a s a B i t t i n g L i c e n s e : f r o m P o p u l e r C u l t u r e . Law, a n d S o c i a l S c i e n c e . by l u r r a p A. s t r a u r V l o l e n c e a n d t h e S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e as R e f l e c t e d i n C h i l d r e n ' s Books from 1 8 5 0 t o 1 9 7 0 . by n a r t h a D. u u g g z n s a n d B u r r a y A. s t r a u s A

C u l t u r a l - C o n s i s t e n c y Theory of Family Violence i r l e x i c a n - A m e r i c a n a n d J e w i s h - E t h n i c G r o u p s , by J o s e p h C. C a r r o l l 111. P a r t -------

S o c i a l Q s p i z a t i o n a n d Pq!&&y

SL_a&ezE:

S e x u a l I n e q u a l i t y a n d Wife B e a t i n g , by l u r r a y A. S t r a u s

stress a n d P a m i l y V i o l e n c e , by K e i t h n. F a r r i n g t o n The P a r a d o x i c a l N a t u r e o f P a m i l y R e l a t i o n s h i p s a c d F a m i l y c o n f l i c t . by J o y c e E. P o s s A t t r i b u t i o n P r o c e s s e s i n Eusbaxd-Wife by G e r a l d T. B o t a l i n g

Violence,

Part -IV. ---

The --

InterDlax of culture a&

Sccial Q.;q=gizgtior

10.

"And we Eaven't Bad Iry Problems Sincen: Conjugal Violerce and the Politics of marriage, by Ralph LaRossa

11.

Uife-Employment, narltal Equality, and Husband-Rife Violence, by Bruce u. Brovn

12.

Resources. POVBI, and Susband-Wife VioleLce, by Craig M. Lllen and Burray 1. Straus

13.

A

Soc~ologlcalPerspective on the Preventian of II~E-Beatl~gby Hurray E . Straus

BEPEREBCES ADTBOR INDEX SUBJECT INDEX ABOUT TAE AUTHORS

Part I Overview

Chapter 1

Culture, Social Organization, and Irony in the Study of Family Violence Gerald T. Hotaling and Murray A. Straus

That a c t s of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e are common--even typical--oi American D a r r i a g E s h a s been w e l l e s t a b l i s h e d ( s e e Chapter 2 and S t r a u s , G e l l e s , and S r e i n n e t z , 1979). Yhar i s n o t known i s why v i o l e n c e o c c u r s , o r what t o d o a b o u t it. The p e r s p e c t i v e o f t h i s book i s s i m p l e : that p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c s between h u s b a n d s and w i v e s i s s o c i a l l y p a t t e r n e d . $1 The c h a p t e r s a r e d e l i b e r a t e l y d i v e r s e . but a l l s h a r e t h e p e r s p e c t i v e t h a t v i o l e n c e grows o u t o f t h e n c t u r e o f s o c i a l arrangements. I n part. t h e d i v e r s i t y is i n e v i t a b l e The mejor d i f f e r e r c e s , because t h e a u t h o r s a r e d i f f e r e n t . however, a r e b u i l t i n t o t h e p l a n o f t h e book--to present l o s t of t h e c h a p t e r s m a j o r d i f f e r e n c e s i n vieupoin;. p r e s e n t t h w r i e s t o e x p l a i n t h e p r e v a l e n c e of v i o l e n c e i n the famly. S i n c e t h e s o c i a l c a u s e s of husband-wife v i o l e n c e a r e d l v e r s e a n d complex, the different chapters s e e k t o show how d i f f e r e n t s e t s o f t h e s e f a c t o r s m i g h t o p e r a t e t o produce violence. The c h a p t e r s a l s o d i f f e r b e c a u s e . no m a t t e r how c o g e n t i t must b e s u p p o r t e d by e m p i r i c a l e v i d e n c e . t h e theory, Consequently, f i v e of t h e c h a p t e r s r e p o r t s u c h d a t a . Aere also deliberate diversity exists. i l l u s t r a t i n g such a i f f e r e n ? methoas a s c a s e s t u d i e s , c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s of popular l i t e r a t u r e , b r i e f q u e s t i o n n a i r e s t u d i e s , and a survey of a n a t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e sample of couples. Each o f r h e s e t h e o r i e s , and each of t b e s e methcds, h a s l i m i t ~ t i o h sa n d a d v a n t a g e s . Tcgether, they h e l p unravel t h e paradox of m a r i t a l violence.

Ch.1.

S o c i a l S t r u c t u r e and I r o n y

Page 4

MRRITAL VIOLENCE A N D THE SOCIAL STRUCTUSE

Any a t t e m p t t o u n d e r s t a n d uhg p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c s o c c u r s s o o f t e n i n American m a r r i a g e s must t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t t h e way s o c i e t y S t r u c t u r e s t h e i n t e r a c t i o n of h u s b a n d s and wives. O f c o u r s e , a p r o p o s i t i o n t h a t .simple is r e c e s s a r i l y deceptive. Our i n t e n t i o n i s n o t t o c o n v r n c e t h e r e a d e r t h a t t h e a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l p a t t e r n i n g t o v h i c h t h i s book g i v e s a t t e n t l o n a r e t h e only causes o f m a r i t a l violsncs. We acknowledge t h e complexity of m a r r i e d l i f e , b u t t e m p o r a r i l y n a r r o w o u r f o c u s s o t h a t we c a n g a i n a c l e a r e r u n d e r s t a r d i n g o f t h a t p a r t o f t h e complex v h c l e o f h u s b a n d / v i f e c o r f l i c t t h a t i s c r e a t e d by t h e v e r y n a t u r e o f o u r s o c i e t y . P h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e among f a m i l y members u s u a l l y i s considered an i n f r e g u s n t occurrence; when v i o l e n c e d o e s e r u p t , t h e h u s b a n d o r w i f e who r e s o r t s t o it i s t h o u g h t t o b e d a f e c t i v e o r abnormal. N e i t h e r v i e u seems t o h e c o r r e c t . R a r s a n d r i o t s a s i d e , p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n o c c u r s more o f t e n among f a m i l y members t h a n among a n y o t h e r s . noreover, t h e f a m i l y is t h e p r e d o m i n a n t s e t t i n g f o r e v e r y form o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e from s l a p s t o t o r t u r e a n d murder. I n f a c t , some form of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i n t h e l i f e c y c l e of f z m i l y members is s o l i k e l y t h a t it c a n b e s a i d t o be a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l ( s e e t h e s e c t i o n o n "Family Sccialization i n I f t h i s i s indeed t h e case, then Violence" i n Chapter 2). v i o l e n c e is a s t y p i c a l of f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s a s i s l s r e . The a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t s t h a t , with rare exceptions, f a m i l y members u s i n g v i o l e n c e a r e n o t m e n t a l l y ill. I n s t e a d . v i o l e n t a c t s b y o n e f a m i l y member a g a i n s r a n o t h e r a r e t h e r e s u l t of s o c i a l l y l e a r n e d and s o c i a l l y p a t t e r n e d behavior. The a s p e c t s o f c a u s a t i o n t h i s book d e s c r i b e s a r e what s o c 1 0 1 o g i S t s r e f e r t o a s " s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . " T h e c o c c e p t of s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e is a l m o s t a s e l u s i v e a s it i s i m p o r t a n t f o r u n d e r s t a n d i n g how s o c i e t y works a n d how s o c i a l l i f e a f f e c t s A r e c e n t volume ( B l z u , 1 9 7 5 ) g i v e s a m p l e our relationships. t e s t i m o n y t o t h e v i d e v a r i e t y o f ways i n v h i c h t h e c o n c e p t i s used. But a m i d s t t h i s d i v e r s i t y of d e f i n i t i o n , a g a n s r a l i h t e r p r e t a t i o n e x i s t s , a s s t a t e d i n t h e program o f t h e 1 9 7 4 m e e t i n g o f t h e American S o c i o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n : Whatever t h ~ sp~cific orientation, the s t r u c t u r a l a p p r o a c h i s d e s i g n e d t o e x p l a i n , no: t h e behavior of individuals, but t h e s t r u c t u r e of r e l a t i o n s among g r o u p s a n d i n d i v i d u a l s t h a t f i n a s expression i n t h i s behapior. (Blau, 1975:2) o u r s p e c i f l c a p p r o a c h t o s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e c o n t a i r s two main e l e m e n t s . F i r s t , we u s e t h e t e r m t o mean t h o s e a s p e c t s of s o c i e t y t h a t a r e r e l a t l v e l y e n d u r i n g a n d t h a t t r a n s c e c d

Ch.1.


Page 5

t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d t h e p a r t i c u l a r moment. Rot t h a t s o c i a l indeed, it c o n s t a n t l y c h a n g e s . But s t r u c t u r e is fixed: c o m p a r e d v i t h o t h e r f a c t o r s b e i n g e n a m i r e d , i t is r e l a t r v e l y stable. Second. we i d e n t i f y t u o d i f f e r e n t b u t i n t e r r e l a t e d processes of social patterning: c u l t u r e and s o c i a l organization. I n r e a l i t y , c u l t u r e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n c a n n o t be s e p a r a t e d . b u t f o r a r a l y t i c a l porposes i t is a n important distinction. The f o l l o w i n g two s e c t i o r s s u n m e r i z e t h e c o n c e p t s o f c u l t u r e and of s o c i a l organization. These w i l l b e f a m i l i a r t o many r e a d e r s o f t h i s book, e s p e c i a l l y s o c i o l o g i s t s , and c a n be s k i p p e d o v e r . Rowever, u e want t o a d d r e s s t h 3 s e i n o t h e r p r o f e s s i c n s concerned with family violence, such a s psychologists, social workers, psychiatrists, police O f f i c e r s , and lawyers. T h e s e s e c t i o n s s i l l h e l p a l e r t them t o t h e s e c r u c i a l a s p e c t s of t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l perspective. T h i s i s p a r t i c u l a r l y i m p o r t a r t b e c a u s e it c o n t r a s t s s h a r p l y with t h e more u s u a l p s y c h c l o g i c a l e x p l a n a t i o n s f o r r i o l s n c e . The C o n c e p t of C u l t u r e when w e d e s c r i b e " c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e 1 ' we a r e r e a l l y t a l k i n g about causes. The q u e s t i o n a d d r e s s e d i n P a r t I1 o f t h i s book i s t h e e x t e n t t o which c u l t u r e c a u s e s v i o l e n c e between f a m i l y members. B e f o r e t h a t q u e s t i o n can b e a n s w e r e d , o n e must f i r s t b e c l e a r a b o u t v h a t c u l t u r e i s . The t e r m c u l t u r e means s o m e t h i n g r o u g h l y s i a i l a r t o s o c i a l heredity, t h a t is, t h e t o t a l l e g a c y o f p a s t human behavior e f f e c t i v e i n t h e present o r vhat is a v a i l a b l e t o be l e a r n e d from o t h e r s ( W i l l i a m s , 1970). T h a t c o n c e p t c o v e r s a v a s t domain, r a n g i n g f r o m how t o h o l d a s p o o n o r s a y t h e old f a t h e r t o t h e c.o m ~ l e z i t i e so f m a t r i x a l o e b r a . Thus a m-r e a t d e a l o f t h e c u-l t u r e o f a s o c i e f v i s n o t o f d i r e c t l n t e r e s t t o t h o s e concOrned w i t h understanding t h e f a m r l y . ~

~~

~~

~~~

.

~~~~~

2

The a s p e c t o f c u l t u r e o f d i r e c t i n t e r e s t i s what a r e c a l l e d s o c i a l norms. A s o c i a l norm p r e s c r i b e s t h e c o r r e c t t h i n g t o do * h e r i n t e r a c t i c g v i t h a n o t h e r p e r s o n . To b e c u l t u r a l norms, t h e s e norms must b e p r e s c r i p t i o n s s h a r e d by t h e s o c i e t y c r s e c t o r o f a s o c i e t y i n which t h e b ~ h a v i o r t a k e s place. They a l s o n u s t b c r u l e s o f b e h a v i o r t h a t a r e l e a r n e d from o t h e r s . C u l t u r a l norms i n l a r g e p a r t a c c o u n t f o r d i f f e r e n c e s between t h e f a m i l y p a t t e r n s o f p e o p l e i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s and i n d i f f e r e n t subgroups w i t h i n one s o c i e t y ( f o r example, d i f f e r e n c e s between s o c i a l c l a s s e s o r b e t v e e n g r o u p s s u c h a s Prench-speaking and English-speaking Canadians). C u l t u r a l norms r e g u l a t e a l m o s t a l l a s p e c t s o f f a m i l y life. They p r o v i d e a b l u e p r i n t o f t h e b e h a v i o r a p p r o p r i a t e f o r husbands, wives, c h i l d r e n , g r a n d f a t h e r s ; i n fact, for

Ch.1.


Page 6

e a c h of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p s w i t h i n a family. Thus. t h e c u l t u r e c o n t a i n s n o r m s s p e c i f y i n g how m a r r i a g e s a r e t o b e a r r a n g e d (and, i f necessary. dissolved), who f s L O b e r e g a r d e d a s a member o f t h e f a m i l y . what a c t i v i t i e s a h u s b a n d s h o u l d c a r r y o u t i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e r i f e and v i c e v e r s a , how c h i l d r e n s h o u l d b e b r o u g h t uo, a r d s o on. I f t h s i d e a o f c u l t u r a l n o r m s a s c a u s e s of f a m i l y b e h a v i o r were t a k s n l i b e r a l l y , a l l f a m i l i e s w i t h i n a g i v e r s o c i e t y would b e e x p e c t e d t o a c t i n t h e same w3y. O b v i o u s l y , t h a t is n o t t h e case: e v e r y f a m i l y i s i n some ways u r i q u e . T h e r e f o r e . e v e n t h o o g h c u l t u r e d o e s , on t h e a v e r a g e , d e f i n e what f a m i l y l i f e is l i k e , i t c a n n o t t e l l t h e whale s t o r y . Ue must r o u n d o u t t h e s t o r y somewhat by c o n s i d ~ r i n gwhat s o c i o l o g i s t s c a l l s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . Social Organizational Influences Social organization refers to the patte-n of r e l a t i o n s h i p s amcng i n d i v i d u a l s a n d among groups--how t h e p a r t s a r e r e l a t e d t o e a c h o t h e r a n d t o t h e whole. Some a s p e c t s o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n are d i c t a t e d by t h e c u l t u r e , many are n o t . Whether o r n o t it i s p r e s c r i b e d h y c u l t u r e . e a c h a s p e c t o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n h a s c o n s e q u e n c e s t h a t are d i s t i n c t from t h e c u l t u r a l i n f l u e n c e s . F o r example, a f a m i l y might c o n t a i n ore, two, three, four, or eight children. C u l t u r a l " r u l e s " s p e c i f y how many c h i l d r e n o n e s h o u l d have: t h e middle-class r u l e s of t h e recent past t e n d e d t o s p e c i f y two o r t h r e e c h i l d r e n . AnyonE who had r o c h i l d r e n was u n d e r c o n s i d e r a b l e c u l t u r a l p r e s s u r e . The p r e s s u r e i s o f t e n s u b t l e . b u t may b e e x p r e s s e d o p e n l y : "Why d o n q t you h z v e a n y c h i l d r s n ? " o r "Kow c o n s you h a v e s i x c h i l d r e n ? ' But s u b t l e o r c o t , s o c i a l p r P s s u r e s t o conform d o e x i s t a n d m o s t o f US f o l l o ~t h e r u l e s of t h e c u l t u r e . Now t h e number o f c h i l d r e n i n a f a m i l y i s a n i m p o r t a n t a s p e c t of i t s s o c i g l o r g a n i z a t i o n a n d makes a d i f f e r e n c e t o what g o e s on i n t h a t f a m i l y , n o m a t t e r whether t h e p a r e n t s h a d t h a t number o f c h l l d r e n b e c a u s s o f c u l t u r a l r u l e s , h i o l o g i c a l limirs o n f e r t i l i t y , o r c o n t r a c e p t i v e f a i l u r e . T o t a k e a s i m p l e e x a m p l e , if t h e f a m i l y e a t s t h e e v e n i n g meal t o g e t h e r , t h e number o f c h i l d r e n p r e s e n t r i l l i n f l u e n c e how l o n g a n y o n e c h i l d c a n , o r t h e a v e r a g e , t a l k a t t h e dinner table. Rssume t h a t e a c h c h i l d g e t s a r e q u a l c h a n c e I f t h e r e a r e two a n d t h a t t h e m e a l l a s t s 30 m i n u t e s . children, each c h i l d can t a l k f o r t e n minutes (allowing t e n minutes f o r t h e p a r e r t s t o s a y something). But i f t h e r f a r e f o u r c h i l d r e n , e a c h c h i l d * s l i m i t i s c u t t o f i r e minutes.

Ch.1.


Page 7

TEE SOCIIL STRUCTURAL CAUSES OP BUSBABD-RIFE V I O L E N C E The p r e c e d i n g t w o s e c t i o n s p r e f a c e t h e s h a r e d i d e a s o f t h e a u t h o r s o f t h i s volume. This is not t o s l y t h a t t h e y a r e i n complete agreement a s t o t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r a l c a u s e s Of husband-wife v i o l e n c e , b u t a l l f o c u s on t h e c u l t u r a l and O r g a n i z a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s cf Bm-rican marriagss a.d t h e i r r e l a t l o n t o c o n f l i c t and v t o l c n c e . Each c h a p t e r i n t h i s book. w h e t h e r it i s a d e d u c t i o n from a n e x i s t i n g t h e o r y , a case study, o r a s t a t i s t i c a l a n a l y s i s , a t t e m p t s t o c l a r i f y some a s p e c t o f t h e s o c i a l causes Of husband-wife violence. The c h a p t e r s a r e d e l i b e r a t e l y d i v e r s e i n approach because r e b e l i e v e t h a t case studies, statistical analyses, and t h e o r e t i c a l deduction a l l a r e n e c e s s a r y i n t h e s e a r c h f o r an e x p l a n a t i o n of m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e . One o f t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s i n r e s e a r c h o n f a n i l y v i o l e n c e h a s been t o o h e a v y an e m p h a s i s o n f a c t - g a t h e r i n g r e l a t i v e t o testing causal theories. S i n c e t h i s is p a r t l y b e c a u s e PrOmiSiPg t h e o r i e s h a v e n o t b e e n f o r m u l a t e d , h a l f of t h e c h a p t e r s a t t e m p t t o f i l l t h a t void. 3 u t i n no c a s e i s t h e p u r p o s e o f any c h a p t e r t o set f o r t h a n i n t e g r a t e a o r complete s x p l a n a t i o n of husbacd-wife v i o l e n c e . That t a s k i s a t t h e p r e s e n % s t a g e o f o u r knowledge c l e a r l y beyond what Can be a c c o m p l i s h e d , e v e n t h o u g h p r e l i m i n a r r s t e p s h a v e b e e n t a k e n ( G e l l e s and S t r a u s , 1 9 7 9 ) . with t h l s general understanding, t h e a u t h o r s of t h e various chapters spare t h e reader a repetitious disclaimer a b o u t t h e p a r t i a l n a t u r e of t h e t h e o r y examinea and, i n t h e C a s e o f t h e s t r i c t l y t h e o r e t i c a l c h a p t e r s , do n o t r e p e a t t h a t the conclusions a r e intended t o stimulafs empirical research. n o t t o s u b s t i t u t e f- a ~ r -s-.-u c h d--.-. ata. Thlrs. for .. example. i n t h e f i r s t two c h a p t e r s we t r y t o show t h a t some f a c t o r i n t h e f a m i l y system c o t o n l y produces a high l e v e l o f aggression, b u t a l s o makes w i v e s t h e most f r e q u e n t victims of t h a t aggression. The t h i r d c h a p t e r , a l t h o u g h a d m i t t i n g t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of f a m i l y l i f e t h a t contribute t o t h i s h i g h l e v e l of aggression, examines through popular c u l t u r e and o t h e r matezials t h e p r e v a i l i n g s e x i s t a t t i t u d e s about t h e r o l e of v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a a i l v system. The r e s u l t i s t o make e x p l i c i t t h e i m p l i c i t s e t ii c u l t u r a l n o r m s a n d v a l u e s + h a t l e g i t i m a t e , and a t t i m e s e n c o u r a g e . v i o l e n c e b e t v e e n h u s b a n d s and wives. ~

.-...

Conversely, Parrington (Chapter 7) and Hotaling ( C h a p t e r 9 ) b o t h r e c o g n i z e t h e e x r s t s n c e o f c u l t u r a l norms, b u t f o c u s on t h e o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of m a r r i e d l i f e t h a t contribute t o violence. Parrington presents a theory o f i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e b a s e d o n t h e n o t i o n o f optimum Stress l e v e l . H e d e f i n e s stress a s a n i m b a l a n c e between t h e demands w i t h which an i n d i v i d u a l o r f a m i l y i s f a c e d and t h e

Ch.1.


Page 8

c a p a b i l i t y o f r e s p o n d i n g a p p r o p r i a t e l y t o them. Be a r g u e s t h a t a l l i n d i v i d u a l s and f a a i l i e s d e r r l o p p e r s o r a l and u n i q u e optimum stress l e v e l s a t which t h e y f u n c t i o n most comfortably. Similarlg. Hotaling s p e c i f i e s t h e p a r t i c u l a r combinations of family rules End f a m i l y s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s which p r o d u c e a h i g h p r o b a t i l i t y t h a t a f a m i l y member w i l l a t t r i b u t e m a l e v o l e n t i n t e n t t o t h e r u l e v i o l a t i o n s o f o t h e r f a o i l y members. The R i s t o r y o f t h e S t u d y o f F a m i l y V i o l e n c e DeScribir.g a " h i s t o r y " o f t h e s o c i o l o g i c a l s t u d y of i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e may b e p r e m a u r e ; it h a s b e e r a v e r y s h o r t t i m e s i n c e s o c i o l o g i s t s f i r s t t u r n e a 2 c r i t i c a l e y e on t h e phenomenon. But t h e p e r i o d h a s b e e n l o n g enough t o p o i n t o u t some d i f f e r e n c e s b e t w e e n " e a r l i e r " work and t h e p r e s e n t volume. P r e v i o u s e f f o r t s r e r e aimed a t e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e prevalence, t h e c o r r e l a t e s . and, most i m p o r t a n t , the s o c i a l l y p a t t e r n e d n a t u r e o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ( S t e i n m e t z and S t r a u s , 197'4; Gelles, 1974). I n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e was e s t a b l i s h e d a s a w i d e s p r e a d phenomenon, a p p e a r i n g i n many f o r m s b e s i d e s t h e mars s p e c t a c u l a r c r i m e s o f murder a n d child abuse. S t u d l e s o f husbands and wives r e v e a l e d varying, b u t s u h s t a n t i a l , a a o u n t s of s p o u s a l violence. The most a c c u r a t e m e a s u r e , t o d a t e . of t h e e x t o n t o f h u s b a n d - w i f e v i o l e n c e comes f r o m t h e a n a l y s i s o f d a t a f r o m t h e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l e o f American f a m i l i e s p r e s e n t e d i n C h a p t e r 2. S t r a u s f i n d s t h a t , d u r i n g t h e s u r v e y year, one o f e v e r y s i x c o u p l e s (16 p e r c e n t ) r e p o r t e d v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n spouses. If t h e r e f e r e n c e p e r i o d is t h e d u r a t i o n of t h e m a r r i a g e , t h e f i g u r e i s between o n e o f f o u r a n d o n e o f t h r e e c o u p l e s (27.8 percent). S t r a u s w a r n s , however, t h a t t h e s e f i g u r e s a r e p r o b a b l y a f f e c t e d by s u b s t a n t i a l u n d e r r e p o r t i n g . It is a l m o s t c e r t a i n t h a t n o t e v e r y o n s " t o l d a l l . ' P i l o t s t u d i e s a n d i n f o r m a l e v i d e n c e (where some o f t h e f a c t o r s l e a d i r g t o u n d e r r e p o r t i c g were l e s s ) i n d i c a t e t h a t t h e s e f i g u r e s could e a s i l y be twice a s largs. P r e v i o u s work on i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e a l s o h a s n e g a t e d t h e c o m f o r t a b l e n o t i o 2 t h a t f a m i l y v i o l a n c e can be e x p l a i n e a S o l E l y hy p s y c h o p a t h o l o g y . T h e s h e e r amouc?. e s w e l l a s t h e ~~~~~~~~d v a r i a t : = c i? r l r e s a t l r t r i t a e i l y V I D ~ F P C E among various S D c l a l q r o u p s , bol:?s ar e x p l a 2 a : i o c a ? . c h c r e l r r ? h e a b n o r m a l i t i e s o f i n d i v i d u a l members. Besides e s t a b l i s h i n g t h e prevalence of violence i n t h e home and t h e e x t e n t of ' s o c i o l o g i c a l c a u s e s , earlier i n v e s t i g a t o r s a l s o have p a i d a t t e n t i o n t o +he p a r t i c u l a r s o c i a l f a c t o r s r e l a t e d t o family violence. F o r exlmple. some of t h e f a c t o r s f o u n d t o b e a s s o c i a t e d w i t h d i f f e r e n t r a t e s o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e were s u b c u l t u r a l norms ( C o s e r , 1967; Wolfgang a n d Perracuti. 1971), social class (Levinger. 1966; Kohn. 1 9 6 9 ) . a n d a h u s b a n d ' s l a c k o f t h s

Ch.1.


"resources" necessary t o l e g i t i m a t e h i s positLon h e a d (Goode, 1971: O ' B r i e n , 1 9 7 1 ) .

Page 9 as

family

ThesP writers p o i n t t o f a c t o r s t h a t may make c e r t a i n couples more or less l i k e l y t o e n g a g 5 i n p h y s i c a l aggression; t h e p r e s e n t volume f o c u s e s a t t e n t i o n on t h e Ths o r i e c t i r g q u ? s t i c c n a t u r e of m a r r i e d l i f e i + s e l f . becomes: v h a t c u l t u r a l and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o r a l p r o c e s s e s make the marital dyad a p o t e n t i a l l y v i o l e n t s o c i a l relationship?

B few s o c i o l o g i c a l investigators as well have r e c o g n i z e d c e r t a i n i n c o n g r u i t i e s i n marriage. F o r example, C u b e r ar,d H a r o f f ' s s t u d y (1965) o f m i d d l e - c l a s s m a r r i a g e s r e v e a l s a t y p e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a r g u m e n t s and f i g h t s . The "conflict-habituated" marriage b a s i c a l l y r e l i e s or h o s t i l i t y t o bind t h e couple t o g e t h e r and t o l e n d s t a b i l i t y t o t h e marriage.

A i c k s and P l a t t ( 1 9 7 0 ) . i n a r e v i e w o f s t u d i e s o f m a r i t a l happiness, f i n d t h a t low h a p p i n e s s o f t e n may b e a s s o c i a t e d with m a r i t a l s t a b i l i t y . Similar findings t h a t a p p e a r c o n t r a r y t o common s e n s e a r e t h o s e of Blood a n d R o l f e (1960) and P i t e o ( 1 9 6 1 ) . who s t a t e d t h a t m a r r i a g e s o v e r t i m e e x p e r i e n c e a d = g & i n c o m p a n i o n s h i p , a f f e c t i o n , and common v a l u e s and b e l i e f s : a s c o u p l e s become more f a m i l i a r v i t h e a c h o t h e r , t h e y become more e s t r a n g e d . L a s t l y , simmel's (1950) c l a s s l c a n a l y s i s o f t h e m a r i t a l d y a a s e e s t h e two-person bond a s t h e most i m t i m a t e a n d , a t t h e same time, t h e most u n s t a b l e s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p . R e r e i C l i e s t h e i m p o r t a n t c o n t r i b u t i o n of l o g i c a l l y o r g a r l z e l , p r o b r r q :heore-zeal z r d s s p 1 : i c a l s n a l y s ? s : rtay a r s r p p r c a l l y courrer:?turi:ve, :hat IS, tt.ay r o v s a l t h e existence o t p h e ~ o m e n 2 a i d r e l a t r o n s h - p s c o n ' r a z y t 3 zaaa?r sense.

Page T h e c h a p t e r s c o n t a i n e d i n t h i s volume m p h a s i z e l a r g e p a r t t h e i r o n i c n a t u r e of married l i f e and v i o l e n t The i n t r i g u i n g q u e s t i o n , which a l l t h e s n c h a p t e r s a a d r e r is why t h e s o c i a l g r o u p t h a t s o c i e t y m o s t c f t e n l c o k s t o 1 warmth, i n t i m a c y , h e l p , and l o v e . i s a l s o c h a r a c t e r i z e d It i s t o a n e x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s a c r u e l t y and violence. o t h e r ~ r o n i e sa b o u t h u s b a r d - w i f e v i o l e n c e t h a t ue ccw t u r n IRCNP A N D PABILY VIOLENCE The r e c o g n i t i o n a n d s t u d y o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e hz blurred apparently simple i d e a s about t h e r e l a t i o n s h i b e t w e e n t h e r a m i l y and d e v i a n c e . Once we r e c o g n i z e t h a f a m i l i e s a r e n o t e a s i l y c l a s s i f i e d a s e i t h e r normal o a b n o r m a l , h e a l t h y o r s i c k , t h e p i c t u r e becomes c o m p l i c a t e d These complications, though, l e a d t o a f u l l e r a p p r e c i a t i o Of t h e c o m p l e x i t y o f f a m i l y l i f e . A s David n a t z a h a s a r g u e i n h i s i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e o r i e s of d e v i a n c e a n d t h e i h a n d l i n g o f t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between c o n v e n t i o n a l and a ~ v i a n , phenomena: o n c e t h e d i s t i n c t i c n h e t w e e n good and e v i l i s made p r o b l e m a t i c , o n c e t h e i r i n t e r p e n e t r a t i o n is s t r e s s e d , a s i m i l a r i n s i g h t map d e v e l o p w i t h r e s p e c t t o t h e r e l a t i o n s between phenomena and t h e i r purportea causes. (1969:69)

It we a c c e p t t h e n o c i o n t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s a s o c i a l group capable of g e n e r a t i n g c o n f l i c t and v i o l s n c e j u s t a s e a s i l y a s i n t l n a c y a n d l o v e , we c a n a c c e p t t h e i d e a o f i r o n y i n t h e r e l a t i o n of t a m i l y l i f e t o violence. What d o we mean by i r o n y ?

n o s t simply, irony r P f e r s t o

a p o i n t o f view, t h e a b i l i t y t o see Phenomena r e l a t e d t o o n e a n o t h e r i n c u r i o u s ways.

A s fiatza notes:

...

irony refers to the complicated--and suprising--relations between good a n d e v i l phenomena i n sequer.ce. I r o n y is a s t a t e of a f f a i r s o r a r e s u l t o p p o s i t e t o , and a s i f i n mockery of. t h e a p p r o p r i a t e r e s u l t . (1969:691 I n a s o c i o l o g i c a l s e n s e , i r o n y i s a p o i n t of v i e w t h a t recognizes t h e coexistence of i n c o n g r u i t i e s i n t h e c u l t u r e a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n of social life. Thus, the marital r e l a t i o n s h i p is organized according t o c e r t a i n c u l t u r a l v a l u e s t h a t e r e i n t e n d e d t o maximize l o v e , support, and happiness. Xouever. b e c a u s e o f t h i s v e r y s a n e mode o f o r g a n i z a t i o n an6 because o f t h e i n f l u e n c e of t h e s s s a n e c u l t u r a l values, c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c e c o e x i s t with t h e s e more b e n i g n a s p e c t s of m a r r i e d l i f e . Again, a s NatZa t e l l s us, "a k e y e l e m e n t o f i r o n y i s l a t s n c y " (p. 7 0 ) . Qualities i n h e r e n t i n s o c i a l norms e n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n , d e s p i t e

Ch.1.


t h e i r hidden nature, family setting.+Z

lead

tc

Page 11 unexpacted

ZesuLts i c t h e

I r o n y a l s o p o i n t s t o t h e e x i s t e c c * of p a ' t e r n i n g in r e l a t i o n s h i p s where n o p a t t e r n i n g i s o b v i o u s . For example, Reinhold Niebuhr h a s d e f i c e d i r o n y a s "appnrent.ly f o r ? n F r o u s i r c o n g r u i t i e s i n l i f e r h i c h a r e d i s c o v e r e 9 , cpon c l o s e r examination, t o b e n o t merely f o r t u i t o u s ' l1952:viii). The i n c o n g r u i t i e s s u r r o u n d i n g h u s b a n d - v i f e v i o l e n c e are i r o n i c i n N i e b u h r ' s s e n s e cf t h e word, f o r t h e s x i s t i n g e v i d e n c s S u p p o r t s t h e claim t h a t h u s b a n d - v i f r v i o l e n c e i s n o t t h e r e s u l t of r a r d o m e v e n t s , b u t i s p a t t e r n e d i n t o t h e v e r y s t r u c t u r e of m a r i t a l a n d f a m i l y r e l a t i o c s . B e f o r e we s p e c i f y t h e i r o n i e s a p p a r e n t i n h u s b a c d - w i f e uiolence, i t would b e u s e f u l t o p o i n t o u t why t h e r e i s s u c h a r s s i s t a n c e t o v i e w i n g husband-wife v i o l e n c e a s a p a t t e r n e d a s p e c t c f married life. T h e E y t h o f P a m ~ l yN o n v i o l e n c e

The f a m i l y i s u s u a l l y t h o u g h t t o he a g r o u p c o m m i t t e d n o n v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n i t s members. F a m i l y msmbers a r e supposed t o maintain benevolent and l o v i n g r e l a t i o n s h i p s . From r h a t is known a b o u t t h e p r e v a l e n c e o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e i n American s o c i e t y , t h e r e seems t o b e a d i s c r e p a n c y b e t w e e n t h e i d e a l i z e d p i c t u r e o f t h e f a m i l y and r h a t a c t u a l l y g o e s o n [ S t e i n m e t e and S t r a u r , 1974: C h a p t e r 1; s t r a u s , 1974b). This i d e a l i z a t i o n is a useful, perhaps necessary s o c i a l myth. Its u s e f u l n e s s d e r i v e s from t h e f a m i l y ' s p o s i t i o n a s a tremendously important s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n . Elaborate In p r e c a u t i o n s a r e t a k e n t o s t r e n g t h e n a n d s u p p o r t it. Pestern Countries, one o f t h e s e supportive devices is t h e myth o f f a m i l i a l l o v e a n d g e c t l e n e s s . The i d e a l e x o u r a g e s p e o p l e t o marry a n d s t a y m a r r i e d d e s p i t e t h e s t r e s s e s a n d s t r a i n s of f a m i l y l i f e ( P e r r e i r a , 1963). Thus f r o n t h e standpoint of p r e s e r v i n g t h e i n t e g r i t y of a c r u c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n . s u c h a m g t h o l o g y is h i g h l y u s c f u l .

to

T h i s myth i s t r a n s m i t t e d t h r o u g h c u l t u r a l norms and motion p i c t u r e s . a n d values as reflected i n literature, television. F o r example, B u g g i n s a n d S t r a u s ( C h a p t e r 4 ) f i n d t h e myth c r f a m i l y n o n v i o l e n c e a p e r v a s i v e theme of c h i l d r e n , ~l i t e r a t u r e between 1850 and 1970. U h l l e .the a u t h o r s f i n d t h a t t h e t y p i c a l c h i l d r e n ' s c l a s s i c bock i s marked by a number o f v i o l e n t a c t s , including killings, a l a o s t n o i n t r a f a a i l y f a a i l p v i o l e n c e is d e p i c t e d . This s e e m s r e m a r k a h l e i n l l g h t of t h e f a c t t h a t i n s o c i e t y g e n e r a l l y , p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e b e t v s e n f a m i l y members is more common t h a n be:weer a n y o t h e r a g g r e s s o r - v i c t i m r e l a t i o n s h i p . AS t h e myth o f f a m i l y n o n v i o l e n c e makes c l e a r , a s e t o f c u l t u r a l n o r m s p r o m u l g a t e s a n i m a g e of t h e f a m i l y a s a p l a c e B t t h e s a n e time, a s already of l o s e a n d g e n t l e n e s s .

Ch.1.

S o c i a l s t r u c t u r e and I r o n y

Page 12

mentioned, a s e t o f norms e x i s t s t h a t l e g i t r m a t e s , axd a t times e n c o u r a g e s , t h e u s e o f v i o l e n c e o n f e n i l y members. T h i s i s an e x c e l l e n t example o f a c u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n . C u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s a r e f o u n d i? m o s t , p e r h a p s al: societies. They a r e by n o means e n t i r e l y u n a e s i r a b l e . In f a c t . c u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s h e l p p r e v e n t s c c i e t i e s from s t a g n a t i n g , open p o s s i b i l i t i e s f o r s o c i a l change, a r d a l l o w w i t h o u t them, we f o r a m e a s u r e o f i n d i v i d u a l iutonomy. n i g h t be s l a v e s t o t h e d i c t a t e s o f c u l t u r e . Each i n d i v i d u a l a n d e a c h f a m i l y must m a n i p u l a t e many, often conflicting, n o r m s a n d v a l u e s t o work o u t a s t r a t e g y a p p r o p r i a t e t o t h e i r Own CirCUmStanC'3s a n d a s p i r a t i o n s . The p r o c e s s o f s e l e c t i r g f r o m a n d r e c o n c i l l n g t h e d i f f e r e n t a s p e c t s o f a c u l t u r e is o n e o f t h e r e a s o n s why, d e s p i t e c u l t u r a l n o r a s , f a m i l i e s differ. The c h o i c e o f norms f o r g u i d i n g o n e ' s l i f e leads t o d i v e r s i t y , but t h e r e i s no g u a r a n t e e t h a t one w i l l r e c o g n i z e a l l of t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s of t h a t choice. C e r t a i n unsxpected resuLtS. 01 latent f e a t u r e s of t h e s e choices. make i n d i v i d u a l and f a m i l y l i f e a c o m p l i c a t e d matter. This complexity is e s p e c i a l l y t r u e f o r violence i n t h e faaily. Knowing t h a t o u r f a m i l y s y s t e m i s a v i o l e n t s y s t e m . r a t i o n a l p e o p l e c e r t a i n l y woold n o t c h o o s e t h i s s i t u a t i o n . Yet o v e r 90 p e r c e n t o f B m e r i c a n s marry, and many m a r r i a g e s a r e marked by c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c e . P e r h a p s what i s important for understanaing t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between v l o l e n c e a n d t h e f a m i l y is n o t i n d i v i d u a l c h o i c e b u t t h e i r o n i e s t h a t seem t o u n d e r l i e t h e norms a n d o r g a n i z a t i o n o f family l i f e . I r o n y 1. C u l t u r a l norms t h a t l e g i t i m a t e a n d , a r times. encourage v i o l e n c e between f a a i l y members a r e i n s t r u m e n t a l i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e family system; but these same Lorms p e r p e t u a t e v i o l e n c e a s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of family l i f e . A set o t n o r m s e x i s t s t h a t l e g i t i m i z e t h e s t r i k i n g of f a m i l y members, a t l e a s t under c e r t a i n conditions. These n o r m s s o m e t i m e s a r e used t o j u s t i f y t h e u s e of v i o l e n c e t o maintain t h e family systen. I n n o way s h o u l d t h i s s t a t e m e n t b e i n t e r p r e t e d t o mean t h a t we f a v o r a n y t y p e o f f a m i l y S y s t e m Over a n o t h e r . Whether o u r p r e s e n t f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s h o u l d b e m a i r t a i n e d o r c h a n g e d is n c t a t i s s u e h e r e . In most f o r m s o f s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . w h e t h e r it i s a whole s o c i e t y . a bureaucracy, o r t h e f a m i l y system, there is an e m p h a s i s o n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e s t a t u s quo. Even t h o u g h s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n c o n s t a n t l y changes, groop well-beicg is a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t e d i f n o p r o v i s i o n i s made f o r a r e l a t i v e l y s t a b l e framework f o r a c t i o n .

Ch.1.


Page 1 3

Our i n t e r e s t h e r s is u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t v e e c t h e norms t h a t l e g i t i m i z e v i o l e c c e e r d t h e r o l e t h e s e norms p l a y i n f a m i l y l i f e . Goode (1971) a r g u e s t h a t t h o s e who d e s i r e t o m a i n t a i P t h e p r e s e n t f a m i l y s y s t ? m may USE f o r c e o r i t s t h r e a t a s a f o r m of s o c i a l c o n t r o l . In o t h e r words. n o r m s l e g i t i m i z i r g v i o l e n c e m a i n t a i r c r a e r i n t h e f a n i l y g r o u p by i m p o s i n g s t r o n g s a n c t i o n s u h ~ l a r i n d i v i d u a l tries t o p l a y by o t h e r " r u l e s . " F o r many i n American s o c i e t y , f o r c e o r t h e t h r e a t o f f o r c e i n t h e f a m i l y is seen a s a permitted technique f o r preventing o r c o n t r o l l i n g c e r t a i n b e h a v i o r s o f f a m i l y members. Is Goode notes:

...

t h e m o t h e r who a b a n d o n s h e r c h i l d r e n . t h e f a t h e r who r u n s o f f v i t h t h e c h i l d r e n , t h e w i f e o r husband who t a k e s a s e c o n d s p o u s e , t h e c h i l d who b e a t s up h i s mother. t h e a d o l e s c e n t g i r l r h o w i s h e s t o s p ~ n d a ueekend w i t h h e r b o y f r i e n d a g a i n s t t h e r i l l o f h e r p a r e n t s , t h e w i f e who w i s h e s t o c h a n g e t h e f a m i l y d o m i c i l e w i t h o u t t h e c o n s e n t o f h e r husband, a 1 1 c a n be a n d s o m e t i m e s a r e r e s t r a i n e d by e i t h e r f o r c e o r i t s t h r e a t , i f n o t from f a m i l y members t h e n a t t h e i r r e q u e s t b y t h e community t h r o u g h i t s command o v e r f o r c e (1971:626). n o s t Americans s e e a moral o b l i g a t i o n f o r p a r e n t s t o u s e p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t a s a means f o r c o n t r o l l i n g c h i l d r e n i f o t h e r means f a l l ( S t a r k a n d McEvoy, 1 9 7 0 ) . and a g o o d proportion see it a s t h e most d e s i r a b l e means f o r Controlling children. Although t h e l e g a l r i g h t of a husband t o p h y s i c a l l y punish a w i f e no l o n g e r e x i s t s ( C a l r e r t , 1 9 7 4 ) . t h e i n f o r m a l c o r m s of c e r t a i n s o c i a l g r o u p s ( a n d speolflc families i n a l l s e g m e n t s o f society) s t i l l l e g i t i m i z e t h e use of p h y s i c a l f o r c e t o c o n t r o l an e r r a n t spouse. Of t h e m o d a l i t i e s t h a t e n s u r e t h a t t h e f a m i l y f u n c t i o n s a s an e f f i c i e n t s o c i a l group. v i o l e n c e i s s e e n t o have h i g h i n s t r u m e n t a l value. It u o r k s - - a t l e a s t i n t h e s h o r t run. T h i s k i n d o f v i o l e n c e is what G e l l e s a n 8 S t r a u s ( 1 9 7 8 ) c a l l 'legitimate-instrumental** violence, violence t h a t i s p e r m i t t e d o r r e q u i r e d by t h e norms of s o c i e t y . Physical f o r c e 1s u s e d t o i n d u c e some d e s i r e d a c t o r t o p r e v e n t some undesired behavior. Legitimate-instromental violence occurs i n a l l role-relationships of t h e nuclear family v i t h g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r frequency. The g r e a t e s t f r e q u e n c y i s i n t h e parent-child relationship in the form of p h y s i c a l t h e marriage p u n l s h m e n t , b u t a s S t r a u s shows i n C h a p t e r 3 , l i c e n s e a l s o t e n d s t o - be a h i t t i n g l i c e n s e . V i o l e n c e c a n a l s o t + k e a ~ ~ l e g i t i m a t e - e x p r e s s i v € l sform. By e x p r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e ue mean t h e u s e o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e t o c a u s e p a i n o r i n j u r y a s a n end i n i t s e l f . Examples o f t h i s t y p e of v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y i n c l u d e t h e videspread

Ch.1.


Page 1 4

b e l i e f s t h a t i t i s b e t t e r t o spank a c h i l d t h a n t o "hold in" o n e ' s a n g e r and b e t t e r t o l e t s i b l i n g s " f i g h t i t o u t ' t h a n t o interfere. R t t i n e s v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y s e t t i n g g o e s beyond s a n c t i o n i n g by c u l t u r a l norms; it i s i l l e g i t i m a t e . This most w i d e l y r e c o g n i z e d t y p e o f v i o l e n c e i n t h s f a m i l y i n c l u d e s t h e most s p e c t a c u l a r a n d e x t r e m e forms: child a b u s e a n d murder.

Whenever p h y s i c a l f o r c e i s u s e d w i t h i n t h e f a m i l y , for vhatever reason. t h e r e a r e c e r t a i n u n e x p e c t e d outcomes. C h a p t e r 2 p o i n t s ' t o t h r e e s u c h u n e x p e c t e d outcomes. The f i r s t is t h e a s s o c i a t i o n o f l o v e v i t h v i o l e n c e . The c h i l d l e a r n s t h a t t h o s e vho l o v e h i m / h e r most a r e a l s o t h o s e who h i t and have t h e r i g h t t o h i t . The s e c o n d u n i n t e n d e d C o n s e q u e n c e is t h e l e s s o n t h a t when s o ~ e t h i n g i s r e a l l y Pically, i m p o r t a n t . it j u s t i f i e s t h e u s e o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e . a n d most i m p o r t a n t . t h e s e i n d i r e c t l e s s o n s becoms so f u n d a m e r t a l t o t h e i n d i v i d u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and v o r l d v i e w t h a t they a r e gsneralizcd t o s o c i a l relationships, end e s p e c i a l l y t o t h e r e l a t i o c s h i p c l o s e s t t o t h a t o f p a r e n t and c h i l d - - t h a t o f h u s b a n d and wife. T h i s l a s t p o i n t is examined i n d e t a i l i n Joseph C a r r o l l ' s c h a p t e r on t h e d i f f e r e n t i a l r o l e of v i o l e n c e i n Mexican-lmerlcan and Jewish s u b c u l t u r e r . He a t t e m p t s t o show how g e n e r a l f a m i l y n o r m s a n d v a l u e s o p a r a f i n g u i t h i r t h e s e two d i v e r g e n t e t h n i c g r o u p s a c t t o i n f l u e n c e t h e a c t u a l u s e of v i o l e n c e a s w e l l a s i t s p e r p e t u a t i o n i n f u t u r e generations. The i r o n y h e r e is t h a t t h e s e norms, seer. t o b e n e c e s s a r y i n m a i n t a i n i n g t h e f a m i l y group, a l s o g a a r a n t e e t h a t v i o l e n c e w i l l become a r e g u l a r f e a t u r e of f a m i l y l i f e in t h e future. T h i s g u a r a n t o e is e n s u r e d by s i m p l e membership i n t h e f a m i l y group. R s G e l l e s (1974) n o t s s : "...the family serves a s basic training v i o l e n c e by E x p o s i n g c h i l d r e n t o v i o l e n c e , maklng them v i c t i m s o f violence, and p r o v i d i n g them w i t h l e a r n i n g c o n t e x t s f o r commission of v i o l e n t a c t s n (p. 1 7 0 ) .

for by by the

Indeed, t h e evidence i s c l e a r t h a t e a r l y experiences with p h y s i c a l punrshment l a y t h e groundvork f o r t h e normative l e g i t i m a c y and a c t u a l u s e o f i n t r a f a n i l y v i o l e n c e . Overs a n d s t r a u s ( 1 9 7 5 ) . i n a s t u d y o f e x p o s u r e t o v i o l e n c s and V i o l e n c e a p p r o v a l , show t h a t t h e more v i o l e n c e e x p e r i e n c e d by a c h i l d , t h e g r e a t e r t h e t e n d e n c y t o f z r o r t h e u s e of v i o l e n c e a s an adult. G u t s a c h e r (1960) s t a t e s t h a t a common e x p e r i e n c e amorg a g r o u p o f m u r d e r e r s h e s t u d i e d was t h e h i g h l e v e l of v i o l e n c e t h e i r p a r e n t s i n f l i c t e d on them when t h e y were g r o w i n g up. Tansy's (1969) s t u d y o f h o m i c i d a l o f f e n d e r s f i n d s t h a t 67 p e r c e n t h a d h i s t o r i e s o f v i o l e n t

ch.1.

Social Structure ard Irony

Pilgs 1 5

Gelles (1919) f i n d s t h a ? r e s p o n d r n % s who had child-rea-mg. s e e n t h e i r p a r e n t s e n g a g i n g i n p h y s i c 3 1 v i o l e n c e v e r s much o r l i k e l y t o physically f i g h t v i t h rhexr our spouses t h a n were p e o p l e uho n e v e r saw t h e i r p a r e n t s p h y s i c a l l y f i g h t (p. 1 7 3 ) .

Welsh (1976) e x p l o r e d t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w s e n s e v e r e p a r e n t a l p u n i s h m e n t and j u v e n i l e d e l i n q u e n c y . Be d e f i n e s s e v e r e p a r e n t a l p u n i s h m e n t a s any type of physical discipline u s i n g a n o b j e c t c a p a b l e o f l n f l i c t i n g p h y s i c a l injury. w e l s h q s a n a l y s l s of t h r e e samples of d e l i n q u e n t c h -i l-d r- e n l e d him t o c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e r- e c i- d -i v-i s t m a l e dsll-.qur?: ~ n ocad n e v e r b e e r e x p o s e d t C L b i l L , b l a r d , IC CddlI:>r, I e 1 s h exte:5icn c o r d o r ti?: w b 5 COr.EIlSzer:. t 1 r . d ~ a m O C g ale ? e l -i r l u e ~ ? sc s r r c c o r E l a t l C n s h i o b2-weer. s e v e r e p a r e n t a l punlshnent and aggression. ~

I n c r e a s i c g e v i d e n c e i n d i c a t e s t h a t a h i g h p r i c e is p a i d f o r a a i n t a i n i n g o r d e r i n t h e family through violeoc?. The norms t h a t l e g l t i e a t e v i o l e n c e a s s u r e a f a m i l y i n s t i t u t i o n a n d a s o c i e t y characterized by v i o l e n c e f o r y e a r s t o come. I r o n y 2. The s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a l f e a t u r e s of family l i f e t h a t c o n t r i b u t e t o intimacy a l s o f a c i l i t a t e t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f a h i g h r a t e of i n t r a r p o u s a l violence. Though t h e f a m i l y s h a r e s c e r t a i n c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s v i t h o t h e r s o c i a l g r o u p s , a s a s o c i a l g r o u p and a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n t h e family h a s d i s t i n c t i v e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s . Gellss a n d S t r a u s (1978) h a v e c a t a l o g u e d c e r t a i n o f t h e s e f e a t u r e s o f t h e tamily t o p o i n t o u t t h a t a s p s c i a l theory of v i o l e n c e i s necessary for the family group. Some of these c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s , a n d o t h e r s m e n t i o n e d by a u t h o r s i n t h i s volume, s e r v e a d u a l r o l e i n t h e family. o n t h e o r e hand, t h e y c o n t r i b u t e t o w a r d making t h e f a m i l y a warm, s u p p o r t i v e , on t h e o t h e r hand. t h e y s u g g e s t and m t i m a t e environment: r e a s o n s why t h i s s o c i a l g r o u p may be e s p e c i a l l y p r o n e t o violence. we l l s t e l e v e n s u c h f a c t o r s : 1. ILmf RJ&. An elexentary characteristic accounting f o r t h e high incidecce of violence i s t h a t s o many h o u r s o r t h e d a y a r e s p e n t i n t s 1 a c t i r . g w i t h o t h e r f a m i l y members. Bowever. a l t h o u g h t h i s f a c t o r i s i m p o r t a n t , t h e r a t i o of i n t r a f a m i l y violence t o violence experienced o u t s i d e t h e f a m i l y f a r e x c e e d s t h e r a t i o of time s p e n t i n Comparing t h e f a r i i l y w i t h t h e f a m i l y t o time s p e n t o u t s i d e . a n o t h e r g r o u p i n which l a r g e a m o u n t s of time a r e s p e n t , s u c h a s a work g r o u p , p r o v i d e s a c o n c r e t e e x a m p l e t h a t f a r more i s involved t h a n "time a t risk."

ch.1.


t a k e p l a c e o v e r which e x p e c t a t i o n s can occur.

a

dispute

Pege 16 or

a

failurs

to

meet

3. in tens it^ o f Involpg~Emyg;. Not o n l y i s t h e r e a v l d e r r a n g e of possibilities f o r disputes o r d5ssatisfactione. but, i n addition. t h e degree of i n j u r y f e l t i n such i n s t a n c e s i s l i k e l y t o be much g r e a t e r t h a n i f t h e ssme i s s u e were t o a r i s e i r r e l a t i o n t o someone o u t s i d e t h e family. F o s s ( C h a p t e r 7) c o n s i d e r s t h i s f a c t o r e s p e c i a l l y i m p o r t a n t i n generating h o s t i l i t y among f a m i l y members a s well a s i n creating t h e strategies f o r dealing vith c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t among f a m i l y members. 4. I n f r m q i n c a A c t i v i t i e s . nany f a m i l y a c t i v i t i e s h z r e a ' z e r o sum" a s p e c t . C o n f l i c t a r i s e s from s u c h d e c i s i o n s a s w h e t h e r t o p l a y Bach o r n e o d e l s s o h n o n t h e f a m i l y s t s r e o , v h o t h e r t o g o t o a movie o r b o w l i n g , o r how t o l i n e up f o r t h e bathroom. Less obvious, but e q u a l l y important, is the i n f r i n g i n g of o n e ' s p e r s c n a l s p a c e o r s e l f - i m a g e by t h e l i f e s t y l e and h a b i t s o f o t h e r s i n t h e f a m i l y , s u c h a s t h o s e who l e a v e t h i n g s a r o u n d v e r s u s t h o s e who p u t e v e r y t h i n g away, o r t h o s e who e a t q u i c k l y a n d t h o s e who l i k e l e i s u r e l y meals.

a

6. and g~~~g?&?;&s. The d i f f e r e n c e s i n a g e and sex of family members (especially during t h e couoled v i t h the e x -~ istence o -f c h i l d - r. earino v earsl A ~ ~ ~ - - . . o e n e r a t i o n a l and s e x d l f f e r e n c e s i n c u l t u r e and outlook. make t h e f a m l l y a n a r e n a o f c u l t u r e c o n f l l c t . Thlr confllc+ 1s e x p r e s s e d zn s u c h p h r a s e s a s " t h e b a t t l e o f t h e s e x e s " a n d " t h e g e n e r a t r o n gap." ~

.

.

.---

~

~~

~

~

7. B s c r z b e d R o l e s . Compounding t h e problem o f a g e and s e x d i f f e r e n c e s , f a m i l y s t a t u s e s and r o l e s a r e a s s i g n e d , t o a considerable extent. on the basis of biological c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s r a t h e r t h a n o n t h e b a s i s of competence a n d interest. One a s p e c t o f t h i s s t r u c t u r i n g h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y been a f o c u s o f c o n t e n r i o n -- s o c i a l l y s t r u c t u r e d s e x u a l inequality or. i n contemporary language, the sexist o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e f a m i l y . S t r a u s (Chapter 6) a r g u e s t h a t a male-dominated family has especially high confllct p o t e n t i a l when i t e x i s t s i n a s o c i e t y w i t h a n e g a l i t a r i a n ideology. But, a s B l l e n a n d S t r a u s p o i n t o u t ( i n C h a p t e r 1 2 ) . e v e n w i t h o u t s u c h an i d e o l o g i c i n c o n s i s t e n c y , t h e because i n e v i t a b l y not a l l c o n f l l c t p o t e n t i a l i s high, husbands can f u l f i l l t h e c u l t u r a l l y prescribed l e a d e r s h i p roles.

Ch.1.


Page 1 7

8. PaptQ privm. I n many s o c i e t i e s t h e n o r m a t i v e k i n s h i p and household s t r u c t u r e i n s u l a t e s t h e f a m i l y from s o c i a l c o n t r o l s a n d s o c i a l a s s i s t a n c e i n cnp?.cg with intratamily conflict. T h i s c h a r a c r e r i s t i c i s most t y p i c a l of t h e c o n j u g a l f a m i l y s y s t e m of u r b a n - i n d u s t r i a l s o c i i t i e s ( L a s l e t t . 1 9 7 3 ) . Both F o s s ( C h a p t e r 8 ) and A D t a l i n g ( C h a p t e r 9 ) mention t h a t t h e n u c l e a r s t r u c t u r e o f America? f a m i l y l i f e makes less l i k e l y t h e dampening e f f e c t s of t h e p r e s e n c e o f t h i r d p a r t i e s i n h u s b a n d - w i f e a r g u m e n t s and d i s p u t e s . 9. I n v o l u n t a r y p e m b e r s h i z . Birth relationships a r s obviously irivOluztary, and under-age children cannot :hemselves t e r m i n a t e s u c h r e l a t i o n s h i p s . I n addition, Sprey (1969) shows t h a t t h e c o n j u g a l r e l a t i o n s h i p a l s o h a s nonvoluntary aspects. F i r s t , t h e s o c i a l e x p e c t a t l o n is t h a t m a r r l a g e i s a long-term commitment, a s Expressad i n t h e phrase " u n t i l death do u s part.' In addition, emotional, material. a n d l e g a l r e w a r d s a n d c o n s t r a i n t s o f t e n make membership i n t h e f a m i l y g r o u p i n e s c a p a b l e , socially. physically, or legally. So. when conflicts and d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n s a r i s e , t h e a l t e r n a t i v e o f r e s o l v i n g them by l e a v l n g o f t e n aces n o t e x i s t - - a t l e a s t i n t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f what is p r a c t i c a l o r p o s s i b l e .

~

~

-

~~

L

-

~

~

- - - -

-~

~

famiiy l i f e cycle--the b i r t h of children, naturation of c h i l d r e n . a u i n a-. . and r e t i r e a e r t . The c r i s i s - l i k e n a t u r e o f t h e s e c h a n g e s h a s l o n g been r e c o g n i z e d ( L e l l a s t e r s , 1 9 5 7 ) . A 1 1 o f t h i s , combined w i t h t h e huge e m o t i o n a l i n v e s t m e n t t y p i c a l o f f a m i l y r e l a t i o r s h i p s , means t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s l i k e l y t o b e t h e l o c u s o f more, a n d more s e r i o u s . stresses t h a n o t h e r groups. A r e a d i n g o f Chapter 7 emphasizes t h e i m p o r t a n t r o l e o f i n t e r n a l a n d e x t e r n a l s t r e s s e s on f a m i l y l i f e i n t h e explanation of i n t r a f a m i l y violence.

.

-

~

~

11. E x t e n s i v e KnoYledue of S o c i a l B i O 9 r a E h i e s . B e c a u s e of t h e i n t i m a c y o f t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , s p o u s e s u s u a l l y have a n in-depth kowladge of each other's social h i s t o r i e s - - t h e i r a b i l i t i e s and shortcomings, t h e i r s t r e n g t h s and v u l n e r a b i l i t i e s , t h e i r l i k e s a n d d i s l i k e s (Hepburn 1 9 7 3 ) . I n e f f e c t , t h e members o f m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s h a v e a t t h e i r d i s p o s a l i c f o r m a t i o n t h a t c a n be u s e d t o s u p p o r t a n d e n h a n c s e a c h o t h e r ' s i d e n t i t i e s b e c a u s e e a c h knows a b o u t t h e things t h a t matter t c t h e other. A t t h e same t i m e , t h i s i n f o r m a t i o n c a n b e u s e d t o damage t h e i d e n t i t y of s i t h e r spouse. Goode (1971) s u g g e s t s t h a t i n t i m a t e s a r e a b l e t o l a u n c h v e r b a l a s s a u l t s on t h e p a r t n e r ' s v u l n e r a b l e p o i n t s each other's because t h e n a t u r e of marriage exposes weaknesses. Hotaling (Chapter 9) s p e c i f i c a l l y r e f e r s t o t h e

Ch.1.


Eage 18

e x t e n s i v e knowledge o f p a r t n e r s a s p r e d i s p o s i n g them t o mistakenly a t t r i b u t e malevolent i n t e n t t o t h e a c t i o n s of spouses. These e l e v e n f a c t o r s , and no doubt t h e r e a r e o t h e r s , h a v e b e e n p o s i t e d by a u t h o r s o f t h i s volume a n d o t h e r s a s i m p o r t a n t characteristics o f the family group that c o n t r i b u t e t o its h i g h r a t e o f c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c s . The i r o n y h e r e i s t h a t many o f t h e s e same f e a t u r e s e n c o u r a g e wzrmth, i c t i m a c y , and s u p p o r t ; f o r example, l a r g e a m o u n t s of time s p e n t fogether, deep emotional involvement, privacy. a n d i n - d e p t h knowledge o f o n e a n o t h e r . The r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e s e u n i q u e c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f a m i l y t o v i o l e n c e as w e l l a s t o i l t i m a c y h a s n o t been verified anpirically. But t h e t h e o r e t i c a l work on t h i s i s s u e s u g g e s t s many i n t r i g u i n g q u e s t i o n s f o r r e s e a r c h . The most i e p o r t a n t i s w h e t h e r changes in thase unique c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s c a n make t h e f a m i l y a less v i o l e n t g r o u p without S a c r i f i c i n g t h e b e n e f i t s o f a n i n t i m a t e arvironment. F o r example, if we compare n u c l e a r f a m i l y s t r . u c t u r P s w i t h v a r i o u s combinations of e x t e n d e d f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s , w i l l t h e r e b e a h i g h e r l e v e l o f s u p p o r t between members i c t h e l a t t e r form, a s w e l l a s a l o w e r l e v e l of s t r e s s ? Straus' c o m p a r i s o n of s u p p o r t i v e n e s s b e t w e e n s p o u s e s iii c u c l e a r and i n j o i n t h o u s e h o l d s (1975) s u g g e s t s t h a t l a c k o f s t r e s s may be g a i n e d a t t h e e x p e n s e o f s u p p o r t . And v h a t r o l e d o g r a n d p a r e n t s p l a y i n t e r m s of t h e o c c u r r e n c e of i n t r a f a m i l y sons v i o l e n c e when t h e y l i v e i n t h e same h o u s e h o l d s a s the:: a n d d a u g h t e r s and g r a n d c h i l d r e n ? I n v e s t i g a t i o n s a l s o c o u l d b e f o c u s e d on specific characteristics. For example, t h e a f f e c t of i n v o l u n t a r y f a m i l y membership o n v i o l e n c e c o u l d b e s t u d i e d by c o m p a r i n g n o n m a r r i e d c o u p l e s who l i v e t o g e t h e r w i t h m a r r i e d c s u p l e s , controlling f o r relevant factors. ~ l s o . does intense i n v o l v e o e n t among f a m i l y members f a c i l i t a t e o r dampen t h e occurrence of violence? Do families vith extensive community i n t e r e s t s o r i n v o l v e m e n t s v i t h n o n f a m i l y members e x p e r i e n c e less v i o l e n t i n t e r a c t i o n a t home? T h e s e Examples s u g g e s t c . l g a Lev c t .any s u c h q u e s t l o r i s :hat c 3 u l d h~ b r c u q h t t c b e a r on * h e s p e c l a 1 s o c r a l ?rger:zaczcnal t e e c m r e ? a c d y h e ~ ri r t l u e r c e on t u e b a n a - v l f e s:olcnce. I r o n y 3. The c h a n g e t o a n e g a l i t a r i a n s t r u c t u r e of m a r r i a g e l e a d s t o t h e d e s t r u c t i o n of t h e s e x i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e f a m i l y b u t a l s o seems t o l e a d t o h i g h e r r a t e s of v i o l e n c e . The t w o p r e v i o u s i r o n i e s c o u l d b e c a l l e d =cz_c i r o n i e s . They w e r e c o n c e r n e d v i t h t h e f a m i l y a s a n i n s t i t u t i o n a n 6 s o c i a l g r o u p e s compared v i t h o t h e r i n s t i t u t i o n s a n d s o c i a l g r o u p s i n terms of i t s p r o c l i v i t y t o h i g h r a t e s o f v i o l e n c e . T h e l a s t t w o i r o n i e s p r e s e n t e d h e r e a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h micro level processes, that is, w i t h c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s t h a t

ch.1.


Page 1 9

d i f f e r e a t i a t e f a m i l i e s frcm e a c h o t h e r . The t i r s t o f t h e s e i r o n i e s c o n c e r n s the sexisr o r g a l i z a t i o n of t h e f a m i l y ( S t r a u s , Chapter 6 ) . This c h a p t e r c i t e s n i n e s p e c i f i c ways i n which t h e male-dominated s r r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y a n d f a m i l y c r e a t e s a n d a a i n t a i r s a h i g h o n e o f t h e many ways i n which l e v e l Of m a r i t a l V i o l e n c e . m a l e d o m i n a t i o n c a n l e a d t o f a m i l y v i o l e n c e o c c u r s when t h e male i s threatened. I n o u r s o c i e t y , where m a l e - s u p e r i o r i t y norms a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t r a n s i t i o n , and i n v h i c h t h e p r e s n m p t i o n o f s u p e r i o r i t y must be v a l i d a t e d hy " r e s o u r c e s " s u c h a s v a l u e d p e r s o n a l t r a i t s and m a t e r i a l goods and s e r v i c e s , a s c r i b i n g s u p e r l o r a u t h o r i t y t o men i s a p o t e n t f o r c e i c p r o d u c i n g p h y s i c a l a t t a c k s on wives. R h u s b a n d who w a n t s t o b e t h e d o m i n a n t p e r s o n i n h i s f a m i l y , b u t who h a s l i t t l e e d u c a t i o n , a j o h t h a t is low i n p r e s t i g e and income. a n d a l a c k o t i n t e r p e r s o c e l s k i l l s , may r e s o r t t o p h y s i c a l violence t o maintarn h i s position. Empirical evidence supports these notions. For example, i n f a m i l i e s where t h e h u s b a n d ' s a c h i e v e d s t a t u s i s lower t h a n h l s wife's. O'Brien (1971) f o u n d a g r e a t e r t e n d e n c y t o USE f o r c e a n d v i o l ~ n c eon f a m i l y members t h a n when t h e h u s b a n d h a d t h e - r e s o u r c e m o f a h i g h e r p r e s t i g e occupation. Also, A l l e n a n d S t r a u s ( C h a p t e r 12) found t h a t among w o r k i n g c l a s s h u s b a n d s who w e r e h i g h i n economic o r personal resources, t h e r e v a s n o c o r r e l a t i o n between power i n t h e f a m i l y and v i o l e n c e . However, among t h o s e w o r k i n g c l a s s h u s b a n d s who w e r e low i n r e s o u r c e s , t h e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n m a l e power and v i o l e n c e was 0.49. graphically Tho e x p e c t a t i o n o f male d o n i n a n c e is i l l u s t r a t e d i n t h e c a s e h i s t o r y o f J o e and J e n n i f e r r e p o r t e d by La Xossa ( i l Chapter 10). This couple depicrs t h e c o n f l i c t between men a n d women i x t h e t r a n s i t i o n from m a l e s u p e r l o r i t y t o e g a l i t a r i a n f a m i l y norms, most c l e a r i n t h e dialogue betweel Joe and J e n n i f e r about J e n n i f e r ' s employment o u t s i d e o f t h e home, which J o e p e r c e i v e s a s a t h r e a t t o h i s r i g h t t o h e t h e d o m i n a n t asmber o f t h e relationship. The i s s u e of w i f e employment, p e r h a p s t h e most d i r e c t t h r e a z t o male d o m i n a t i o n i n t h e s o c i e t y a s w e l l a s i n t h e f a m i l y , is i n v e s t i g a t e d by Brown ( C h a p t e r 1 1 ) t o d e t e r m i n e i t s p o t e n t i a l i m p a c t o n husband-wife v i o l e r c e . I n a more g e n e r a l v e i n . Brown p r o b e s t h e c o n f l i c t between e m e r g i n g sexual e q u a l i t y a n d e x i s t i n g norms t h a t promote m a l e domination. Logically, we would assume that the increasing breakdown o f t h e s e x i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e f a m i l y would a l s o l e a d t o a d e c r e a s e i n husband-wife violence. But t h i s d e c r e a s e may n o t b e t h e c a s e , a t l e a s t i n t h e s h o r t run. During t h i s t r a n s i t i o n period, a s t h e f a m i l y r e s t r u c t u r e s i t s power d i s t r r b u t i o n , c o n f l i c t a n d v i o l e n c e may a c t u a l l y

Ch.1.

S o c l a l S t r u c t u r e and I r o n y

Pagp 20

b e i n c r e a s e d a s men f e e l t h r e a t e n e d by t h e i r l o s s o f power. Ironically. a t t e m p t s bq women t o i n c r e a s e t h e i r power = n s o c i e t y a n d t h e f a m i l y map s e r v e t o v i c t i m i z e vomen f u r t h e r . a t l e a s t temporarily. I n t h e l o n g run, t h e e g a l i t a r i a n e t h o s should l e a d t o a d e c r e a s e i n h u s b a n d - w i f e v i o l e n c e , h u t it w i l l n o t d e c r e a s e u n t i l men b e g i n t o a c c e p t e g a l i t a r i a n norms a s l e g i t i m a t e . I r o n y 4. The s u p p r e s s i o n o f c o n f l i c t , widely felt t o decrease violence, may a c t u a l l y i n c r e a s e it. Most p e o p l e f e a r c o n f l i c t a n d t r y t o a r o i d it. s o c i o l o g i s t s and p s y c h o l o g i s t s d o r e s e a r c h t o f i n d o u t why c o n f l i c t occurs, o s t e n s i b l y t o be able to provide information t h a t w i l l enable people t o a r o i d c o n f l i c t . n a r r i a g e c o u n s e l o r s and o t h e r p r o f e s s i o n a l s concerned w i t h t h e family, w i t h a f e w e x c e p t i o n s s u c h a s Bach and Uyden (1968) a n d ShOstroB a n d Ravanaugh ( 1 9 7 1 ) , f o c u s much of t h e i r e f f o r t s on h e l p i n g f a m i l i e s t o a v o i d c o n f l i c t . The i m p l i c i t assumption hera i s t h a t t h e suppression of c o n f l i c t w i l l l e a d t o t h e avoidance of h o s t i l i t y and v i o l e n c e . Houever, c o n f l i c t t h e o r i s t s h a v e p r e s e n t e a a c o n v i n c i n g c a s e f o r e x a c t l y t h e o p p o s i t e assumption; t h e y argue t h a t c o n f l i c t i s a n i n e v i t a b l e p a r t o f a l l human a s s o c i a t i o n s (coser, 1956; Dahrendorf, 1959; Sprey, 1969). Furthermore. t h e y hold t h a t any s o c i a l u n i t t h a t a t t e m p t s t o s u p p r e s s c o n f l i c t r u n s a h i g h r i s k of c o l l a p s i n g , e i t h e r because it f a l l s t o adapt t o changing c i r c u ~ s t a n c e s o r hecause h o s t i l i t y accumulates, eroding group s o l i d a r i t y . The application o f c c n f l l c t t h e o r y t o f a m l l y v r o l e n c e o r even 2 has a s s u m e d t h a t c o n f l i c t 1s c e n t r a l t o . p r e r e q u l s l t e f o r , vlolencc. H o v e r e r , a d e l l n e a t i o n of how c o n i l l c t p r o c e s s e s and v i o l e n c e a r e r e l a t e d h a s n o t r e c e i v e d adequate attentlon. P o s s t a k e s o n t h l s I s s u e l n C h a p t e r 8. Foss c o n t e n d s t h a t c e r t a i n unique f e a t u r e s of t h e husband-wife relationship, t h a t is. t h e h i g h f r e q u e n c y o f i n t e r a c t i o n betveen spouses. t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y involvement. and t h e d i f f i c u l t y i n simply l e a v i n g t h e family s e t t i n g . v l l l produce h o s t i l i t y and g e n e r a t e a t t s m p t s t o s u p p r e s s o r ignore hostility. Foss proposEs t h a t t h e avoidance o f c o n f l i c t SiTuationS i r o n i c a l l y t e n d s t o increase h o s t i l i t y a s w e l l a s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of violence. If s u p p r e s s i n g c o n f l i c t l e a d s t o v i o l e n c e d o e s t h i s imply the more conflict the better for marital relatiocships? The q u e s t i o n o f how much c o n f l i c t is d e s i r a b l e i n t h e f a m i l y s e t t i n g i s a n u n i n v e s t i g a t e d and important Empirical challenge. S t r a u s (1978) h a s s u g g e s t e d t h a t r h e r e i s a c u r v i l i n e a r r e l a t i o n between t h e amount o f c o n f l i c t and group vell-being. T h a t is. t h e a b s e n c e o f

ch.1.


Page 2 1

conflict in the s e n s e o f c o n f l i c t s o f i s t e r e s t is t h e o r e t i c a l l y impcssible; E v e r if i t c o u l d b e b r o u g h t about, suppression o f c o n f l i c t vould he f a t a l f o r group vell-being. A t t h e same time, v e r y h i g h l e v e l s o f cocflict c a n c r e a t e s u c h a h i g h l e v e l of s t r a s s a n d / o r s u c h r a p i d chazqe t h a t group welfare i s a d v e r s e l y affected. I f S t r z u s ' hypothesis is c o r r e c t , t h a t a c e r t a i n l e v e l of c o n f l i c t i s i n d e e d h e a l t h y f o r t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , how c o u l d t h e a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l b e d e t e r m i n e d ? Certain t h e ~ r e t i c a l d e d u c t i o n s made by a u t h o r s i n t h i s v o l u a e a n d O t h e r s s u g g e s t t h a t t h e l e v e l of i n t i m a c y i n m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s may be a k e y f a c t o r i n t h e amount o f c o n f l i c t experienced. S e v e r a l writers h a v e s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e more i n t i m a t e t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e more l i k e l y t h e o c c u r r e n c e o f c o n f l i c t (Simme1.1950; S p r e y , 1969; Poss. Chapter 8: Hotaling, C h a p t e r 9: Brown, C h a p t e r 1 1 ) . P e r t a p s , t h e n , t h e lessening of those f a c t o r s t h a t contribute t o intimacy a l s o would r e d u c e t h e amount o f c o n f l i c t i n t h e f a m i l y . P o s s c c h a p t e r p o i n t s o n t t h a t i n some p a t t e r n s o f f a m i l y l i f e a l e s s i n t i m a t e o r i n t e n s i v s i n v o l v e m e n t is characteristic. Rn e x c e l l e n t c a s e i n p o i n t i s d s s c r i b e d b y CubPr a n d H a r o f f (1965) a s t h e " p a s s i v e - c o n g e n i a l ' marriage. a l l f e - s t y l e i n v h i c h a l l e m o t i o n a l and irstrusental satisfaction does n o t d e r i v e from t h e m a r r i a g e . In m a r r i a g e s i n which c r e a t i v e e n e r g i e s a n d t h e s a t i s f a c t i o n o f i n t e r e s t s and e m o t i o n a l needs a r e n l t e x c l u s i v e l y d i r e c t e d t o t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p , less i n t e n s i v e p a t t e r n s o f invclvement w i l l occur. w h e t h e r t h i s t y p e of m a r r i a q s a l s o h a s l e s s c o n f l i c t a n d v i o l e n c e is a c r u c i a l q u e s t i o n f o r t h e s t u d y of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . TRE IRONIC NATURE OF INTRAPAIILY VIOLEBCE

when t h i s book was p l a n n e d , t h e key i d e a s t o b e p r e s e n t e d were t h o s e o f c u l t u r e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n . As t h e book b e g a n t o come t o g e t h e r , what m i g h t b e c a l l e d t h e " i r o n i c n a t u r e cf i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e " Kept c r o p p i n g up. T h i s i n no way u n d e r c u t s t h e i m p o r t a n c e o f c u l t u r e a n d Social Organization a s i n t e r p r e t i v e tools. The d u a l i n f l u e n c e o f c u l t u r e a n d s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n is d e s c r i b e d t h r o u g h o u t t h i s volume a s r e v e a l i n g t h e s o c i a l l y p a t t e r n e d n a t u r e cf m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e . The i n d i v i d u a l p e r s o n a l i t i e s o f married ccuples, without considering ths socially c o n s t r u c t e d n a t u r e of marriage i t s e l f . c a n n o t e x p l a i n why m a r r i a g e a s a s o c i a l i n s t i t u t i o n i s c h a r a c t e r i z e d by a h i g h incidence o f s t r i f e and violerce. But c u l t u r e a d s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e somewhat s t a t i c n o t i o n s a n d d o n o t f o r c e o n e t o f a c e up t o t h e dynamic a n d emergent n a t u r e of f z m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n . I n t h e c o n t e x t of t h i s book, it is l a r g e l y t h e n o t i o n o f i r o n y t h a t p r o v i d e s t h e n e e d e d dynamic. we h a v e p o i n t e d t o f o u r s u c h i r o n i a s .

ch.1.


P a g e 22

~t f i r s t g l a n c e , t h e s e r o n i e s n a y seem t o b ? o n l y a m u s i n g oddities. They a r e more t h a n t h i s . Recognizing the e x i s t e n c e of t h e s e C o u n t e r i n t u i t i v e p r o c e s s e s S e n s i t i z e s US t o t h e complexity of f a m i l y l i f e . Ironies highlight the fundamental c o n t r a d i c t i o n s t h a t r e s i d e i r t h e c u l t u r a l rorms and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n of family l i f e . They f o r c e u s t o b e wary o f a c c e p t i n g t h e conmon-sense d i c h o t o m y between v i c e a n d v i r t u e , good a n d e v i l . l o v e a n d c o n f l i c t .

Lastly, the exploration of ironic rel+tiooships n a t u r a l l y l e a d s t o t h e o p e n i n g up o f new a n d i n t e r o s t i n g r e s e a r c h q u e s t i o n s on f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . Rather than viewirg irony as r e s i d i n g i n nature o r i n t h e universe, a s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e cn i r o n y l e a d s u s t o f o c u s on t h e c o m p l e x r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t u e e n c u l t u r e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n and i t s r o l e i n g e r e r a t i r g t h e c o n t r a d i c t i o n s of f a m i l y life.

NOTES *Part of t h e f i r s t s e c t i o n of t h i s c h a p t e r is a r e v i s e d v ~ T S i 0 n o f p a r t o f " c n l t u r a l and S o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o n a l I n f l u e n c e s o n v i o l e n c e E e t v e e n F a m i l y nembers" (straus 1974b). 1. For t h e purposes of t h i s chapter, violence i s defined. f o l l o w i n g Gelles a n d S t r a u s ( 1 9 7 8 ) . a s "sn a c t c a r r i e d o u t with +he i n t e c t i o n of, o r perceived a s having t h e i n t e n t i o n o f , p h y s i c a l l y h u r t i n g a n o t h e r person." The " p h y s i c a l h u r t " c a n r a n g e from s l i g h t pain, a s i n a s l a p , t o murdsr. Blthough t h i s i s t h e b a s i c d e f i n i t i o n o f v i o l e n c e u s e d i n Our r e s e a r c h , i t is u s u a l l y a l s o n e c e s s a r y -0 t a k e i n t o a c c o u n t a number o f . o t h a r c h a r a c t c r i s t l c s o f t h e v i o l 5 n t a c t . s u c h a s w h e t h e r i t i s ~ i n s t r u m e o t a l " *o some o t h e r p u r p o s e o r " e x p r e s s i v e , " t h a t is, an 2nd i n i t s e l f ; a p d w h e t h e r it is a c u l t u r a l l y p e r m i t t e d o r r e q u i r e 3 a c t v e r s u s o n e t h a t r u n s c o u n t e r t c c u l t u r a l norms ( l e g i t i m a t e versus i l l e g i t i m a t e violence). Thus, the blsis fcr th3 * s i n t e x t t o h u r t " may r a n g e f r o m a c o n c e r r f o r a c h i l d ' s s a f e t y ( a s when a c h i l d i s s p a n k e d f o r g o i n g i n t o t h e s t r e e t ) t o h o s t i l i t y s o i n t e n s e t h a t t h e death of t h s o t h e r is desired. The f o r m e r woold b e a n e x a m p l e of " l e g i t i m a t e i n s t r u n e n t a l v i o l e n c e " a n d t h e l a t t e r of " i l l e g i t i s a t s e x p r e s s i v e violecce." 2. C e r t a i n a o t h o r s i n t h i s volume. e-g.. Po55 ( C h a p t e r u s e t h e term p a r a d o x r a t h e r t h a n i r o n y . As n a t z a ( 1 9 6 9 ) notes: t h e r e a r e two m e a n i n g s of p a r a d o x - t h e g e n e r a l and I r t h e g e n e r a l meaning of p a r a d o x , s o n e C h i n g t h e technical. c a n b e b o t h p a r a d o x ( a t e x e t c o n t r a r y t 3 commcn s e n s e ) end i r o n y (an outcome o f e v l n t s t h a t mocks t h e f i t n e s s o f things). P o s s u s e s t h e t e r n p a r a d o x i r t h e g e n e r a l an3 20: t h e t e c h n r c a l s e n s e of a r a p p a r r n t I n t e r n a l c c n t r a d i c t ; o n .

7).

Chapter 2

Wife-Beating: How Common and Why? Murray A. Straus

C h a p t e r 1 made f r e q u e n t r e f e r e n c e s t o t h ; high rates of physical violence that characterize Rmericzn marriages. until recently. s u c b a s s e r t i o n s had t o b e b a s e d on i m p r e s s i o n i s t i c e v i d e n c e , o r on s t u d i e s of s m a l l or perhaps unrepresentative samples, f3r example, couples seeking divorce or couples involved i n "domestic d i s t u r b a n c e " p o l i c e c a l l s . Th=s c h a p t e r . however. r e p o r t s t h e r e s u l t s o f 3 s t u d y of a l a r g e and n a t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e Sample o f c o u p l e s . The r a t e s o f v i o l e n c s found i n t h i s s t u d y w e r e somewhat l o w e r t h a n e x p e c t a d f o r "ordiParyn pushing, s l a p p i n g , and s h o r i n g , but astoundingly high f o r "wife-briting." In a d d i t i o n t o documenting t h e h i g h i n c i d e n c e of wife-beating, d a t a on " h u s b a n d - b e a t i n g " i s a l s o p r e s e n t e d and "sed t o i l l u s t r a t e a r e c u r r i n g t h e n e o f t h i s volume: t h a t m a r i t a l violencc c a n n o t be u c d e r s t o o d i n t e r m s o f a s i n g l e f a c t o r such as sexrsm. aggressiveness, l a c k of s e l f - c o n t r o l , o r m e n t a l i l l n e s s of h u s b a n d s who b e a t f h e l r wives. Each o f t h e s e f a c t o r s i s i m p o r t a n : b u t d o e s n o t acc0ur.t f 3 r t h e r a t e 3f a s s a u l t by v i v e s OP h u s b a n d s .

The f i r s t o b j e c t l v e o f t h i s c h a p t e r i s t o p r e s e n t some of t h f~i n d i n g s on v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n s p o u s e s from a r e c e n t l y c o m p l e t e d s t u d y of American c o u p l e s . These f i n d i c g s a r e unique. being the f i r s t s u c h d a t a on a n a t i o l a l l y represectative sample. Although the findings have limitatiocs, t h e y g i v e a + l e a s t some i n d i c a t i o n a f t h e e x t e n t t o v h l c h w i f e - b e a t i r g i s p a r t o f t h e way o f l i f e o f American f a n i l i e s . * l

Ch.2.

if e - ~ e a t i r . 9

Page 24

The s e c o r d o b j e c t i v e is t o e x p l a i n f u r t h s r t h e i r o n y t h a t t h e g r o u p t o which most p e o p l e l o o k f o r l o v e and g e n t l ~ n ~ si s s a l s o t h e most v i o l e n t c i v i l i a n g r o u p i n o u r society. he f i r s t of these objectivas poses tremendous t e c h n z c a l problems. The s e c o r a o b j e c t i v e , i n a d d i t i o n t o the technical probless, poses theoretical problems fundamental to our understanding o f human s o c i e t y . T h e r e f o r e , what f o l l o w s s h o u l d be t a k e n a s h i g h l y t e L t a t i v e . beginning a n s v e r s t o t h e s e questions.

Dat+ w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d on a s a m p l e o f 2.143 couples. T h i s s a m p l e was c h o s e ? i n a way t h a t makes i t e x r r e m e l y l i k e l y t h a t t h e y a r e r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f a l l American c o u p l e s . The a g e , r a c e , and s o c i o e c o n o m i c s t a t u s o f t h e c o u p l e s i n t h e sampl? c o r r e s p o n d q u i t e c l o s e l y w i t h c e n s u s d a t a f o r ' t h e S o f e r 50 good. B u t what a b o u t t h e d a t a n a t i o n a s a whole. on w i f e - b e a t i n g ?

WEAT I S RIPE-BEATING? TO do r e s e a r c h on t h e i n c i d e n c e of wife-beating, one must b e a b l e t o d e f i r e i t i n a way t h a t c a n be m e a s u r e d is a objectively. one soon r e a l i z s s t h a t "wife-heating' p o l i t i c a l r a t h e r t h a n a s c i e n t i f i c term. F o r most p e o p l e . w l f e - b e a t i n g r e f e r s o n l y t o t h o s e i n s t a n c e s I n which s e v e r e damage i s i n f l i c t e d . O t h o r v i o l e n c e is t r e a t e d a s normal o r l a u g h e d o f f w i t h r e m a r k s s u c h a s "Hornen s h o u l d ba s t r u c k r e g u l a r l y , l i k e gorgs." o r t a k e t h e f o l l o w i n g :

c o n c o r d , N.R. (AP) The New R a m p s h i r e CDmmission on t h e S t a t u s o f Women h a s r e j p c t e d a p l a n '0 help b a t t e r e d wises, s a y i n g t h a t wife-bsatinq is c a u s e d by t h e rise o f feminism. "Those women l i b b e r s i r r i t a t e t h e h e l l o u t of t h e l r h u s b a n d s , ' s a i d Commissioner G l o r i a B e l z i l o f Aashua. A t a meeting acnday, commission members, n e l d r i m Thornson, s a i d any a p p o i n t e d by GOV. program t o h e l p b a t t e r e d w i v e s would b e "an i l r a s i o n o f privacy.*# ( P o r t s a o u t h Berala, Sept.

13. 1 9 7 7 )

T h i s s t a t e m e n t s u g g s s t s t h a t a c e r t a i n amount o f v l o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y is " n o r m a l v i o l e r c e " i n t h e s e n s e t h a t i t i s d e s e r v e d ( f o r e x a m p l e by " i r r i t a t i n g t h e h e l l " o u t of o n e ' s spouse) and t h a t , c o n t r a r y t o i t s p c s l t i o n on ViolencE o u t s i d 4 t h e family, t h e s t a t e should n o t i n t a r f s r e .

Ch.2.

Rite-Beating

Psge 2 5

A r s c E n t c o n v e r s a t i o n w i t h a s t u d e n t who had d e c i a e d t o do a term p a p e r o n v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y s u g g e s t s t h e same conclusion. S h e came t o see me t o r h e l p on how t o r i r r o w t h e t o p l c ?o s o m e t h i n g manageable. I suggested chat s h e c o u l d c h o O R t c c o n c e n t r a t e O r husband-wife violence, p a r e n t - c h i l d v i o l e n c e , o r r i o l e n c a between t h = c h i l d r e n i n a tamily. She was a s t o u l d e d a t t h e l a s t p o s s i b i l i t y and s a i d "Well, I never thought o f my b r o t h e r h i r t i n g me a s v i o l e n C 4 . ' T h e r e seems t o b e a n r m p l i c i t , taken-for-granted c u l t u r a l norm t h a t makes z t l e g i t i m a t e f a r f a m i l y members t o h i t each other.

A t what p o i n t d o e s o n e e x c e e d t h e bounds o f " o r d i n a r y " marital violence? When d o e s i t become " w i f e - b e a t i n g ? " To s o l r e t h i s problem t h a t R i c h a r d G e l l e s and I t o o k f o r o u r research, we g a t h e r e d d a t a o n a c o n t i n u u m of v i o l e n t a c t s , r a n g i n g f r o m a push t o u s i 2 g a k L i f s o r gun. This allows r e a d e r s t o draw t h e l i n e a t w h a t e v e r p l a c e seems most a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e i r purpose.

EEASURING WIPE-BEATIBG But t h i s " s o l u t i o n " c a n a l s o b e a means o f a v o i d i n g t h e issue. So b e s i d e s d a t a o r e a c h v i o l e n t a c t , tie combinEd t h e most s e v e r e a c t s i n t o what c a n b e c a l l e d a " s e v e r e s i o l s n c e index" or, f o r p u r p o s e s of t h i s chapter. a " W i f e - B s ~ t i n g Icdex." The C o n f l i c t T a c t i c s S c a l e s (CTS) were u s e d t o g a t h e r T h e s e s c a l e s p r o v i d e d a t a on how t h e s e d a t a ( S t r a u s . 1979). f a m i l y menbers a t t e m p t t o d e a l w i t h c o n f l i c t s b e t w e e n themselves. The P h y s l c a l v i o l e n c e I n d e x of t h e CTS c o n t a i n s t h e f o l l o w i n g e i g h t items: K.

Throwing t h i n g s a t t h e s p o u s s

I. P u s h i n g , s h o v i n g , o r g r a b b i n g Slapping Kicking, b i t i n g , o r h t t t i r g with t h e f i s t 0. R i t o r t r i e d t o h i t w i t h s o m e t h i n g P. . Beat uo Q. T h r e a t e n e d w z t h a k c l f e o r gun R. Used a k n l f e o r gun 8. N.

The o v e r a l l V i o l e n c e I n d e x c o n s i s t s o f t h e e x t e n r t o which aLy of t h e s e a c t s were c a r r i e d o u t d u r i n g t h e p r r o i o u s 12 months. The Wife-Beating I n d e x c o n s i s t s o f t h e e x t f n t t o which a c t s N t h r o u g h R o c c u r r e d .

~ h . 2 , Wife-Beating

P a g e 27

The c h o i c e o f a c t s N t h r o o g h R a s t h s W i f e - B e a t i n g 1ndeZ d o e s n o t r e f l e c t c u r c o n c e p t i o n o f what i s p e r m i r s i b l 4 ~ i o l e n c e . I f i n d nsne o f t h e s e t o be a c c e p t a b l r f o r b a t u e e n a n y human b e i n g s , i r c l u d i n g p a r e n t a c d c h i l d , b r o t h e r a n d s i s t e r , h u s b a n d and w i f e , s t u d e n t and t ~ a c b e r . m i n i s t e r and p a r i s h i o n e r , or collaaguss i n a depattment. I n s h o r t , I f o l l o w t h e maxim c o i n e d by J c h n valusex: " P e o p l ~ sre 1 0 t f o r h i t t i o g . ' What, t h e n , is t h e b a s i s f o r s e l e c t i n g i t e m s R t h r o u g h t o make up t h e W i f e - B e a t i n g I n d e x ? 1 t i a s i m p l y the'. t h e s 9 a r e a l l a c t s t h a t c e r r y v i t h them a high' r i s k of serious physical injury t o t h e victim. With t h e s D c o n s i d e r a t i o r s i n mind. WE c a n t u r n t o t h e q u e s t i o c o f t r y i o g t o estimate t h e e x t e r t of uifs-beating i n t h e united states.

R

TEE SXTENT OF YIPP-BEATIAG The p r o c e d u r e s f o r e p a s u r i n g v i o l s n c e just d e s c r i b e d w e r e used i~a s t u d y o f a n a t i o n a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e s a m p l s o f American f a m i l i e s , made p o s s i b l e by a g r a n t from NIMs. ?. p r o b a b i l i t y s a m p l e of 2.1Y3 f a m i l i e s was s t u d i e a . In approximately h a l f t h e c a s e s t h e person providing t h e i n f o r m a t i o f was a woman and ir h a l f a mar. To b e e l i g i b l e f o r i P c l u S i o n i n t h e s t u d y , t h e r e s p o n d e n t had t o b? c r a member of a male-female c o u p l a , a g e d 1 8 t o 70. The c c u p l e d i d n o t have t o h a r e c h i l d r e n , n o r d i d t h e y have t o be l e g a l l y married. Our s a m p l e c o n t a i n s c o u p l e s v i t h and wiThout c h i l d r e n , ar.d m a r r i e d a n d u n m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n a b o u t t h e s a n e p r o p o r t i o n a s a r e found i n t h e population.

---

YEarlp Incidence. The most d i r e c t , b u t i n some ways a l s o a m i s l e a d i n g , s t a t i s t i c e m e r g i n g from t h s d a t a an t h e Z.lU3 c o u p l e s i r o u r s a m p l e i s t h e t . f o r t h e 12-morth p e r i o d preceding t h e i x t e r v i e w . 3.8 p e r c e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s r e p o r t e d o n e o r mcre p h y s i c a l a t t a c k s t h a t f a l l u c d ? r o u r operational d s t i n i t i o n o f wife-beating. Applying t h i s i C c i d e n C e r a t e t o t h e a p p r a x i e a t e l y 47 m i l l i c n c o u p l e s i n t h e u n i t e d S t a t e s means t h a t , i n a n y o n e y e a r . a p p r o x i m a t e l y 1.8 m i l l i o n w i v e s a r e b e a t e n by t h e i r h u s h a n a s . I mentioned t h a t t h i s can be a m i s l e a d i n g f i g u r e ; two o t h e r f a c t s must be c o n s i d e r e d : how o f t e n t h e s ? b e a t i n g s Occur. a n d how t h e y f i t i n w i t h t h n o v e r a l l p a t t e r n o f v i o l e n c e i n t h e family.

~ h . 2 . Wife-Beatirg

P a g e 29

--

F r e M g E y @rlX t h s Y g s . Among t h o s e c o u p l e s i n which a b e a t i n g o c c u r r e d , i t v a s t y p i c a l l y n o t a n i s o l a t e d i n s t a n c e , a s c a n b e s e e n from t h e " F r e q u e n c y * c o l u m s o f able 1. Kovever, the mean f r e q u e n c y of o c c u r r e n c e o v e r s t a t e s t h e c a s e ; i r a few c a s e s v i o l e n c e was a l m o s t a d a i l y O r weekly event. F o r t h i s r e a s o n , t h e median g i v e s a more r e a l i s t i c p i c t u r e o f t h e t y p i c a l f r e q u e n c y o f v i ~ l e n c e i n the violent families. T h i s i s 2.4, t h a t . i s , t h ? t y p % c a 1 p a t t e r n is c v e r two s e r i c u s a s s a u l t s p e r year. But o f c o u r s e t h e r e is g r e a t v a r i a r i o r . For about a t h i r d 3f + h e c o u p l e s who r e p o r t e d a n a c t t h a t f a l l s i n o u r c a t e g x y cf wife-beating, b e a t i n g occurred c n l y once d u r i n g t h o year. A t t h e o t h e r E X ~ ~ E BwPe r e c a s e s i n which i t O c c u r r e d o n c e a week O r more o f t e n . About 19 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d two b e a t i n g s d u r i n g t h e y e a r . 16 percan' r e p c r t e d t h r e e o r f o u r , and 3 2 p e r c e n t r e p o r t e d f i v e o r more. A more l i t e r a l i n t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h e d a t a can h e O b t a l n e d frcm l o o k i n g a t t h e f i g u r e s i n T a b l e 1 f o r e a c h t y p e of v i o l e n t a c t . Whec t h e c a t e g o r y o f " w i f e - b e a t i n g " i s r e s t r l c t e d t o t h o s e who u s e d t h e t e r m *'beat up" t o d e s c r i b e v h a t h a p p m e d ( i t e m P ) , t h e f i g u r e is 1.1 p e r c e n t , with a median of 1.7 b e a t i n g s p e r y e a r . w h i l e t h i s i s much l o w e r than t h e 3.8 percent f i g u r e t h a t t a k e s i n t o account a l l t h e s e v e r e v i o l e n t a c t s , i t still r e p r e s e n t s o v e r h a l f a m i l l i o n families.

Inother aspect of D u r a t i o n of f i a r r i a a e Rates. that must b e c o n s i d e r e d i s t h e p r o p o r l i o ~o f vife-heating f a m i l i e s i n which a b e a t i r g occurred. Onfortunltely, o u r d a t a f o r e v e n t s b e f o r e t h e y e a r o f t h e s u r v e y aa n o t i d e n t i f y t h e a s s a i l e n t and t h e victim. 111 t h a t c a n b e r e p o r t e d is t h a t 28 p e r c e n t of t h e c o u p l e s i n t h e s t u d y e x p e r i e n c e d a t l e a s t o r e v i o l e n t i n c i d e n t and 5.3 percent e x p e r i e n c e d v i o l e n c e t h a t we c o n s i d e r a b e a t i n g .

IG some o f t h e r e c a s e s . i t was a s i n g l e s l a p o r a S i n g l e beatlng. Bouever. t h e r e a r e s e v e r a l r e a s o n s vhy e v e n a s i n g l e beating i s important. F i r s t , i n my v a l u e s , even or.€ s u c h e v e n t i s i n t r i n s i c a l l y a d e b a s e m e n t o f human l i f e . Third, many, if not S ~ c o n d . p h y s i c a l d a r g e r is involved. most. s u c h b e a t i n g s a r e p a r t c f a f a m l l y power s t r u g g l e . Often o n l y one o r two s l a p s f i x t h e b a l a n c e of paver i n a f a m i l y f o r many y e a r s - - o r p e r h a p s f o r a l i f e t i m e . P h y s i c a l f o r c e i s t h e u l t i m a t e r e s o u r c e t h a t most of u s l e a r n a s c h i l d r e n t o r e l y o n i f a 1 1 e l s e f a i l s and t h e i s s u e 15 c r u c i a l . A s t h e husband i n t h e f a m i l y d e s c r i b e a i n C h a p t e r I D s a i d when a s k e d why he h i t h i s w i f e d u r i n g a n argument:

...She

more o r less t r i e d t o r u n me and I s a i d and s h e g o t h y s t e r i c a l and s a i d . "1 c o n l d k i l l you!" Lnd I g o t r a t h e r a n g r y ar.d s l a p p e d hei n t h e f a c e t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s and I s a i d

no.

Ch.2.

wife-Beating - D o n ' t you e v e r s a y ? h a t t o me h a v e n ' t had a n y p r o b l e m s l c c e .

Page 30 again!"

And

L a t e r i n t h e i n t e r v i e w , t h e husband e v a l u a t e d of p h y s i c a l f o r c e a s follows:

ur

his

use

You d o r . l t u s e it u n t i l you a r e f o r c e d t o it. A t t h a t p o i n t I f e l t I had t o d o s o m e t h i n g p h y s i c a l t o s t o p t h bad ~ p r o g r e s s i o n of events. I took rn? c h a n c e s v i t h t h a t a n d it worked. I n those circumstances my judgment was c o r r e c t 3 r d i t worked. S i n c e s u p e r i o r s t r e n g t h and s i z e g i v e s t h e a d v a n t a g e t o men i n s u c h s i t u a t i o n s . t h e s i n g l e b e a t i n g may b e a n s x t r e m e l y i m p o r t a n t f a c t o r n: m a i c t a i n i c g m a l e d o a i n a n c e i n t h e f a m i l y system. k c c u r a x o f Estimates. How much c o n f i d e n c e ca' be p l a c e d i n t h e s e f i g u r e s ? I am r e a s o n a b l y c o n f i d e n t t h a t t h e s a m p l e is r e p r e s e n t a t i v e o f R m e r i c a n c o o p l e s g e n € r a l l y . But t h a t is o n l y one a s p e c t o f t h e accuracy question. Tha o t h e r main a s p e c t i s w h e t h e r o u r r e s p o n d e n t s " t o l d a l l . " BEre I have doubts t o r t h e following reasons: 1. U n d ~ r r e p O r t i ~of g domestic violence is l i k e l y t o o c c u r among two g z o u p s of p e o p l e , f o r o p p o s i t e r e a s o n s . For a l a r g e g r o u p , v i c l e n c e i s s o much a n o r m a l p a r t of t h e f a m i l y s y s t e m t h a t a s l a p , p u s h , o r s h o v e (and s o m e t i m e s e v e n more s e v e r s a c t s ) i s s i m p l y n o t n o t e w o r t h y o r d r a m a t i c enough t o b e remembered. Such o m i s s i o n s a r e E s p e c i a l l y l i k e l y when we a s k a b o u t e v e c t s o v e r t h e e n t i r e l e n g t h o f a aarriage.

2. P a r a d o x i c a l l y , t h e r e is a l s o underrepart:ng a t the O t h e r e n d o f t h e v l o l e n c e c o r t i n u u m - - t h o s e who ~ x p s r l e n c e d such severe violent a c t s a s being bitten, h i t vith objects. b e a t e n up. o r a t t a c k e d w i t h a k n i f e o r gun. ThEse a c t s g o beyond t h e "normal v l o l e n c e ' o f f a m i l y l i f e . Such a c t s a r e admitted reluctantly, b e c a u s e o f t h e shame i n v o l v e d i f o n e i s t h e v i c t i m , o r t h e g u i l t if o n e i s t h e a t t a c k e r . 3. If i n a l reason f o r regarding t h s s e f i g u s r s a s d r a s t i c u n d e r e s t i n a t e s l i e s i n t h e n a t u r E of o u r sample. S i n c e a m a j o r p u r p o s e o f t h e s t u d y was t o i n v e s t i g a t e t h e ~ x t e P t t o which v i o l e n c e i s r e l a t e d t o o t h e r a s p e c t s o f h u s h a n d - w i f e i n t e r a c t i o n . we s a m p l e d o n l y c o u p l e s l i v i n g together. D i v o r c e d p e r s o n s were a s k e d o n l y a b o u t t h e c u r r e n t m a r r l a g e ( a g a i n b e c a u s e o f i n t e : r i e w tims l i m i t s and r r c a l l accuracy problems). Since "excessive' violence is a major c a u s e o f d i v o r c e , and s i n c e o u r sample i s l i m i t E d t o c o u p l e s l i v i n g t o g e t h e r , t h e s e d a t a p r o b a b l y o a i t many o f t h e high v i o l e n c e cases.

Ch.2.

wife-Beating

Page 31

These C o r s i d e r a t i o n ~ , p l u s t h e h i g h e r r a t e s i n o u r p i l o t s t u d i e s and i n f o r m a l e v i d e n c e (where s c n e o f t h e f a c t o r s l s a d i n g t o u n d e r r e p o r t i n g were l e s s ) s u g g e s t t h a t t h e t r u e incidence f o r violence i n a marriage is probably c l o s e r t o 50 91 6 0 wrcert o f g.&& c=&~ t h a n it i s t o t h e 28 p e r c e n t who were w i l l i n g t o d e s c r i b e v i o l e n t a c t s i n a Bass i n t e r v i e w survey. WIPE-BELTING I S NOT RESTRICTED TO WIVES Although t h i s c h a p t e r i s concerned p r i m a r i l y w i t h vife-beating, a n a d e q u a t e u n d e r s t a n d i n g o f t h e phenomsron r e q u i r e s t h a t we c o c s i d e r i t i r a w i d e r c o n t e x t . We m u s t reCogPize t h a t one d o e s n o t have t o be married t o be t h e v i c t i n o f p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e by a p a r t n e r . Our n a t i o n a l s u r v e y ( P l l o and S t r a o s , 1980) a s t o d y by iiennon (1976) o f s t u d e n t s l i v i n g t o g e t h e r , a n d much i n f o r m a l e v i d e n c e s u g g e s t t h a t c o u p l e s who a r e no? m a r r i e d h a v e r a t e s o f v i c l o n c ? t h a t a r e a s high o r hlqher t h a n t h o s e married. In fact, cloplee d o n o t have t o l i v e t o g e t h e r . Once a s t e p i s t a k e r t o u e r d a aarriage-like arrangement. a s i n a boyfriana-girlfriend r e l a t i o n s h i p , and E s p e c i a l l y if r e g u l a r s e x i s i n v o l v e d . t h e v i o l e n c e r a t e jumps d r a m a t i c a l l y . Violence can no l o n g e r b e f i g u r e d i~ t h e r a t e s p e r 100,000 c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f a s s a u l t s i r g e n e r a l . I n s t e a d , s i m p l e p e r c e n t a g e s , t h a t is, r a t e s p e r h u n d r e d , a r e more l o g i c a l . Why t h i s h a p p e n s i s i m p o r l a n t i n i t s e l f and a l s o b e c a u s e it t h r o w s a g r e a t d e a l o f l i g h t o n t h e situation o f wives. ADSBAND BEATING N O W we come t o f i n d i n g s t h a t may b e surprising t o some readers. The r a t i o n a l s a m p l e d a t a c o n f i r m what a l l o f o u r p i l o t s t u d i e s h a v e shown ( G e l l e s . 1974; Steinmetz, 1977; Straus, 197Y): t h a t v i o l e n c e b e t v e e o h u s b a n d ar.d v i f e is n o t a one-way s t r e e t . Thr o l d c a r t o o n s o f t h e v i f e c h a s i n g a husband with a r o l l i n g pin o r throwing p o t s and pans a r e c l o s e r t o r e a l i t y t h a n most o f u s ( e s p e c i a l l y t h o s e o f u s w i t h f e m i n i s t sympathies) r e a l i z e . T h i s can be s e e n f r o a a n i n s p e c t i o n o f t h e w i f c c o l u m n s i n T a b l e 1.

Ch.2.

Page 32

Slfe-Beating

t h e VOfd VlOleDCe. i f-i c p -i c l e n t -Acts. I f we l o o k -S go' cf v i o l e n t a c t s s a m p l e d by t h e C R T ,

a t the specific t h e r e i s eviaence f o r +.h e~ o n~ t and -.. D a n t h r o v i n o s t e r e a t v o e . s i n c e t h e number o f w i v e s who t h r e w t h i n g s a t t h e i r h u s b a n a s is a l m o s t t w i c e a s l a r q e a s t h e number o f h u s b a z d s who t h r e v t h i n q s a t the:= wives. F o r h a l f o f t h e v i o l e n t a c t s , however, t h e r a t e i s h i o h e- -r f a r t h e husband: + h e f r e o u e n c v is h i s h e r f o r t h e husbands i n a l l b u t t v a o f t h e items. The b i g g e s t d i s c r e p a n c y i n f a v o r o f wives o c c u r s i n k i c k i r g and h i t t i n q v i t h objects. Such a c t s a r e less d e p e n a e n t o n s u p e r i o r physical strength. T h i s Eggma t o s u p p o r t t h e v i e v t h a t a n important d i f f ~ r E n c E between m a l e a n d f e m a l e d o m e s t i c v i o l e n c e s t e n s from t h e s m a l l e r s i z e , w e i g h t , and m u s c l e d e v e l o p m e n t o f most women, r a t h e r t h a n from a n y g r e a t e r r e j e c t i o n o f p h y s l c a l f o r c e on m o r a l o r normativ: grourias. typss

L

-

-

L

-

d~

~

~

-

~

~

2

~

2

.

~

.

A

Pollcy m u l i c a t i o n s . A l t h o o q h t h e s e f i n d i n g s show h i g h r a t e s of v i o l e n c e u i q ~ ,t h i s f a c t shcula not d i v e r t a t t e n t i o n from t h e n e e d t o a i v e u r i m a r v a t t e r t i o n t o w i v e s a s t h e imlaedlate f o c u s o f s o c i a l policy. There a r e a number of r e a s o n s t o r t h i s : (1) P o a l i d i t y s t u d y c a r r i e d o u t i n p r e p a r a t i o r i for this research ( B u l c r o f t and s t r a u s , 1975) shows t h a t u n d e r r e p o r t i n g o f v i o l e n c e i s g r e a t e r f o r v i o l e c c e by h u s b a n d s t h a n i r i s f o r v i o l e n c e by w i v e s . This i s probably b e c a u s e t h e u s e of p h y s i c a l f o r c e i s s o much a p a r t o f t h e m a l e way o f l l f e t h a t i t i s t y p i c a l l y r o t t h e d r a m a t i c and o f t e n t r a u m a t i c e v e c t t h a t t h e same a c t o f v i o l e n c e i s f o r a voman. To b~ v i o l e n t i s n o t u n m a s c u l i n e . But t o b e p h y s i c a l l y violent. & unfsminine a c c o r d i n g t o contemporary Raericac standards. C o n s e q u e n t l y , i f it were p o s s i b l e t o a l l o w f o r t h i s d i f f e r e n c e i n r e p o r t i n g r a t e s , even i c s i m p l e p r o b a b l y would b e t h e more ~ u m e r i c a . 1 terms, w i f e - b e a t i n g s e v e r e problem. (2) W e n i f one does n o t t a k e i n t o a c c o u r t t h i s d i f f e r e n c s i n u n a e r r e p o r t i n g , t h e d a t a i n T a b l e 1 show t h a t h u s b a n d s h a v e h l g h e r r a t e s o f t h e most d a n g e r o u s and i n j u r i o u s forms o f v i o l e n c e (beating-up and u s i n g 6 k n i f e o r gun). ( 3 ) T a b l e 1 a l s o s h e w s t h a t when v i o l e n t a c t s a r e committed by a husband, t h e y a r e r e p e a t e d more o f t e n ? h a > i s

t h e c a s e f o r wives. (4) T h e s e d a t a d o n o t t e l l u s what p r o p o r t i o n of t h e v i o l e n t a c t s by r i v e s were i n r e s p o n s e t o b l o w s i n i t i a t e a by husbands. W o l f g a n g ' s d a t a on h o s b a ~ d - w i f e h o m i c i d e s ( 1 9 5 7 ) suggest t h e t t h i s is an important factor.

ch.2.

uif %-Beating

P a g e 33

(5) The g r e a t e r p h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h of men makes i t more l i k e l y t h a t a woman WLll b e s e r i o u s l y i n j u r e d when b e e t o n up by h e r h u s b a c d t h a n t h e r e v e r s e .

( 6 ) A d i s p r o p o r t i o n a t e l y l a r g e number o f a t t a c k s b y h n s b a r d s seem t o o c c u r v h e c t h e w i f e i s p r e g n a n t ( G s l l e s . 1 9 7 6 ) . t h u s p o s i n g e d a n g e r t o t h e a s y e t unborn c h i l d . ( 7 ) aomec a r e l o c k e d i n t o m a r r i a g e t o a s u c h g r e a t e r e x t e n t t h a n men. B e c a u s e o f a v a r i e t y o f economic and social constraicts, t h e y o f t o r have no a l t a r n a t i v e t o p u t t i n g up w i t h b e a t i n g s by t h e i r h n s b a n d s ( G e l l e s . 1976; B a r t i n , 1976; S ? r a u s , 1976a. 1 9 7 7 b ) .

I n s h o r t , w i v e s a r e v i c t i m i z e d by v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y z o a o u c h g r e a t e r e x t e r t t h a n a r e h u s b a n d s and s h o u l d t h e r e f o r e b e t h e f o c u s o f t h e most immediate r s m e d i a l s t e p s . Bowever, t h e s e d a t a a l s o i n d i c a t e t h a t a fundamental s o l u t i o n t o wife-beating cannot be r e s t r i c t e d t o she i m m e d i a t e p r o b l e m of t h e a s s a u l t i n g husbands. Rather, v i o l e n c e is embeadPd i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s o c i e t y a n 6 t h e f a m i l y system itself (straus, 1 9 7 6 ~ ) . Ths p a r t i c u l a r l y b r u t a l form o f v i c l e n c e known a s w i f e - b e a t i n g i s l i k e l y t o end only w i t h a c h a n g e in t h e c u l t u r a l and s s c i a l orgatizational facCors underlying parent-to-child, child-to-child, a n d w i f e - t o - h u s b a n d v i o l e n c e a s ~€11. Some of t h e s p a c i t i c s t e p s t o accomplish t h i s change a r e o u t l i n e d i n C h a p t e r 13. T E E CRUSES OF RIPE-BEATING ROY I t u r n t o t h e proposition t h a t t h e causes of vife-beating a r s t o b e f o n n d i n t h e s t r u c t u r e o f American S o c i e t y and i t s f a m i l y system. Demonstrating t h i s , svsn i n p r i n c i p l e . i s a v a s t undertaking. I n d e e d , ?ha: i s whni t h i s book i s abcut. In t h i s chaoter. I w -i -l -l s i m ~ l v i d e r t i f v s e v e n o f t h e maln f e c t o r s and * h e a e n s r e l t e n o r o f t h e argoment. P l g u r e 1 g l v e s a n overvlsw of t h e s e f a c t o r s and some o f t h e l r r n t e r r e l a t l o n s h i p s .

.

.

..

3 combination of t h e s e f a c t o r s ( p l u s o t h e r s cot diagrammea f o r l a c k o f s p a c e ) makes t h e f a m i l y t h e most v i o l e n t o f a l l c i v i l i e n i n s t i t u 5 i o n s and a c c o u n t s f o r t h a t a s p e c t o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e which we c a l l w i f e - b e a t i n g . Let US l o o k b r i e f l y a t e a c h o f t h e s e f a c t o r s .

--

of Ea&x s ~ 9 f L L g i . An e s s e n t i a l 1. s t a r t i n g p o i n t f o r a n y u n d e r s t a n d i n g of f a s i l y v i o l e n c e i s t h e hlgh l e v e l of c o n f l i c t c h a r a c t e r i s t i c o f families. In e l e v e n r e a s c n s f o r t h e t y p i c a l high l e v e l of C h a p t e r 1, c o q f l i c t w i t h i n t h e f a m i l y ware i d s n t l f i e d a n d b r i e f l y explained. These r e a s o r s i n c l u d e d t h e broad r a r p a o f a c t i v i t i e s s h a r e d by f a m i l y members, w i t h c o n s e q u e r t g r e a t e r

Ch.2.

Wifa-Beating

P a g ~3 4

o p p o r t u n i t y f o r c o c f l i c ' s o f i n t e r e s t t h a n i n more n a r r o w l y focused groups; t h e a g e and s e x d i f f e r e n c e s b u i l t i r t o t h e s t r u c t u r e of t h e family: and t h e assigcment o f f a n i l y r o l e s on t h e b a s i s of a g e and s e x r a t h e r t h a n i n t e r e s t a r d C O P ~ S ~ ~ C C E . A l l f o u r c h a p t e r s i n P a r t I11 c o n s i d e r v a r i c u s aspscts of intrafamily cocflict. Chapter 8 c s n s i d e r s t h e s s c o ~ f l i c t si n t h e l i g h t o f c o n f l i c t t h e c r y a n d t h e p a r a d o x o f 'he l o v e - h a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s o o f t e n f o u n d il f a m i l i e s .

2% yZq& L e v e l of V i o l e n c e i n f & socie; et The h i g h l e v e l of c o n f l i c t i n h e r e r t i n t h e family, coebrned v i t h t h e huge e m o t i o n a l i n v e s t m e n t t y p r c a l o f f a m i l y r e l e t i o n s h i p s . means t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s l i k e l y t o b e t h e l o c u s of a c r e , a n d more s e r i o u s , c o n f l i c t s t h a n o t h e r g r o u p s . B u t c o n f l i - t and v i o l e n c e a r e n o t t h e same. V i o l c n c e i s o n l y o n e olpans o f d e a l i n g with conflict. What a c c o u n t s f o r t h e u s e o f violence t o deal vith conflicts within the f ~ m i l y ? A f u n d a a e o t a l s t a r t i n g p l a c e i s t h a t we a r e p a r t o f a v i o l e n t society. T h e r e is a c a r r y - o v e r from o n e s p h E r e of l i f e t o a n o t h e r . a s I h a v e t r i a d t o show i n a p a p e r c o m p a r i n g l e v e l s of family violence i n d i f f e r e n t s o c i e t i e s (Straus, 197la). However, g r a n t i n g t h e c a r r y - o v e r p r i n c i p l e , t h i s e x p l a n a t i o n i s b y n o means s u f f i c i e n t . C o n f l i c t i s 31sO h i g h , f o x example; i n academic departmects. E u t t h e r e h a s n e v e r been an i n c i d e n t of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i a any 3f t h e s i x d e p a r t m e n t s i n which I h a r e t a u g h t d u r i n g t h e p a s t 25 y e a r s . I n fact. I have o n l y heard o f o n e such i n c i a a n t o c c u r r i n g anywhere. C l e a r l y , o t h e r f a c t o r s must be p r e s e n t . 3, sad 4. F z m i l ~SgCii&@si~~ i n Zio&ens%. One 3f t h e most s i g n i f i c a n t of t h e s e o t h e r f a c t o r s i s t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s t h ~s e t t i n o i n which most DeODle f i r s t e x o e r l e n c e physical violecce, and t h e s e t t i n g t h a t e s t a b l i s h e s t h e e m o t i o n a l c o n t e x t a n d meaning o f v i o l e n c ~ . &

Learning about violence starts with physical p u n i s h m e n t , which is n e a r l y u n i v e r s a l ( s t e i n m e t z a n d S t r a u s , 1974). When physical punishment is used. several c o n s e q u e n c e s c a n be e x p e c t e d . F i r s t , most o b v i o u s l y , i s l e a r n i n g t o do o r n o t d o w h a t e v e r t h e p u n i s h m e n t i s i c t e n d e a t o teach. L e s s o b v i o u s , b u t e q u a l l y o r more i m p o r t a n t , a r e t h r e e o t h e r lessons t h a t a r e s o deeply learned t h a t they become a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of o n e ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and w o r l d view. The f i r s t o f t h e s e unintended consegusnces i s t h e C s s o c l a t i o C Of love with violence. PhysLcal punishment t y p i c a l l y b e g i n s i n i n f a n c y w i t h s l a p s t o c o r r e c t and t e a c h . Iomay and Daddy a r e t h e f i r s t a n d u s u a l l y t h e m l y o n e s to h i t an icfaLt. and f o r m a s t c h i l d r e n t h i s continues throughout childhcod. The c h i l d t h e r e f o r e l e a r n s t h a t t h o s e who l o v e him o r h e r t h e most a r e a l s o t h Y s e vh3 h i r . Second. s i n c e p h y s i c a l p u n i s t m m t i s used t o t r a i n t h e c h i l d o r t o t e a c h a b o u t danqa;ous t h i n g s t o be a v o i d e d , it e s t a b l i s h e s t h e moral r i g h t n e s s of h i t t i n g o t h e r f a m i l y

T ~ E t h i r d u n i n t e n d e d c o n s e g u e n c e is t h e l e s s o n t h a t when s o m e t h i n g i s r e a l l y i m p o r t a n t , i t j u s t i f i e s t h e u s a o f p&ysical force. These i n d i r e c t l e s s o n s a r e c o t c o n f i n e d t o p r o v i d i r g a model f o r l a t e r t r e a t m e n t o f o n e ' s own c h i l a x e n . Sathet. t h e y bECOme s u c h a f u n d a m e n t a l p a r t o f t h e i c d i v i a u a l ' s p e r s o n a l i t y and o u t l o o k t h a t t h e y a r e g e n e r a l i z e d t o o t h e r social relationships, especially t o the relationship closest t o t h a t o f paren? and c h i l d - t h a t o f h u s b a n d a n d wife. Thus, e a r l y e x p e r i e n c e s w i t h p h y s l c a l punishment l a y t h e groundwork f o r t h e n c r m a t i v e l e g i t i s a c y o f a l l t y p s s o f v i o l e n c e b u t e s p e c i a l l y i n t r a f a m i l y violence. Rs s u g g e s t e d by box 4, i t provide: a r o l e aodel-indeed. a spzcific 1973)--for n s c r i p t n ( s e e C h a p t e r 4 ar:d Gagnon a n d Simon, such actions. nany c h i l d r e n do n o t even nesd t o g e n s r a l i z e t h i s s o c i a l l y s c r i p t e d p a t t e r n of behavior from the parent-child n e x u s i n which i t was l e a r n e d t o o t h e r f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s : i t our e s t i m a t e s a r e c o r r e c t , m i l l i o n s of c h i l d r e n c a n d i r e c t l y o b s e r v e p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e between h u s b a n d s a n d v i v e s ( s e e a l s o Ovens a n d S t r a u s . 1 9 7 5 ) .

5, C g l _ s g = & E m . The p r e c e d i n g discussion has f o c u s e a . o n t h e way ir. which v i o l e n c e becomes b u i l t i n t o t h e b e h a v i o r a l r e p e r t o r y of husbands and wives. Though important, e a r l y experience could not account f o r t h e high l e v e l of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e , were it n o t a l s o s u p p o r t p a b y C u l t u r a l norms 1 E g i t i n i z i n g such v i o l e n r p r e d i s p o s i t i o n s . S i n c e most o f u s t e n d t o t h i n k of norms t h a t c a l l f o r l o v e a n d g e n t l e n e s s w i t h i n t h e f a s ~ l y , it i s d i f f i c u l t t o p e r c e i v e t h a t t h e r e a r e b c t h @ jgg? and & fa&? cultural n o t m s l e g i t i m i z i n g t h e u s e o f v i o l e n c e between f a m i l y members. Chapter 3 documerts t h e evidence f o r t h e e x i s t e r c e o f s u c h n o r n s and C h a p t e r 5 i l l u s t r a t e s t h e i n d i r e c t e f f e c t o f c u l t u r a l norms.

Z, = p a l I n e a u a l t ~ ~2 s C2g1=3 ! 9 g 5 2 g g ~ s g 2 s The l a s t two c a u s a l f a c t o r s , b o x e s 6 a n d 7 o f P i g u r e be c o n s i d e r e d t o g e t h e r a n d summarized i n the p T o p o s i t i o n t h a t t h e s e x i s t o r g a n i z a t i c n o f t h e s o c i e t y and Its f a m i l y s y s t e m ; s o n e o f t h e m o s t t u n d a m e n t a l f a c t o r s i n t h e high l e v e l of u i f e - b e a t i n g . C h a p t e r 6 a n d P l r t IV demonstrate t h i s proposition. P o l i c y recommendations aimea a t p r e v e n t i n g v i f e - b e a t i n g a r E examined i n C h a p t s r 13. Some a s p e c t s a l s o h a v e been p r e s e n t e d e a r l i e r i n t h i s c h a p t e r . S l n c e t h e s e i s s u e s a r e d i s c u s s e d i r d e p t h i n o t h e r chapte:s, I w i l l n o t e o n l y t h a t boxes 6 and 7 of F i g u r e 1 summarize t h e main e l e m e n t s o f s e x i s m t h a t l e a d $ 5 w i f e - b e a t i n g . 6 , agfi

Women. ----1, c a n

P e r h a p s d e v o t i n g a n i n a p p r o p r i a t e l y s m a l l p a r t of t h e t h i s c h a p t e r t o s e x u a l i n e q u a l i t y - - o n e o f t h e most t e x t Of important c a u s a l f a c t o r s i n uife-beating,--will dranetize

t h a t sexlsm is o r l y one p a r t of t h e complex c a u s a l m a t r i x o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ( c u t l l n e d i n F i g u r e 1 ) . T h a t male d o m i x a n c e does n o t p r o t e c t men from v i o l e n c e by o t h e r men a l s o i l l u s t r a t e s t h i s complexity. '1f t r u e e q u a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s w e r e somehow t o h e a c h l e v e d tomorrou, a l l forms o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ( i n c l u d i n g w i f e - b e a t i o g ) would c o n t i n u e t o e x i s t - - t h o u g h p r o h a b l y a t a Somewhat l o w e r i r c i d e n c ~ - - ~ n l ~ ssst e p 5 a l s o a r e t a k e n t o a l t e r t h e f a c t o r s i d e n t i f i e d i n b o x e s 2. 3, 4. and 5 o f F i g u r e 1. The l e v e l c f n o r - f a m i l y v i o l e n c e a l s o must b e lowered t o end t h e t r a i n i n g i n v i o l e n c e t h a t is p a r t o f g r o w i n g u p i n a t y p i c a l American f a m i l y . Violence is t r u l y woven i n t o t h e f a b r i c o f American s o c i e t y . and i n t 3 t h e p e r s o n a l i t y , b e l i e f s , v i l u e s . a n d b e h a v i 3 r a l s c r i p t s of most of our populatioo. E l l m i n a t i o n o f wife-beating depends n o t o n l y on s l i m i n a t i n g s e x u a l i n e q u a l i t y . b u t a l s o o n a l t e r i n g t h e s y s t e m o f v i o l e n c e o n which s o much o f American s o c i e t y depends.

ROTE 1. T h i s c h a p t e r , originally p r e s e n t e d a t t h ? c o n f e r e n c e DEiicing t h e Issues,n Center f o r o n " B a t t e r e d wires: R 9 6 2 a r o h o n women. S t a n f o r d U n i v e r s i t y . Hay 2 0 , 1977; and a t t h e S e c o n d World C o n g r e s s , I n t e r n e t i o n a l S o c i e t y on F a m i l y L a w . f l o n t r e a l , J u n e 14. 1977, is a s h o r t e n e d and Bow Common a n d why." r e v i s e d v e r s i o n of "wife-Beating: 2. Number r e p r i n t e d v i t h p e r m i s s i o n from V i c t i m o l o g p s o l , 3, 1977. (c) 1 9 7 7 V i s a g e P r e s s . I n c . The m a t e r i a l s i n t h i s c h a p t e r w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d more f u l l y i n a f o r t h c 3 r n i r g book. Violence ;gali_s=g Behjn_& ==a& ( s t r a u s . G e l l e s . and s t e i n m e t z , 1980).

-

m z

c+_g&&~

P a g e 38

The c u l t u r a l c o r m s a n d v a l u e s p s r m i t t i g g d husband-wife v i o l e n c e r e s e m b l e what Bern 3 ~ Ben (1970) c a l l " n o n c o r s c i o u s i d e o l o g y . " This i d e s points o u t t h a t on some i s s u e s ( t h e Bess e x a m i n e d t h e r o l e o f women i n America!? s o c i e t y ) o u r p e r , s p e c t i v e i s s o d e e p l y h e l d and s o s u b t l e t h a t we c a n n o t Even i m a g i n e a l t e r n a t i v e b e l i e f s and attitudes. Only when lsnonconscious ideologiesn a r e challerged a r e people a p t t 5 d i s p l a y t h e d e p t h o f s u c h a b e l i e f system. Orly u n d e r c h a l l e n g e is t h e r a t i o n a l e o f t h e i a ? o l o g y l i k e l y t o surface. Bs t h e c h a p t e r s i x t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n aake c l e a r , our society f a i l s t o recognize the m a s s i v e c u l t u r a l " s c r i p t i n g " (Gagnon and Simon. 1973) t h a t makes it more p e r m i s s i b l e t o s t r i k e 3 f a m i l y member t h a n t o h i t a f r i e n d , co-worker. o r stralger. One o f t h e r e a s o n s t h e s e c u l t u r a l norms O K s c r i p t s a r e i g n o r e d i s 2 d e e p l y h e l d b e l i e f t h a t v i o l e n c e i s a n i n t e g r a l p a r t of human n a t u r e . This b e l i e f b l i n d s psople t o s e e i n g t h a t c u l t u r a l norms s p e c i f y who may ba h i t a n d uhc may n o t , a r d how h a r d , and under what c i r c u m s t a n c e s . Another f a c t o r b l i n d s people to the Culturally patterned nature of family viclencs t h e manifest (548 C h a p t e r 1): t h e i r o n y t h a : ideology ( a s c o n t r a s t e d with t h e "ncnconscious ideology") emphasizes peace, harmony, and g e n t l e r e s s amorg f a m i l y members. The r e a l i t y t o which t h e c h a p t e r s i r P a r t I1 t e s t i f y is t h a t norms legitimizing i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e a r e p r e s e n t a r d powerful. They nay n o t b e e a s i l y r e c o g n i z e d , b u t * n o n c o n s c i o u s i d e o l o g i e s * seldom are. Beccgnizing these taken-for-granted c u l t u r a l norms i s c r i t i c a l t o u n d e r s t a n d i n g t h e S o c i a l c a u s e s of f a m i l y violence: family V i o l e n c e must b e s e e n a s s mode o f b e h a v i o r a c q u i r e d t h r o u g h y e a r s of c u l t u r a l and f a m i l y socialization.

Chapter 3

The Marriage License as a Hitting License: Evidence from Popular Culture, Law, and Social Science Murray A. Stmus

T h i s c h a p t e r emphasizes a thene that u n d e r l i e s many of t h e o t h e r c h a p t e r s . It i s t h e a b i l i t y t o s e e through o r p r o b e behind t h e o f f i c i a l v e r s i o n of r e a l i t y . o f f i c i a l norms nsy exalt the family a s a group devoted to g e n t l e n e s s and l o r e , b u t t h i s c h a p t e r p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e t h a t t h e s e norms c o e x i s t w i t h a more S u b t l e s e t o f norms t h a t l e g i t i m a t e t h e nse of f o r c e and v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y s e t t i n g . The c h a p t e r a l s o r a i s e s a number of c r i t i c a l l y i m p o r t a n t q u e s t i o n s f o r UnderstandIcg v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l y system. Although i t demonstrates the e x i s t e n c e of p r o - v i o l e n c e norms. t h e q u e s t i o r o f how s u c h norms come i n t a e x i s t e n c e i n t h e f i r s t p l a c e is not ansvered. Why a r e t h e y b e i n g m a i n t a i n e d , s o n e t i a e s with great fervor, by men and women a l i k e ? T h r o u g h o u t t h i s volume t h e r e a r e h i n t s to answers t o these questions. F o r e x a ~ p l e ,t h e c h a p t e r o n v i o l e r c e i n c h i l d r e n ' s books ( C h a p t e r 4) i l l u s t r a t e s o r e o f t h e ways t h a t c u l t u r a l norms a r e t r a n s m i t t e d from generation to generation. The c h a p t e r s i n P a r t III show some o f t h e ways t h a t t h e n a t u r e of f a m i l i e s c r e a t e s a high l e v e l of c o n f l i c t , and t h e c o n a i t i o n s u n d e r which c o n f l i c t t u r n s into violence. Finally, P a r t I V h e l p s u s avoid t h e t r a p of o r evec f i x i n g a n a n y o n e f a c t o r a s $ks c a u s e , t h e main c a u s e , o f husband-wife v i o l e n c e . Each o f t h o s e c h a p t e r s shows r h a t n e i t h e r c u l t u r a l norms n o r f a m i l y s z r u c t u r e a l o n e c a n a c c o u n t f o r t h e high r a t e of husband-wife violence. But t o g e t h e r t h e y form an e x p l o s i v e c o n b i n a t i o n .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ch.3.

n a r r i a g e License

Page 40

I n C h a p t e r s 1 and 2 , and i n a s e r i e s of o t h e r p a p e r s a n d books ( G s l l e s . 1974, 1977: S t e i n m e t z and S t r a u s . 1974; S t r a u s , 1 9 7 3 ) . e v i d e n c e was p r e s e n t e d t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s ~ l e e m i n r n t i- n a -l -l l v D e~-s o~-f o h v s i c ~a l v i-o l e n c e . f r o m s l a D S t o t o r t u r e a n d murder. T h e s e s t u d i e s s u a> a p s t t h a r t h e f i r s t -~ p r i o r i t y f o r t h o s e corcerned with t h e l e v e l of v i o l e n c e i n hmerican s o c i e t y s h o u l d n o t be v i o l e n c e i n t h e s t r e e t s , but v i o l e n c e i n t h e home, and t h e f a c t o r s t h a t l e a d t o i t .

~.. . ~ . - -

~~~

~

~~~

~~~

~

~

2

The most a p p r o p r i a t e p l a c e t o b e g i n i s vith a Ye d i s c u s s i o n o f t h e p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t of c h i l d r e n . b e l i e v e t h a t p h y s i c a l punishment s e r v e s a s t h e primary mechacism by v h i c h members o f o u r s o c i s t y l e a r n t o u s ? b o t h v e r b a l and p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . P a r e n t a l u s e of p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t i s r e m a r k a b l y s i m i l a r t o many e x p e r i m e n t s on a g g r s s s i o n using e l e c t r i c shocks. Even more i m p o r t a n t . p h y s l c a l p o n i s h m e n t p r o v i d e s a p o w e r f u l r o l e model t h r o u g h which t h e c h i l d l e a r n s t h a t i f one t r u l y v i s h e s t o i n f l u e n c e another, physical force is effective and s o c i a l l y acceptable: t h a t it i s l e g i t i m a t e , o f t e n m o r a l l y n e c e s s a r y t o u s e p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e on t h o s e one presumably l o v e s : and t h a t one should respond t o aggression with aggression. Since s t u d i e s i n t h e United S t a t e s and Great B r i t a i n show t h a t a t l e a s t 9 3 p e r c e n t of a l l p a r e n t s use p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t ( S t e i n m e t z and S t r a u s , 1 9 7 4 ) . a n d t h a t a t l e a s t h a l f contlnue t o use it through t h e s e n i o r year i n high s c h o o l ( S t r a u s , 1971; S t e i n m e t z , 1 9 7 4 ) . i t i s a n a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l s o c i a l learning experience. noreover, t h i s r o l e m o d e l i n g i s s u p p l e m e n t e d f o r a n a m a z i n g l y l a r g e number o f c h i l d r e n by e x p l i c i t i n s t l g a t i o n t o a g g r e s s i o n . Exhortation t o v i o l e n c e is n o t r e s t r i c t e d t o slum f a m i l i e s . Parents t y p i c a l l y p s r e i t o r u r g e a c h i l d t o f i g h t back i f a s i b l i n g is aggressive. n o r e o v e r , 7 0 p e r c e n t of t h e r e s p o n d e n t s i n o n e n a t i o n a l s a m p l e s u r v e y f e l t t h a t "when a boy i s g r o w i n g up, it i s v e r y i m p o r t a n t f o r him t o h a r e a few f i s t f i g h t s " ( S t a r k and ticEvoy, 1 9 7 0 ) . IS f o r h u s b a n d - v i f e aggression, t h i s chapter v i l l a t t e m p t t o shov t h a t a m a r r i a g e l i c e n s e is a n i m p l i c i t h i t t i n g license. The a v a i l a b l e e v i d e n c e s h o v s t h a t t h e t y p i c a l a d u l t i s more l i k e l y t o b e a t t a c k e d - - v e r b a l l y , p h y s i c a l l y , o r e v e n morally--by h i s o r h e r own s p o u s e t h a n by any o t h e r p e r s o r . D a t a on h o m i c i d e s i n a t l e a s t a d o z e n different ccuctries (Curtis. 1974; wolfgang, 1956: Bohannan, 1960) show t h a t m u r d e r e r s a n d t h e i r v i c t i m s were more o f t e n members o f t h e same f a m i l y t h a n o f any o t h e r murder-victim relationship. I n fact. when woman a r e murdered, i t i s o v e r u h e l m i n g l y by t h e i r h u s b a n d s . End. to c o m p l e t e t h e p i c t u r e , when h u s b a n d s n u r d e r w i v e s t h e p t e n d t o do s o w i t h g r e a t b r u t a l i t y . a s i n d i c a t e d by s u c h t h i n g s a s m u l t i p l e s t a b wounds o r m u l t i p l e gun s h 3 t s . a s compared v i t h t h e s i n g l e s r a b o r s i n g l e s h o t t y p i c a l when w i v e s n u r d e r husbands (Yolfgang, 1956).

Ch. 3. f l a r r i a g e L i c e n s e

P a g e 41

T h e r e t o r e , something i n t h e f a m i l y system n o t o n l y p r o d u c e s a h i g h l e v e l of p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n . b u t a l s o makes w l r e s t h e v i c t i m of t h a t a g g r e s s i o n . Chapter 6 examines t h i s h i g h r a t e o f a q g r e s s i o n a g a i n s - women i n t e r m s o f t h e s e x i s t O r g a n i z a t i o n o f s o c i e t y and the family, and i d e n t i f i e s n i n e of t h e p r o c e s s e s t h a t l i n k s e x u a l i r e g u a l i t y t o p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n a g a i n s t women. s t a r t i n g w i t h t h e m o s t obvious linkage: t h e use o r i m p l i c i t t h r e a t o f p h y s i c a l i n t i m r d a t i o P t o keep voaer subordinate.

TEE PARIDOX OF FABILY VIOLEBCE XORnS A S n o t e d i n C h a p t e r s 1 a n d 2, t h e norms a n d v a l u e s r e l a t i n g t o i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e pose a paradox. On t h e o n e hand, t h e r e i s t h e "myth of f a m i l y n o n v i o l e r c e " (Steinmetz and Straus. 1974; Straus. 1974b) t h a t r e f l a c t s c u l t u r a l n o r 8 6 a n d a s p i r a t i o n s f o r t h e f a m i l y t o b e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by love, gentleness, a n d harmony. o n t h e o t h e r hand, s o c i a l norms e x i s t t h a t i m p l y t h e r i g h t o f f a m i l y members t o s t r i k e each other, t h e r e t a r e l e g i t i m i z l n g i n t r a f a m i l y a s s a u l t s . a t l e a s t under c e r t a i n c o n d i t i o n s .

a s n l t e d i n o u r d i s c u s s i o n of The n y t h of F a m i l y Nonviolence i n C h a p t e r 1, c u l t u r a l c o n t r a d i c t i o n s and d i s c o n t i n u i t i e s o f t h i s t y p e a r e p r e s 9 n t i n Every s o c i a t p t o a g r e a t e r o r l e s s e r e x t € n t . ( B e n e d i c t , 1938; E a b r e e , 1950: Ry+n a r d S t r a u s , 1954). P h y s i c a l aggression is a prime e x a m p l e of t h i s i n Bmsrican s o c i e t y . Although t h z r o a r e c l e a r norms a n d v a l u e s restricting v i o l e n c e a n 3 e m p h a s i z i n g t h e v a l u e o f p e a c e and harmony, e s p e c i a l l y between f a m i l y members, s i m u l t a n e o u s l y a h i g h l e v e l o f a c t u a l v i o l e n c e e x i s t s , a l o n g w i t h r o r m s g l o r i f y i n g a g g r e s s i o r and v i o l e n c e . I n respect t o t h e family, t h e l e g i t i m a t i o n of violence is sometimes e x p l i c i t o r e v e n mandatory--as i n t h e c a s e of t h e r i g h t a n d o b l i g a t i o n of p a r e n t s t o u s e an a p p r o p r i a t e l e v e l Ir fact. of p h y s i c a l f o r c e t o t r a i n and c o n t r o l a c h i l d . p a r e n t s a r e permitted t o u s e z l e v e l of p h y s i c a l f o r c e t h a t is denied prison a u t h o r i t i e s i n c o n r r o l l i n g innares. Ir the c a s e o f h u s b a n d - w i f e r e l a t i o n s , s i m i l a r norms a r e p r F s e n t and powerful. but l a r g e l y i m p l i c i t , unrecoyniz?d, o r covert. what i s t h e e v i d e r c e t h a t s u c h norms e x i s t ?

Ch.3.

Page 42

t l a r r i ~ g eL i c e n s e IBPORilAL nANIPESTETIONS OF CULTURAL NORMS PERMITTING OR APPROVING lAAlThL VIOLENCE

I n g e h o r g Dedichen, who l i v e d v i t h h r i s t o t l e O n a s s i s f o r years, d e s c r i b e r a n i n c i d e n t i n which 0 c . a s s i s beat. h e r s e v e r e l y u n t i l h e q u i t frcm e x h a u s t i o n : 12

The fol1ow:ng day i n s t e a d of apologizing, " A 1 1 Greek husbands, I t e l l Onassis explained, you, a l l G r e e k men w i t h o u t e x c e p t i o c , b e a t t h e i r wives. I t ' s good t o r them." And t h e n hz l a u g h e d ( S h e a r e r . 197S:q). n o s c o f t h e American o r E n g l i s h p u b l i c r e a d i n g t h i s m i g h t i t a s a Greek p e c u l i a r i t y . But, j u s t a s c n 3 s s i s ' s t a t e m e c t i s a n e x a g g e r a t i o n f o r G r e e k men, o u r d e n i a l of t h i s norm E x a g g e r a t e s i n t h e o t h e r d i r e c t i o c . c r c e one i s a w a r e t h a t t h e r e are norms l e g i t i m i z i n g m a r i t a l (and e s p e c i a l l y husband-tc-wife) violence, i r s t a n c s s such a s t h e a b o v e pop up c o n s t a n t l y . One a m a z i n g examplE i s t h e a r c i e n t (and f l a g r a n t l y s e x i s t ) j o k e t o l d o n t h s BBC women's program " P e t t y c o a t L a n e ' i n t h e s p r i n g o f 197'4. One woman a s k e d a n o t h e r why s h e f e l t h e r h u s b a n d d i d n l t l o v e h e r anymore. R e r answer: "Ha h a s n ' t h a s h e d me i n a f o r t n i g h t . "

dismiss

h t a h i g h e r l i t e r a r y l e v e l , p l a y s p r o v i d e many ~ x a m p l e s of t h e marriagE l i c e n s e a s a h L t t i n g l i c e n s e , i n c l u d i n g S e v e r a l by G e o r g e B e r n a r d Shaw, 3 r d t h r~e c e n t p l a y a b o u t a L e s b i a n C o u p l ~ , "The K i l l i n g 0 f . S i s t e r George," i n which J u n e makes t h r e a t e n i n g m o t i o n s t o w a r d A l i c e : Slice: June: Alice:

D o n ' ? t o u c h me.

~ o u ~ gr oet no r i g h t .

I've got every right. 1.m

c o t m a r r i e d t o you. you knov.

The a b o v e a r e , o f c o u r s e , o n l y l i t e r a r y r s f l e c t i o a s o f t h e c u l t u r a l n o r m s t h a t c a n be o b s e r v e d i n e v e r y d a y l i f e . T h e s e e x a m p l e s r a c g e fcom c a s u a l r e m a r k s s u c h a s t h a t c f t h % r a i l w a y c o n d u c ? o r who, vhen a s k e d by a voman f o r h e l p w i t h a s t o b b o r n s e a t , d i d s o and r e m z r k e d , "sowe o f t h e s e s e a t s a r e j u s t l i k e women: yon h a v e t o k i c k them t o maki t h a e work" ( p r o t e s t l e t t e r t o Th€ Nev York Times, J u l y 19. 1974:5). O t h e r e x a m p l e s a p p e a r i n t h e meaia w i t h a t l e a s t t a c i t a p p r o v a l of t h e i r c o n t e n t s . a s i n t h e f o l l o w i n g s e c t i o n of t h e v i d e l y r e a d column by Ann L a n a e r s ( O c t o b e r 29, 1973): Dear Ann L a n d e r s : Come o u t o f t h e c l o u d s , f a r Lord's sake. and g a t down h e z e v i t h u s humans. I a n s i c k t o d e a t h of ycur holier-than-thau a t t i t u d e t o w a r d women whose h u s b a n d s g i v e them a w e l l - d e s e r v e d h e l t i n t h e mouth.

Ch.3.

narriage License

Page 43

D o n ' t you know t h a t a man c a n be p u s h e d t o t h e b r i n k a n d sone:hing's g a t t o g i v e ? h c r a c k ir! t h e t s e t h c a n be a v o c d e r f u l tensLon-breaker. It's a l s o a l o t h e a l t h i e r t h a n keeping a l l t h a t a n g e r b o t t l e d up. By h u s b a n d h a u l s o f f e n d s l u g s me e v e r y E e r Be f e e l s b e t t e r a n d s o months and I d o n ' t nind. d o I b e c a u s e h e n e v e r h i t s me u n l e s s I d e s e r v e it. So why son'?. y o u c o n e o f f i t ? - P e a l m p p y Dear R.H.: If y o u d o n ' t mind a c r a c k i r ~ t h e t e e t h e v e r y f e w m o n t h s , i t ' s a l l r i g h t w i t h ma. I h o p e you h a r e a g o o d d e n t i s t . I number o f h u s b a n d s and w i v e s i n t e r v i e w e d b y C e l l e s expressed similar attitudes, s o t h a t G e l l s s developed a c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of t y p e s o f " n o r m a l v i o l e n c e " ' h a t includes s u c h c a t e g o r i e s a s "1 a s k e d f o r it." "I d e s e r v e d i t , , * "Shp needed t o b e brought t o h e r senses," 4tc. (G2llos. 1974:58). Other examples occur i n connection with family d i s t u r b a n c e p o l i c ~c a l l s , w i t h w i v e s a s well a s h u s b s n d s o f t e n a s s e r t i n g t h e i r r i g h t t o h i 5 e a c h o t h e r b i c a u s ~t h e y a r e s a r r i e a ( P a r r a s , 1 9 6 7 ; Y o r k s h i r e P o s t . Bay 23, 1 9 7 9 : 9 ) . T h e s e s a n e a t t i t u d e s a r e w i d e l y s h a r e d by o f f i c i a l s of t h e c r i a i c a l j u s t i c e system. s c a s t i m e s t h i s presumea r i g h t t o h i t is l i n k e d t o t h e r a c e o r s o c i a l c l a s s of t h e couple, a s shown i n Deny of P a m a s ' e x a m p l s s a n d i n a n E n g l i s h j u d g e ' s remark, ' i f he had bean a m i n e r i n South w a l e s I might h a v e J a n u a r y 29. 1974:l). o v e r l o o k e d it" (London D a i l y B i r r o r , T h i s r e m a r k made h e a d l i n e s , b u t o n l y b e c a u s e w e l s h m i n e r s PrOteStEd. E f i n a l example i s p r o v i d e d by a m a r r i a g e c o u n s e l i n g c a s e ( S t r a u s , 1973:120) i r w h i c h t h e h u s b a n d h i t h i s w i f e o n Re a r d h i s m l f s f e l t t h a t he c o u l a n o t numerous occasions. i r t h e h e a t of t h s trem?ndous help h i a s e l f because, a r g u m e n t s , h e " l a s t c o n t r o l . " T h e c o u n s e l o r , however, tried t o p e r s u a d e t h e c o u p l e t h a t t h e h u s b a n d ' s b e h a v i o r was n o t s i m p l y a r e v e r s i o n t o " p r i m i t i v e n l e v e l s , b u t i n f a c t was He d i d s o by a s k i n g t h e h u s b a n d under normative control. "Why d i d n ' t you s t a b h e r ? ' T h i s c o n v e r s a 5 i o n b r o u g h t o u t t h e implicit. unrecognized, b u t c o r e 5 h e l e s s o p e r a t i n g noro t h a t p e r a i t t e d t h e h u s b a n d t o h i t h i s wife b u t n o t t o s t a b h e r . T h i s u n r e c o g n i z e d norm l e g i t i m i z i n g i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l s a c e . u n l e s s it producss s e v e r e i n j u r y , p a r a l l e l s t h e C a l i f o r a i a " w i f e - b e a t i n g m s t a t u t e c i t e d below.

Ch.3.


L e g l t l m a t i o n o f Husband-Wlfby t h e C o u r t s a n d P o l l c s

Page 94 Vlol~nce

T h e r e 1s c o n s i d e r a b l e e v i d e n c e t h a t Even t h o u g h l a w s g i v i n g husbands t h e r i g h t t o "chastise" a r e r r i n g v i f e a r e n o l o n g e r with us. t h e u n d e r l y i n g s p i r i t 3f such laws lingers. T h a t s p i r i t i s now p r i m a r i l y extralegal, b u t i n i m p o r t a n t ways it is s t i l l embodied i n t h e l e g a l s y s t e m .

------

Immunilp $o&r. o n e o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t of t h e s e l e g i t i m i s a t i o n s o f h u s b a n d - w i f e v i o l e n c e is t o b e f o u ~ di n t h e d o c t r i n e o f " s p o u s a l immunity' t h a t , t o t h i s day, i n many j u r i s d i c t i o r s p r e v e n t s a w i f e f r o m s u i n g h e r h u s b a n d f o r a s s a u l t and b a t t e r y . I n other jurisdictions, t h e law h a s been c h a n g e d c c l y r e c e n t l y . Truninger (1971:269) c i t e s t h e f o l l o w i n g example: I n S e l f vs. S e l f ( 1 9 6 2 ) t h + w i f e a l l e g e d t h a t unlawfully a s s a u l t 4 t h e d e f e n d a n t husband p l a i n t i f f and b e a t upon, s c r a t c h e d and a b u s e d t h e person o f p l a i n t i f f , " and t h a t a s a r e s u l t p l a i n t i f * ' s u s t a i n e d p h y s i c a l i n j u r y t o her p e r s o n and e m o t i o n a l d i s t r e s s , and among o t h e r i c j u r i e s did receive a broken arm.' The hosband's motion f o r a summary jodqmsnt was g r a n t e d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t .

..."

o n a p p e a l . t h e C a l i f o r n i a Supremp c o u r t r e v e r s s a the t r i a l court's judgment, thus overruling eeveral older California cases supportirg i n t e r s p o u s a l immunity. The r a C i o c a l e o f c o u r t s r e t a l n i n g t h e common l a w sp3usal inmucity d o c t r i n e f e a r was t h a t a l l o w i n g t h e t o r t a c t i o n "would d e s t r o y t h e p e a c e and harmony of t h s hone, and t h u s would b e c o n t r a r y t o t h e p o l i c y or the 1 2 ~ . ~ ~

PGar ~f f h e P o l i c e i~ P$. As T r u n i n g e r a l s o p o i n t s out, it i s d o u b t f u l Whether a v i f e g a i n s much, o t h e r t h a n t h e p r i n c i p l e , from a b i l i t y t o s u e h e r husband f o r a s s a u l t acd battery: t h e a c t u a l o p e r a t i o n of b o t h t h e c i v i l and in c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e s y s t e m s p u t s up s n o r m a u s o b s t l c l e s and, any case, it t y p i c a l l y does nothing t o prevent imeEdiate repetition o f t h e o f f e n s e w h i l e t h e case is bsing adjudicafed. U s u a l l y t h e o n l y way i n which a r i o l € n t s p o u s e c a n b e removed from t h e h c a e i s by a r r e s t , b u t t h e p o l i c e make s u c h a r r e s t s r a r e l y . I n fsc', u n t i l t h - 1976 r e v i s i o n . t h e I n t e r n a t i o n a l A s s o c i a t i o n of P o l i c e C h i e f s ' *r%ining manual recommends t h a t a r r e s t , s g p i be made i c s u c h c a s e s . The c o - a r r e s t g u i d e l i n e p r o b a b l y i s more clcsely f o l l o w e d t h a n a n y o t h e r i r t h e t r a i n i n g manozl b s c a o s e i t s o c l e a r l y f i t s t h e e x p e r i e n c e end v a l u e s 5f t h e p o l i c * . In gereral. t h e p o l i c e see. t o st-are t h e belief i n t h e l e g i t i m a c y of s p o u s a l vioLence. prsvided tha rEsulting

Ch.3.

l a r r i a g e License

P a g e 115

i n j u r i e s o r destruc:ion a r e w i t h i n llmits. s o r e p o l i c p d E p a r t m E P t S h a v e i n f o r m a l " s t i t c h r u l e s - w h e r e b y t h e wouna r e q u i r e s a c e r t a i n ( h i g h ) number of s t i t c h e s b e f s r e a n o f f i c e r m a k e s a 2 a r r e s t ( F i e l d a n d F i e l d , 1973:229). Parnas (1967) c l t f s c a s e a f t e r c a s e o f t h e p o l i c e a v o i d i n g a r r a s t s i n s ; t u a c i o n s a a n d a t i c g o r e were t h e p a r t i e s n o t husband and wife. Almost a n y p o l r c s n a c c a n c i t e nuwprous e r a m p l a s o f h u s b a n d s ' c l a i m i n g t h e r i g h t t o s t r i k e t h e i r w i v s s . a n d many p o l i c e t h e m s e l v e s b e l i e v e t h i s t o be t h e law (TLunirger, 2972: 272: C o o t e . 2979) .*1 o b t a i n i n g e v e n b a s i c p h y s i c a l p r o t e c t i o n is o f t e r d i f f i c u l t a s i s g r a p h i c a l l y shown i n t h e f o l l o w i n g i n s t a n c e (REV York T i m e s . J u n e 14. 1 9 7 6 ) : It was a b o u t 4 o * c l o c k i n t h e a f t e r n o o n " t e n a c a l l came i n t o t h e 1 0 3 r d P r e c i n c t s t a t i o n h ~ u s e i n J a m a i c a , Q u e e c s , f r o m a woman v h o s a i d h e r husband had b e a t e n her. t h a t h e r f a c e was p l e s d i n g and b r u i s e d . S h e t h o u g h t some o f h ? r r i b s had been broken.

W a n y o n h e l p me?- s h e p l e e d e d t o t h e p c l i c e o f f i c e r who a n s w e r e d t h e phona. 'By h u s b a r d ' s g o n e now, b u t h e s a i d h e v o u l d come b a c k a n d S h e wes a l s o f r i g h t e n e d , s h e s a i d . k i l l me.' t h l t h e would s t a r t h e a t i n g t h e c h i l d r e n r b r t e returned. 'It's n o t a P o l l c s Department thrng," +he "I+'s r e a l l y a f a m i l y thing. o f f l c e r t o l d her. Y o u ' l l h a v e t o g o t o F a m l l y C o u r t tomorrow. T h e r e ' s n o t h r r g t h a t I c a n do."

o f P r o s e c u t o r s t o &i. D s s p i t e t h e r e p e a t s d n a t u r e and f r e q u e n t s e v e r i t y of m a r i t a l v i o l e r c e , i t i s e r d u r e d f o r l o n g periods--often mary y e a r s - - b y l a r g e Gumhers o t women. Some o f t h e r e a s o n s t h a t s o many w i v e s t o l e r a t e t h i s s i t u a t i o n f o l l o v from t h e v a r i a b l e s a n a l y z e d i n t h i s paper. o t h e r f a c t o r s h a r e been i d e n t i f i e d i n G s l l e s ' p a p e r "Pbused Hives: why Do They S t a y ? " ( 1 9 7 6 ) . sooner o r l a t e r , however, t h e s i t u a t i o n brings l a r g e nuabers of w e e n t o t h e p c i n t o t desperation. Soma r s s p o r d t o t h i s b y l e a v i n g . or e v e n by k i l l i n g t h e h u s b a c d ; others attempt t o secure a w a r r a n t f o r t h e a r r e s t of t h e i r h u s b a n d s . Por o b v i 3 u s l y d i f f e r e r t reasocs, each of t h e s e a l t e r n e t i v e s is t y p i c a l l y unsatistactory. I f t h e wife e t t e a p t s t o bring charges, she f a c e s b e i n g " c o o l e d o u t * a t e v e r y s t e p by o f f i c i a l s sf t h e c r i m i n a l j u s t i c e system. T h i s p r c c s s s is i l l u s t r a t e d by P i e l d a n d F i e l d ' s t a b u l a t i o n o f t h e a p p r o x i m a t e l y 7,500 s u c h a t t e m p t s ir. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C. i n 1966: I n v a r i a b l y , t h e p o l i c e h a d t o l d +hem t h a t , i n o r d e r t o p r o t e c t themselves, t h e y had t c " g e t = warrant from t h e d i s t r i c t attorney.' They

Ch.3.

marriage License

P a g e 46

announced t y p i c a l l y , "I h a v e come t o g e t one." TO them t h i s i m p l i e d a n a u t o m a t i c p r o c e s s , like d r o p p i n g n i c k e l s i n t o a v e r d i n g machine, and t h e y expected a r o u t i n e procedure culminating i n t h e i s s u a n c e of a warrant f o r t h e i r husband's arrest. T h e i r h e i g h t e n e d f e e l i n g of p r e c i p i t a t s d a n g e r r e i n f o r c e d t h i s e x p e c t a t i o n . and t h s i r e e n s e o f g r i e v a n c e and d e s p e r a t i o n was f u r t h e r s o l i d i f i e d bv t h e l o n o v a i t t h e v e n d u r e d b e f o r e t a l k i n g with t h e i r - i t i a l s c r e e n i n g policeman o r the d i s t r i c t attcrney. Of t h e s e 7,500 women, f e w e r t h a n 200 l e f t h a v i n g secured their o b j e c t i v e (1973:232). F i n a l l y , e v e r when t h e c i r c u m s t a n c a s a r e s u c h t h a t t h e p c l i c ~ and d i s t r i c t a t t o r n e y c a n n o t a v o i d b r i n g i n g c h a r g e s . few s u c h c a s e s g e t t o t r i a l . R s u r v e y c f t h e a s s a a l t c a s e s i n t h e District of Columbia showed t h a t o v e r t h r e e - f o u r t h s o f t h s c a s e s ! ! c t , i n v o l v i n g h u s b a n a s and w i v e s went t o a d i s p o s i t i o n o f t h e merits o f g u i l t o r i n n s c e n c e . The e n f o r c e m e n t pattern was reversea in Orly about one-sixth of a l l h u s b a n d - w i f e CZSES. a r r e s t s involving marital violence ultimately e n d e d a t t r i a l cr v i t h a g u i l t y p l e a . 3 c d t h e crime c h a r g e d by t h a t t i m e v a s i n v a r i s b l y a misdemeanor r a t h e r t h a n a f e l o n y ( F i e l d and F i e l d . 1973: 224).

------

V i c t i m Com~ensaticr. :rother vay i r which t h ? l a w continue5. 5.2 e f f e c t , t o l e g i t i m i z e husbans-wife a s s a u l t c r o p s up i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h t h e w o r k i n g s o f b o a r d s a n a commission^ t h a t h a v e b e s n s e t up i n E n g l a n d and a f e u Aaericaa s t a t e s t o compensate vicfims of crimes. The E n g l i s h b o a r d e x p l i c i t l y r u l e d a g a i n s t c c m p e r s a t i o n when t h s v i c t i m is a s p o u s e ( W i l l i a m s . 1979) and t h i s a l s o seems t o be t h e c a s e v i t h t h e C a l i f o r n i a l s v ( E d e l h e r t z and G e i s , 1979:278; T r u n i o g e r , 1971:270).

T& Les=&a s t e r n

aFd c u l t u r a l &E~;PQ 2f I P t r a f a l l l E The s i t u a t i o r d e s c r i b e d i n t h i s s e c t i o n i s v e l l by t h e p h r a s e u s e d a s t h e s u b t i t l e o f P i s l a and Field's a r t i c l e (1973) c n t h e c r i m i n a l p r o c e s s i r c a s e s o f m a r i t a l violence: " N e i t h e r J u s t i c e Nor Peace." 4 s i t u a t i o n s o p e r v a s i v e i s n o t l l k e l y te he a r e s u l t of h i s f l r i c a l accident. n o r is i t l i k e l y t o b? a c o n s e q u e n c e 3 f t h e many d i f f i c u l t i e s i n d e a l i n g l e g a l l y w i t h m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e and t h e low r a t e o f s u c c e s s a c h i e v e d by i n v c k i c g c r i m i n a l law. These d i f f i c u l t i e s and u n c e r t a i n t i e s , a f t e r a l l , l o not d e t e r t h e o a l i c e and c-~e u- r- t ~s - f~rom rnvokino criminal adjudication processes for many crimes--such 35 p r o s t i t u t i o n - - w i t h an even love? r a t e o f s u c c e s s i n c c n t r o l . Rather, t h e f a i l u r e t o invoke c r i m i n a l p e n a l t i e s r a f l e c z s h i s t o r i c a l c o n t i n u i t i e s i n t h e c u l t u r a l n o r m s t h a t make t h e

i o l e-n-c-e. -vsummarized --

~~~

A

~

~

-

Ch.3.

marriage License

Page 47

marriage l i c e n s e a h i t t i n g license. This is e l a o s t c l c a r i n t h e C a l i f o r n i a P e n a l Code s e c t i o n on w i f e - b e a t i n g , which p r o h i b i t s an a s s a u l t o n l y i f it r e s u l t s i n s e v e r e p h y s i c a l injury. B u t t h e most c l e e r c o n r e m p o r a r y l e g a l e x p r e s s i o n o f t h e r i g h t o f husbands t o u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e i s found i n t h e immunity o f h u s b a n d s f r o m p r o s e c u t i o n f o r r a p e o f t h e i r wives. E x p e r m e n t a l a n d S U T V EEVZdenCe ~ on Approval of l a T i t a l Vlolence T h e r e is a s l o w l y g r o w i n g body o f E m p i r i c a l r e s e a r c h o n i n t r a f a m i l y a g g r e s s i o n a n d v i o l e n c e , some o f which p r o v i d e s e v i d e n c e o n t h e c u l t u r a l norms we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g . The s n r v e y c o n d u c t e d f o r t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s R a t i o n a l Commission of t h e Causes and P r e v e n t i o n o f Violence foand t h a t a b o u t one q u a r t e r o f t h e p e r s o n s i n t e r v i e w e d s a i d t h e y c o u l d approve a husband o r w i f e h i t t i n g e a c h o t h e r under c e r t a i n circums;ances ( S t a r k and 8cEvoy. 1970). T h a t f i g u z e is probably a considerable underestimate because of the e x i s t e n c e of o p p o s i t e corms--the more s o c i a l l y a c c e p t a b l e a c 3 - s i c l e n c e n3rms a n d t h e i m p l i c i t o r c o v e r t p r o - v i o l e n c e norms. The c o n t r a d i c t c r y a n d c o v e r t n a r u r e o f t h e c o r m s approving marital viclecce makes expsrinental and o b ~ e r v a t i o n a l studies particularly approprilte, because t h e s e s t o d i e s d o p o t depend on t h e w i l l i n g n e s s o r a b i l i t y t o v e r b a l i z e norms a n d v a l u e s . Urfortunately. for practical reasons. all t h e o b s e r v a t i o n a l s t u d i e s have beer of But t h e r e parent-child v i o l e n c e (Rellak and i n t e l l . 1974). h a v e been e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s o f m a r i t a l a g g r e s s i o n o r s t u d i e s t h a t b e a r OL m a r i t a l a g g r e s s i o n . he f i r s t o f these studies also r e f l e c t s g e n e y a l phenomenon o f male h o s t i l i t y t o women:

ths

One o f t h e l e i s t r e c o g n i z e d i n d i c e s of mals h o s t i l i t y t o f e m a l e s i s t h e r e a c t i o n of men who watch a v i o l e n t a c t a g a i n s t women, r a t h e r than c o a m i t t i n g o r i n i t i a t i n g it t h e m s e l v e s . Three p s y c h c l o g i s t s from R i c h i g a n S t a t e u n i v e r s i t y s t a g e d a s s r i e s o f f i g h t s t h a t were t o be w i t n e s s e d by UnSuspectiCg passersby. The r e s e a r c h e r s f o u n d . t o t h e i r a n a z e m e n t , t h a t ma15 w i t n e s s e s r ~ s h e d t o t h e a i d o f men being a s ~ a u l t s d by e i t h e r women o r o4n, and t h c t man h e l p e d women b e i n g h i t by o t h p r women. Rut n o t o n e male b y s t a n d e r i n t e r f e r e d when a male a c t o r a p p a r e n t l y b e a t up a woman ( P o g r e b i n , 1974:49-55 and 8 0 ) .

mora

Ch.3.


P a g e 48

I n a d d i t i o n t o t h e i c t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e s s f i c d i n g s a s r e f l e c t i n g male h o s t i l i t y t o women, i t a l s o seems l i k e l y t h a t t h e y r e f l e c t t h e rorm p e r m i t t i n g a s s a u l t s b e t w s e n spouses. T h a t i s , t h e m a l e b y s t a n d e r s d i d n o t come t o t h e a i d o f a female v i c t i m of a male a s s a i l a n t because t h e y i n f e r r e d t h a t h e was t h e womac's husband. This, i n fa=%, is t h e r e a s o n a number o f b y s t a n d e r s g a v e f o r n o r i n t s r v e n i n g a s K i t t y Genovese was m u r d e r e d (Rosenthal. 1964). T h i s c o r c l u s i o n i s f u r t h e r given credence because i t a g r e e s v i t h e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s of " b y s t a r d e r i n t e r v e n t i o n , ' s u c h a s t h e e x p e r i m e n t s r e p o r t e d a n d summarized by Bickman ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Bickman c o n c l u d e s t h a t t h e s o c i a l d e f i n i t i o n of what a c t i c n s a r e r i g h t f o r t h e b y s t a n d e r i s a more p o w s r f u l d e t e r m i n a n t o f i n t e r v e n t i o n t h a n t h e s e v e r i t y of t h e c r i m e o r c o n c e r n f o r t h e welfare of t h e victim. Closely r e l a t e d t o t h e s e f i n d i n g s i s an unpublished e x p e r i m e n t by C h u r c h i l l a n d S t r a u s i n which t h e s u b j e c t s w e r e g i v e n a d e s c r i p t i o n of a n a s s a u l t a n d a s k e d t o i r d i c a t e what p u n i s h m e n t t h e y f e l t was a p p r o p r i a t e . I n t h e course of t h e a s s a u l t , t h e v i c t i m was k c o c k e d u n c o n s c i o u s . In h a l f t h e d e s c r i p t i o n s t h e a s s a i l a n t was d e s c r i b e d s s t h e vomanvs husband. I n t h e o t h e -r h a~l f . t h e d e s c r i o t i o n was i d e n t i c a l e x c e p t t h a t t h e c o u p l e was d e s c r i b e d a s " g o i n g t o g e t h e r " f o r a year. The mean p u n i s h m e n t s c o r e when t h e v i c t i m was n o t m a r r i e d t o t h e a s s a i l a n t was 4.15, compared v i t h 2.65 when t h e v i c t i m was t h e wife. Boreover. t h i s experiment p r o b a b l y understates the differerce, i n t h a t it s p e c i f i e d t h s t t h e u n m a r r i e d c o u ~ l ehad been o o i r o t o a e t h e r f o r a v e a r . The d l t f e r e n c e p k o b a b l y would h a v e - b e e p much g r e a t e r i f t h e u n m a r r i e d c o u p l e had n o t b e e n d e s c r l b e d a s h a v z c g a quaslmarltal relatlorshlp. ~

~

~~

~~

~

~~~

~~

.

-

~ ~

~

.~~

~~

~~

~~

I n a f i n a l set o f e x p e r i m e n t s b e a r i n g on t h i s i s s u e . couples interacted i n a standardized laboratory task involving conflict. The d a t a f o r m a r r i e d c c u p l s s was compared v i t h t h e d a t a f o r u r m a r r i e d c o u p l e s i n t h e Sam9 E s t u d y b y Ryder (1968) f o u n d that task situation. s t r a n g e r s were t r e a t e d more g e n t l y t h a n were s p o u s e s . S i m i l a r l y . u s i n g an e x p e r i m e n t a l t a s k t h a t r e q u i r e d t h e c o u p l e t o r e a c h a d e c i s i o n , W i n t e r , P e r r e i r a , a r d Bowers (1973) f o u n d t h e u n z e l a t e d c o u p l e s l i s t e n e d r e s p e c t f u l l y t o one a n o t h e r whereas m a r r i e d c o u p l e s were o f t e n rude t o ane another. Although t h E r e i s a l o n g d i s t a n c e betveen r u a e n e s s and violence. i t s e e m s l i k e l y t h a t what Ls m a r i f e s t e d i n t h e s e two e x p e r i m e n t s i s t h e b e g l n n i n g o f t h e j o u r n 3 y t h a t f o r many c o u p l e s u l t i m a t e l y e n d s i n v i o l e n c e ( S t r a u s , 1974a).

ch.3.

l a r r i a g e License

P a g e 49

TRZ CYCLE OF INTRAPABILY VIOLENCE I n Chapter 2 t h e role-modeling f u n c t i o n of p h y s i c a l p u n i s h m e n t was d e s c r i b e d , a n d e s p e c i a l l y t h e i m p l i c i : l e s s o n e v e n mandatory, t o ose p h y s i c a l t h a t it i s permissible, v i o l e n c e o n t h o s e o n e l o v e s most. But t h e l e a r n i n g o f s o c i a l s c r i p t s f o r a g g r e s s i o n b e t v e e n f a m i l y members t a k e s p l a c e i n many o t h e r ways, a n d I w i l l c o n c l u d e by b r i e f l y menticning j u s t one o f t h e s e : o b s e r v a t i o n by c h i l d r s n o f a g g r e s s i v s b e h a v i o r between t h e p a r e n t s t h e a s e l v s s , a n a physical violence i n particular. W h e n t h e F a m i l y V i o l e n c e R e s e a r c h Program began, we were u n d e r t h e i m p r e s s i o n t h a t v i o l e n c e b e t v e e n s p o u s e s i s r a r e . and t h a t middle c l a s s p a r e n t s t a k e p a i n s t o a v o i d physical f i g h t s i n t h e presence o f t h e i r children. The i d e a t h a t p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n s p o u s g s i s r a r e was t h e f i r s t o f t h e myths a b o u t i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e t h a t t h e d a t a from t h e program f o r c e d u s t o abandon. S u b s e q u e n t l y , a s t u d y by B u l C r O f t a n d S t r a u s (1975) s u g g e s t e d t h a t t h e i t e a o f p a r e n t s ' b e i n g a b l e t o h i d e p h y s i c a l f i g h t s may a l s o b e iccorrect. 121 u n i v e r s i t y s t u d e n t s and t h s i r I n t h i s study, p a r e n t s each s e p a r a t e l y completed p a r a l l e l q u s s t i o n n a i r e s , i n c l u d i n g o n e s e c t i o n t h a t d e a l t w i t h c o n f l i c t s betweec t h e parents. T h e r e was a s e r i e s o f i t e m s c o n c e r n i r g modes o f coping with t h e s e c o n f l i c t s ( t h e C o n f l i c t T a c t i c s S c a l e s 1979 a n d u s e d i n C h a p t ? r s 2 and 1 2 ) . deSCrlbEd i n S t r a n s , T h e s e i t e m s were a r r a n g e d i n o r d e r o f c o e r c i v e n e s s . s t a r t i n g w i t h d i s c u s s i n g t h i n g s calmly, and e n d i r g with h i t t i n g t h e A v i o l e n c e i n d e x u a s computed o t h e r with a hard o b j e c t . from t h e l a t t e r q u e s t i o n s .

we f o u n d a s u r p r i s i n g l y h i g h c o r r e l a t i o r . between t h e computed on t h e b a s i s o f d a t a o b t a i n e d f r s a t h e n d t h~~. e scsrec on t h e b a s i s of +~~. he s t u d e n t a ~~....- o h t a i n n n q u e s t i o n n a i r e c o m p l e t e d by e a c h p a r s n t : the Correlation brtween t h e p a r e n t - r e p o r t d a t a and t h e c h i l d - r ? p o r t d a t a f o r h u s D a n d 9 s v i o l e n c e was .64, ard f o r t h e wife's violence The s i g n i f i c a n c e o f t h i s i n d e x t h e c o r r e l a t i o n was . 3 2 . finding i n t h e present context is t h a t it indicates the d e g r e e t o which c h i l d r e n know a b o u t a c t s o f p h y s i c a l a 4 9 Z 9 s s i o n b e t w e e n t h e -i -r D a r e n t s . a t l r a s t d u r i n q t h e T e a r t h ; c h i l d is a s e n i o r i n h i g h s c h o o i . c o o s e q u s n t l $ . p a r ; n t s seem a g a i n t o b e s e r v i n g a s r o l e m o d e l s f o r l n t r a f a m i l y p h y s i c a l a g g r e s s i o n and f o r l e a r n i n g t h ~ s o c i a l c o r m s w h i c h - - t o r e p e a t t h e o p e n i n g s t a t e m e n t 2f t h i s c h a p t e r - a a k s t h e f a m i l y t h e most f r e q u e n t s e t t i n g f o r a g g r e s s i o n o f a l l types. r a n g i n g from i n s u l t s , t o s l a p s . $ 0 b a i t i n g , t o r t u r e . a n d murder. SCOrJS

~

~

~~~~

~~

ch.3.

narriage License

P a g e 50 NOTES

P a r t of t h i s c h a p t e r i s r e p r i n t e d with permission from n u r r a y R. S t r a u s , " S e x u a l I n e q u a l i t y . C u l t u r a l Warms, and W i f e - B e a t i n g , " o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d i n YtztLE&zy. 1976: 1 (Spri~g):5(1-76. ( c ) 1976 V i s a g e P z e s s , 1r.c.; a ~ idn E m i l i o c. Viano. e d i t o r , V i c t i m s a n d So~ie$x, W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., V i s a g e P r e s s , 1976. 1. P r o g r a m s t o l c f o r m a n d t r a i n p 3 l i c e t o d e a l more e f f e c t i v e l y w i t h f a m i l y d i s t u r b a n c e s h a v e bpen i n i t i a t e d i n see Bard. 1969, 1971, 3nd C h a p t e r 13. s e v e r a l cities.

Chapter 4

Violence and the Social Structure as Reflected in Children's Books from 1850 to 1970 Martha D. Huggins and Murray A. Straus

The previous chapter showed that cultural norms make the marriage license a hitting license. The research reported in the present chapter vas designed to see if this approval of violence between family members is a theme in books written for children. The resalts show that childrer's books do depict a great deal of riolence. including killings. In addition, they reinforce the lesson of physical punishment by depicting riolence as an effective means of secoring justice or of achieving some valued end. Aowever, althongh this chapter shows that children's books describe and justify violence. for violence the findings are not what we expected. Giver the high rates of familp violence pointed cut in Chapters 1 and 2 . it is i r o ~ i c that in these stories little of the violence takes place between members of the same iamlly. Thsre is a ride discrepancy between the reality of family life and the idsalized picture implied by the lack of family violence in children's books. Bs in television, physical aggression is largely depicted as something that occurs between strangers. The chapter concludes with a discussion of the discrepancy between the violent reality of family life and the media's avoidance of shoving violence between family members. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Ch.4.

V i o l e n c e i n C h i l d r e n ' s Books

Page 52

of t h e h i g h l y i n d u s t r i a l i z e d n a t i o n s o f t h e v o r l d , the u n i t e d S t a t e s i s c l e a r l y one o f t h e a o s t v i o l e n t (Palmer, 1972:15). Nany e x p l a n a t i o n s h a v e b e e n o f f e r e d f o r t h i s phenomenon (Graham a n d G u r r , 1 9 6 9 ) . and u n d o u b t e d l y a cumber of f a c t o r s o p e r a t e t o maintain p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e a s a c o n t i n u i n g a s p e c t o f American s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . On2 f a c t o r t h a t h a s been a s u b j e c t of c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n t r o v e r s y i s t h e mass media. Some i n v e s t i g a t o r s a r g u e t h a t v i o l e n c e i n t h e media r e f l e c t s t h e v i o l e n c e o f t h e s o c i e t y ( d i s c u s s e d i n Lynn, 1 9 6 9 ) . O t h e r s m a i n t a i n t h a t v i o l e n c e i n t h e mass meaia and i n s p o r t s s e r v e s a s a s a f e t y valve, permitting aggressive d r l v e s t o be d r a i n e d off--the "drive discharge" and "catharsis" models (BEttelheim, 1967; Freud, 1959: Peshbach and S i n g e r , 1971; Lorenz, 1966). Both the "reflection" and t h e " c a t h a r s i s " t h e o r i e s s e e v i o l e n c e i n t h e media a n d i n s p o r t s a s h a v i n g e i t h e r a n e u t r a l o r a n e u t r a l i z i n g role. They t h e r e f o r e c o n t r a s t s h a r p l y w i t h t h e o r i e s t h a t h o l d t h a t v i o l e n c e i n t h e media i s p a r t o f t h e p r o c e s s of t r a n s m i t t i n g and encouraging violance. Among t h e l a t t e r a r e t h e " c u l t u r a l p a t t e r n " t h e o r y o f S i p e s (1973). .social l e a r n i n g " t h e o r y (Bandura. 1973). and " g e n e r a l s y s t e m s t h e o r y n ( S t r a u s , 1973). The t h e o r e t i c a l a n d m e t h o d o l o g i c a l i s s u e s u n d e r l y + n g COntrOverSy a r e s o c o m p l e x t h a t a n e v e n t u a l resolution w i l l require, a t the mimimum, an accuaulation and *triangulation' of evidence from a variety of investigations. A i s t o r i c a l s t u d i e s of a v a r i e t y of c u l t u r a l f o r m s a r e p a r t i c u l a r l y needed. A s t u d y of c h i l a r e n ' s books t h e r e f o r e seemed d e s i r a b l e b e c a u s e (1) most o f t h e a v a i l a b l e research on t h e mass media a n d v i o l e n c e f o c u s e s o n television. C h i l d r s n ' s books, however, may b e j u s t a s important o r more i m p o r t a n t . Our i n f o r m a l o b s e r v a t i o n i s t h a t t h e i m p a c t o f a book r e a d by a c h i l d ( o r t o a young c h i l d by a s i g n i f i c a n t p e r s o n s u c h a s a p a r e n t ) i s e x t r e m e l y powerfol. (2) The a v a i l a b i l i t y of c h i l d r e n ' s b o o k s f o r o v e r one hundred y e a r s e n a b l e s a d e g r e e of h i s t o r i c a l depth n o t p o s s i b l e f o r a n y o f t h e o t h e r mass media. this

Thgoretical Perspective. W e believe t h a t the r e l a t i o n between l i t e r a t u r e a n d s o c i e t y i s " d i a l e c t i c " : l i t e r a r y and c t h e r a r t i s t i c p r o d u c t i o n s r e f l e c t t h e c u l t u r e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t l c n o f t h e s o c i e t y . e s p e c i a l l y its dominant s t r a t a . However, o n c e it i s i n e x i s t e n c e , l i t e r a t u r e s e r v e s t o c o n t r o l a n d mold t h a t c u l t u r e a n d s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . If the a r t i s t ' s work is t o be a c c e p t e d , h e o r s h e must draw on t h e Cnltural h e r i t a g e o f s o c i e t y and a p p e a l t o i m p o r t a n t e l e m e n t s i n t h e l i v e s of members o f s o c i e t y . It t h e same time, t h e work o f a c a r t i s t - - o n c e a c c e p t e d - - b e c o m e s s p a r t o f t h a t c u l t u r a l h e r i t a g e a n d is o n e o f many e l e m e n t s i n f l u e n c i n g and c o n t r o l l i n g what g o e s on i n t h e s o c i e t y .

Ch.4.


P a g e 53

P r e v i o u s c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s s t u d i e s h a v e g i v e n some i n d i c a t i o n of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between changes i n s o c i e t y and changes i n l i t e r a r y contents. s t r a u s and Boughton

A------- - cross-lagged correlation. S i n c e we w i l l n o t b e p r e s e n t i n g s u c h d a t a , t h e p r e s e n t c h a p t e r i s n o t o f f e r e d a s a t e s t of t h e s e assumptions. Our aim i s more modest; simply t o p r e s e n t t h e r e s u l t s of o u r h i s t o r i c a l a n a l y s i s , together with our i n t e r p r e t a t i o n of t h e trends.

-

s p e c i f i c Obiectives. One o f t h e p u r p o s e s o f t h e s t u d y is t o determine i f t h e l e v e l of i n t e r p e r s o n a l physical v i o l e n c e d e p i c t e d i n c h i l d r e n ' s b o o k s h a s been i n c r e a s i n g o r d e c r e a s l n g d u r i n g t h e 1 2 0 - y e a r s p a n from 1850 t o 1970. He pose no h y p o t h e s i s a b o u t t h e d i r e c t i o n of change, b e c a u s e t h e a v a i l a b l e evidence does n o t s u g g e s t any o v e r a l l ' o r decrease i n t h e l e v e l of v i o l e n c e i n t h e Unitea S t a t e s d u r i n g t h i s p e r i o d (Graham a n d G u r r , 1 9 6 9 ) . The s e c o n d o b j e c t i v e is t o g a i n i n f o r m a t i o n o n t h e way s o c i e t y d e f i n e s and l a b e l s p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e f o r i t s n e x t geEBration. The s t u d y e x a n i n e s t h e e x t e n t t o which v i o l e n c e i n l i t e r a t u r e i s d e p i c t e d a s an nexpressive" a c t ( c a r r i e d o u t t o c a u s e pain o r i n j u r y a s an snd i n i t s e l f ) o r a n "instrumenzal'* a c t ( c a r r i e d o u t t o a c h i e v e some e x t r i n s i c Sznilarly, the proportion of violent acts purpose). p r e s e n t e d by t h e a u t h o r s a s " l e g i t i m a t e u and " i l l e g i t i m a t e * s u g g e s t s how s o c i e t y e v a l u a t e s a n d l a b e l s p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . F i n a l l y , t h e c o n t e n t a n a l y s i s was d e s i g n e d t o o b t a i n i n f o r m a t i o n o n r h e s t a t u s e s , r o l e s , m o t i v e s , and e m o t i o n s o f t h e c h a r a c t e r s involved i n violence. azd t h e p r e c i p i t a t i n g conditions, outcomes. a n d c o n s e q u e n c e s of v i o l e n c e . To t h e extent t h a t violence i n l i t e r a t u r e mirrors violence i n the society, such information provides i n s i g h t i n t o t h i s important aspect of s o c i a l structure. To t h e e x t e n t t h a t literature influences society, such information g i v e s i m p o r t a n t c l u e s t o t h e " s c r i p t n (Gagnon a n d Simon, 1 9 7 3 ) f o r v i o l e n t behavior presented t o children.*l

ch.a.


P a g e 54

SAIIPLE B N D SETHOD g~mle. R t h r e e - s t e p s a m p l i r g p r o c e s s was u s e d . The f i r s t s t e p was t h e i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o f what, f o r want o f a b e t t e r tar.. can be c a l l e d "children's classics,' books r e c o g n i z e d by a l i t e r a r y e l i t e of t h e s o c i e t y . we f o c u s e a on t h i s t y p e of l i t e r a t u r e because, a s Marx s u g g e s t e d (1964). t h e i d e a s o f t h e e l i t e s t r a t a t e n a t o be t h e dominant and i n f l u e n t i a l i d e a s i n t h e s o c i e t y . Prom . t h i s perspective, it i s n o t t h e m o r a l e v a l u a t i o n s of the popula3.on a t l a r g e t h a t g i v e r i s e t o a group's d e f i n i t i o n s of r e a l i t y , b u t m a i n l y t h e e v a l u a t i o n s of t h e a o m i n a n t c l a s s ( P a r k i n . 1971:92). On t h e . b a s i s o f t h e s e a s s u m p t i o n s , we s o u g h t o u t lists o f r e c o m m e ~ d e d a n 3 e s t e e m e d c h i l d r e n ' s b o o k s , f o r example, the nuotable Children's Books: 1965-1972' p r e p a r e d by t h e Book E v a l u a t i o n Committee o f t h e American L i b r a r y A s s o c i a t i o u . * 2 The body of work c o m p i l e d by t h i s method is a c h r o n o l o g i c a l l y o r d e r e d l i s t of a l l b o o k s p u b l i s h e d b e t w e e n 1850 a n d 1970 t h a t were i n c l u d e d i n a n y of t h e lists o f recommended books.

The s e c o n d s t e p o f t h e s a m p l i n g p r o c e s s was d e s i g n e d t o y i e l d f i v e b o o k s p u b l i s h e d i n 1850. a n d f i v e p u b l i s h e d e v e r y f i f t h y e a r t h e r e a f t e r . i n 1855. 1860. a n d s o on, u p t o a n d i n c l u d i n g 1970. f o r a t o t a l o f 1 2 5 books. For t h o s e r e a r s i n which many b o o k s a p p n a r e d , t h e s a m p l e o f f i v e was drawn by random numbers. If t h e r e rere f n u e r t h a n f i v e b o o k s i n t h e sample y e a r ( a s sometimes happened i n t h e e a r l y y e a r s ) . b o o k s from t h e c l o s e s t a d j a c e n t y e a r w e r e i n c l u d e d , f o r e x a m p l e , a book p u b l i s h e d i n 1856 is i n c l u d e d i n t h e s a m p l e S i n c e t h e s e a r e a l l "classic" o r "recommended" f o r 1855. b o o k s we w e r e a b l e t o f i n d 115 o f t h e o r i g i n a l l y s e l e c t e d 125 b o o t s i n n e a r b y l i b r a r i e s . The m i s s i n g tsn books w e r e r e p l a c e d by a random s e l e c t i o n f r o m among t h e o t h e r b o o k s published d u r i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e years. The t h i r d s t e p i n t h e s a m p l i n g p r o c e s s c o e s i s t e d o f u s i n g a * . a b l e of random n u m b e r s t o select f i f t e e n d i f f e r e n t p a g e s from s a c h book. W e followed t h i s procedure t o prevent longer books from disproportionately influencing the resnlts. Our d a t a t h a n d e s c r i b e a n y a c t o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e t h a t o c c u r r e d o n o n e of t h e s a m p l e p a g e s 1s 125 "recommendedn c h F l d r e n v s b o o k s p u b l i s h e d f r o m 1850 t h r o u g h 1970.13

goding p=$&&. an

act

of

The b a s i c u n i t o f a n a l y s i s c o n s i s t s of i n t e r D e r s o n a 1 v i o l e n c e , which u e d e f i n e a s the

identifying t h e book i n - w h i c h i t o c c u r r e d a n d p r o v i d i n g s p a c e t o c o d e t h e t y p e o f i n f o r m a t i o n i d e n t i f i e d a few p a r a g r a p h s back. B o r e s p e c z f i c i n f o r m a t i o n on ? a c h o f t h e s e variables w i l l b e g i v e n when t h e r e l e v a n t data are

Ch.4.

T i o l e n c e i n C h i l d r e L ' s Books

Page 5 5

p r e s e n t e d . *4 FREQUENCY A N D TRENDS I N VIOLENCE n a r y o b s e r v e r s o f t h e American t h a t America i s a v i o l e n t s o c i e t y . example, c o n t e n d s t h a t :

s c e n e have s u g g e s t e d Palmer ( l 9 7 2 : l 5 ) , f o r

" S i n c e its i n c e p t i o n , t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s h a s been i n t h e f r o n t ranks of violent societies. Born i n r e v o l u t i o n , v r a c k e d b y c i v i l war, i n v o l v e d i n numerous v a r s , it h a s a l s o t h e t r a d i t i o n of bloody r i o t i n g , homicide and a r r e s t . " A c c o r d i n g t o t h e s t a t i s t i c s c i t e d by P a l m e r , e a c h y e a r there a r e 15.000 c r i m i n a l h o m i c i d e s , 35.000 suicides. 300,000 S e r i o u s a s s a u l t s , a n d 50,000 f o r c i b l e rapes, and t h e s e a r e minimum e s t i m a t e s . T h e s r more e x t r e m e f o r m s o f p h y s i c a l f o r c e o n l y p a r t i a l l y i l l u s t r a t e a more w i d e s p r e a d p a t t e r n o f v i o l e n c e i n t h e United S t a t e s . P o r example. p h y s i c a l f i g h t s b e t w e e n h u s b a n d a n d w i f e may o c c u r i n h a l f t o t h r e e - q u a r t e r s of a l l m a r r i a g e s ( s e e Chapter 2). and p h y s i c a l f i g h t s b e t w e e n s i b l i n g s a r e s o common a s t o b e a l m o s t u n i v e r s a l ( S t r a u s . Gelles, a l d S t e i n m e t z , 1 9 7 9 ) . Is t h e v i o l e n c e t h a t i s s o much a p a r t o f American l i f e f o u n d i n the l i t e r a t u r e f o r children? Ths a n s w e r t o t h i s r h e t o r i c a l q u e s t i o n i s a c l e a r "yes." lore than three-quarters of the 15-page 'book-segments" h a d o n e o r more v i o l e n t e p i s o d e s , w i t h a t o t a l of 264 s u c h e p i s o d e s . The l a r g e s t number o f v i o l e n t e p i s o d e s i n a s i n g l e book was 1 0 ( i n &IS_: &gf&g). The mean number o f v i o l e n t a c t s p e r book-segment u a s 2.1. The f l g u r a o f 2.1 v i o l e n t e p i s o d e s p e r book-segment means t h a t a 50-page book is l i k e l y t o i n c l u d e a b o u t s e v e n v i o l e n t a c t s and a 150-page book. a b o u t 2 1 v i o l e n t a c t s . T h e , v a r i e t y o f methods u s e d i n -a o w i t i e s oz & e n E p . t h e s e b o o k s 0 cause physical p a i r o r i n j u r y t o another C o v e r s most o f t h o s e k n o m t o t h e human r a c e . Thess ranged flom m e r e l v s h a k i n o someone t r v o s u c h i n c i d e n t s \ . t c h -i t t i n o a n d k i c k i n g (39 i n c i d e n t s ) , t o r t u r e (6 i n c i d e n t s ) , h u r n i n g ( 1 1 i n c i d e n t s ) , s t a b b i n g ( 4 3 i n c i d e n t s ) , a r d s h o o t i n g (40 incidents). The m o s t f r e q u e n t t y p e o f v i o l e n c e i n v o l v e d p o u n c i n g o n someone, grabbing then f o r c e f u l l y o r causing them t o f a l l (66 i n c i a e n t s o r 25 p e r c e n t of t h e t s t a l ) . Boverer. s u c h r e l a t i v e l y m i l d f o r m s v e r e o u t n u m b e r e d by a b o u t two t o o n e by more s e v e r e f o r m s s u c h a s s t a b b i n g . shooting. t o r t u r e , and b u r n i r g .

..

~

T h i s f a c t i s a l s o r e f l e c t e d i n t h e c l a s s i f i c a t i o n of a c t s on t h e h a s i s o f t h e r e s u l t i n g p h y s i c a l i n j u r y : 22 p e r c e n t o f t h e 264 c a s e s d e s c r i b e d a p h y s i c a l i n j u r y , a n d a n

Ch.9.

V i o l e n ~ e i n C h i l d r e n ' s Books

P a g e 56

a d d i t i o n a l 33 p e r c e n t d e s c r i b e d a v i o l e n t d e a t h . Clearly, a r e n o t dealing w i t h " k i d s t u f f . " The e s s e n t i a l l y a d u l t n a t u r e of t h e v i o l e n c e portrayed i n t h e s e books w i l l be shovn a t g r e a t e r l e n g t h l e t e r .

YE

-

55 60 6 5 70 75 8 0 85 90 95

0

g -

0 5 10 15 20 75 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 6 5

Time Period i f f s c r s +h* S O o i O c u l t u r a l system. o r both. Be c a l l s f o r a more c a r e f u l s p e c i f i c a c l o r of c a u s a l r e l a t i o r s h i p s i n s t u d i e s o f c u l t u r e and s t a t e s t h a t t k e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r a l n x m s and personality is reciprocal. I n o t h e r woras, " i n d i v i d u a l r e s p o n s e s t o and i n t e r p r e t a t i o n s of c u l t u r e lea3 to (1965:82). Also, K a r d i n e r (1963) h a s normative variation" r e p o r t e d t h a t a l t h o u g h c u l t u r e and p e r s o r i l i t y changa each o t h e r i n a c y c l i c p r o c e s s , institutional c h a r g e t e n d s 5 0 b e f o l l o w e d by p e r s o n a l i t y change. The f o l l o m i r g d i a g r a m illustrates t h e r e c i p r c c a l n a t u r e of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p between c u l t u r e 1 v a l u e s , norms. a n d p e r s o n a l i t y .

Ch.5.

Cultural consistency

Exircme male domi-

nance (Caiiilo-Bcron,

Page 72

Old over young (Penaioid)

Fermndei-Marina e l ai., Lewis, Madscn Penaloral

i h c m i c r c r the dii-

Chiidicn 5houId icdrn

ciplinc the be!!^ the hii id (cnrilIo.Beron, Ramirez)

to hc iubmiirive and obedient to rhc father (Fcinnndez-Marina ci a$.)

I Fathci tends to

Mother iuppoits father's authority -.c-----favordaughter (Fernandei-Marina e l a!.. Lewis]

Norms:

(Penalom, Lewis)

Uistsnce and severity in rather-ion icla!ioni [Pcnalosa, Lewis)

+ I

Low degiec of referent power (Lewis1

.1

coercive power

I

4

Son's fear of the father (Fernandcr-Marina cr al., Madsen)

I

i'erpetuoiian:

4 . .

I . Majority o i h o y i deqire t o be itim thcir lather, even though they fear him (Feinundci-Marina el a i l

1.

2.Child ai aduit treats his w r c and children thcramc way his father treated him I P e n a I o d

Figure 1 . Mexican-American paicnt-child violence

ch.5.

Cultural Consistency

Page 73

I n movins erom t h e s e g e n e r a l p r r n c i p l e s to s p e c i f i c e t h n i c g r o u p s . Our f i r s t s t e p was t o c o l l e c t an i n v e c t a r v o f f a m i l y v a l u e s and n o r a s f r o m - t h e l i t e r a t u r e o r each sthcic group. Family v a l u e s were d e f i n e d a s " g e n e r a l l y t c c s p t e d e s p l r a t i o n s a n d i d e a l s which a r e p u b l i c l y sanctisned" (Kardiner, 1 9 6 3 ) . a n d which a r e c o n c e r n e d w i t h i n t r a f s m i l y relatioFshipS. N o r m a x e see2 a s more s p e c i f i c r u l e s g o v e r n i n g b e h a v i o r . a r i s i n g from t h s v a l u e s 3nd more c l o s e l y l i c k e d t o violence. For e x a m p l e , a basic value in Ksxican-American e t h r i c g r o u p s would b e t h e dominaocs o f o l d o v e r young, w h e r e a s a norm would b e t h e s e v e r i t y o f parent-child r e l a t i o n s . Nsxt, WE a t t e m p t e d t o d e v e l o p h p p o t h e s e s c o n c e r n i n g c a u s a l l i n k s betveen t h e f a m i l y v a l u e s and t h e a o r n s f o r ViolencE o r n o n v i o l e n c e . The f i n a l s t e p was t o f i n d child-rearirg norms in t h s l i t e r a t u r e t h a t seem t o p e r p e t u a t e b e h a v i o r i n Each e t h n i c gronp.*l

A 1 1 of t h e b a s i c family values i n Figure 1 are c o n c e r 2 e a w i t h t h e a l l - e n c o m p a s s i n g a u t h o r i t a r i a n r a l e which t h e o l d e r m a l e p o s s e s s e s i n n e x i c a n - l r n c r i c a n f a m i l i e s . * ? The f u n d a m e n t a l i n c o m p a t i b i l i t y b e t v e e n g r e a t z u t h o r i t y and intimacy suggests t h a t t h e f o u r b a s i c family values prcaote d i s t a n t and s e v e r s f a t h e r - c h i l a r e l a t i o n s . Yirazae (1977) r e p o r t e d t h a t f a t h e r - c h i l d r e l a t i o n s do t e n d r 3 b 5 s o ~ e ~ h a t distant. Lewis (1960) s u g g e s t e d t h a t d i s t a n c e may b e m a n i f e s t e d t h r o u g h a g e n + r a l l a c k of a f f e c t i v e r e l a t i o n s a s f a t h s r s pay l a s s a t t e n t i o n t o c h i l d r e n a s t h e y grow o l d e r .

An e x a m p l e o f s e v e r l t y would b e t h a t c h i l d r e n a r e o f t e n s e v e r e l y pnrished f o r an o f f e n s e such a s l y i n g (Penalosa, lY68:685). P e n a l o s a and L e v i s both r e p o r t t h a t r e l a t i o n s between f a t h e r s and d a u g h t e r s t e n d n o t t o b e a s d i s t a c t o r Severe a s father-son r o l a t i o c s . F a t h e r s map show a m i l d f o r m o f f a v o r i t i s m t o d a a g h t e r s and b e more p r o t e c t i v e and possessive. I m p l i c i t i n t h e a b o v e p a r r g r a p h is t h e f o l l a v i n g p r o p o s i t i o n r e l a t i z g any cne of t h e s e b a s i c family v a l u e s t o more s p e c l f i c norms.

Ch.5.

C u l t u r a l Cons-stency

Page 7 9

1. TO t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h s n a l e p o s s ~ s s e ss g r e a t

amount o t a u t h o r r t y i n f a a l l y l l f e , t h e s o r ? w l l l t h a t c u l t u r e b e c h a r a c t e r r z e d by % = s t a r t a n d s e v e r e f a t h e r - s o n relations.

I n t h e c u l t u r a l - c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y f o r nexican-American f a m i l i e s a n i m p o r t a n t r e l a t i o n s h i p e x i s t s b e t v e e n t h s norm o f d i s t a n t . s e v e r s f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s a n d t h e a c t u a l ose Of violence. The s e v e r e f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s may l e a d t o t h e son being a f r a i d of h i s f a t h e r ; t h e son's fear c o n t r i b u t e s t o t h a f a t h e r ' s e x e r c i s i n g of c o n t r o l t h r o u g h h i s temper and v i o l e n t o u t b u r s t s . How d o e s t h e S O P ' S f e a r o f t h e f a t h e r l e a d t 3 t h e d i s p l a y o f t e m p e r a n d v i o l e n t o u t b u r s t s a s a meacs o f c o n t r o l ? Apparertly, t h e presence of r e a r i n a r E l s t i D n s h i p i n h i b i t s t h e d e g r e e o f c o m m u n i c a t i o n b e t w e s c two p=rt!es. P o s s i b l y t h e d i s t a n c e a n d e m o t i o n a l a l o o f n e s s between f a t h e r and s o n i n d i c a t e s low " r e f e r e n t pover" and t h e r e f o r e t h e n e e d t o u s e " c o e r c i v e power.' R e f e r e n t power i s t h e d e g r e p t o which o n e p e r s o n ' s i d e n t i f i c a t i o n o r o n e n r s s w i t h a n o t h e r a l l o w s t h 9 l a t t e r p e r s o n t o i n f l u e n c e t h e f o r m e r ( F r e n c h and 1959:1611. C o e r c i v e power a o e s n o t d e r i v s f r o m Raven, a t t r a c t i o n o r i d e n t i f i c a t i o n b u t from t h e threat of p u n i s h m e n t a s a means b y which o n e p e r s o n i n f l u e n c e s a n o t h e r ( F r e n c h a n d Raven. 1959:157). I n o t h e r words. the child COntOrmS t o t h e f a t h e r ' s wishes not because o f a mutual a t t r a c t i o n but because o f t h e t h r e a t of f o r c e an3 t h z high p r o b a b i l i t y o f punishment. The p r e s e n c e o f a g r e a t d e g r e e o f c o e r c i v e power may c o n t r i b u t e t o t h e f e a r o f t h e f a t h e z t & (1958) a c d Badsen ( 1 9 6 9 ) t h a t Fernanaez-Earire r e p o r t a s p r e v a l e n t i n ~ u e r t o - ~ i c a na n d u e x i c a n - ~ m s r i c a n families. Eadsen s t a t e d t h a t Mexican-American college s t u d e n t s asked t o e v a l u a t e t h e f a t h e r ' s r o l e i n t h e Latin

ch.5.

c u l t u r a l Consistency

Page 75

fanily f e l t t h a t i t was t o o a u t h o r i t a r i a n . Studerts r e p o r t e d t h a t "it i s t r u e t h a t t h e c h i l d r e n h a v e a g r e a t r e s p e c t f o r t h e f a t h e r b u t it is a r e s p e c t b a s e d oc f e a r * and t h a t "[the fa-her] should be a f r i e n d t o h i s c h i l a r e n , c o t a d i c t a t o r n (Badsen, 1964:SZ). T h i s f e a r may i m p a i r a c h i l d ' s u n d e r s t a n d i r g of the father's desires r%la%ing t o a c e r t a i n matter. The p s y c h o l o g i c a l d i s t a n c e a n d m i n i m a l c o m n u n i c a t i c n may l e a d t o t h e c h i l d a c t i n g i n a way which t h e f a t h e r f e e l s i s wrong a n d may i n c r e a s e t h e c h a n c e t h a t t h e f l t h e r w i l l a c t violertly. F i v e . p r o p o s i t i o n s l i r k i n g s e v e r e and d i s t a n t f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s and t h e a c t u a l u s e of v i o l e n c e a r e i m p l i c i t i n t h e p a r a g r a p h s above. 2.

The more s e v e r e a n d d i s t a n t t h e f a t h e r - s o n relations, t h e l o w e r t h e r e f e r e n t power i t t h a t relationship.

3.

The l o w e r t h e r e f e r e n t power, t h e g r e a t e r t h e C o e r c i v e power t h a t t h e f a t h e r n e e d s t o b r i n g t o b e a r on t h e son.

4.

The g r e a t - r t h e c o e r c i v e p o v e r , t h e son's f e a r of t h e father.

5.

The more t h e s o n f e a r s t h e f a t h e r , t h e more it may be f o r t h a t son t o difticult u n d s r s t a n d h i s f a t h e r ' s d e s i r e s and the g r e a t e r t h e chance t h a t t h e s o r w i l l n o t a c t according t o t h o s e aesires.

the

greater

6 . TO t h e e x t e n t

t h a t &he son does not a c t accordlng t o t h e f a t t e r ' s desires ard a COerclvE power r e l a t z o n s h i p e x L s t s b e t v e s r f a t h e r and s o n , r h e g r e a t e r t h e c h a n c e t h a t C o n t r o l "111 b e b a s e d cn temppr and v i o l e n t Outburs+s.

u s i c g d e d u c t i v e l o g k , t h e s e f i v e p r o p o s i t i o n s can b e merged t o show t h e r e l a t i o c s h i p between t h e norm of s e v e r e and d i s t a n t f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s and t h e a c t u a l use of v i o l e n c e as f o l l o w s : Ccmbining 2, 7.

3 , a n d 4:

The more s e v e r e a n d d i s t a n t t h e f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e g r e a t e r the. s o n ' s f e a r o f the father.

Then c o a b l n i n g t h e a b o v e w i t h 5 :

Ch.5.

C u l t u r a l Consistency 8.

Plga 76

The n o r e s e v e r e and d i s t a n t t h e f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h g~r e a t e r t h e c h a n c e t h a t t h e SOL w i l l n o t a c t a c c o r d i n g t o the fathsr's desires.

F i n a l l y , c o m b i n i n g 7 w i t h 6 , t h e l i n k between t h e v i o l e n c e a n d t h e a c t u a l u s e o f v i o l e n c e i s made. 9.

norm

for

The more s e v e r e and d i s t a n t t h e f a t h e r - s o n relatlOnShlp, t h e g r e a t e r t h e chance t h a t c o r t r o l w i l l be b a s e d on t e m p e r and v i o l e n t Outbursts.

I t d e d u c t i v e l o g i c is u s e a t o c o m b i n e aLd 9 , t h e following p r o p o s i t i o n i s y i e l d e a .

prlpositions

1

10. TO t h e e x t e n t t h a t t h e male p o s s e s s e s 2 g r e a t d e a l of a u t h o r i t y i n f a m i l y l i f e , t h e g r e a t e r t h e c h a n c e t h a t c o n t r o l r i l l be b a s e d on t h e u s e o f temper and v i o l e n t o u t b u r s t s . Thus, according t o t h e cultural-consistency theory, in nexican-American e t h n i c groups, a value r e l a t e d t o family l i f s t h a t h a s nothing d i r e c t l y t o do with t h e use of v i o l e n c e a c t s t o i n c r e a s e t h e a c t u a l l e r e l of violence. The method of l i n k i J g p r o p o s i t i o c s u s e d a b o v e c a n be u s e d t o r e l a t e t h e other t h r e e family v a l u e s t o t h e a c t u a l 12ve1 of family violence. This p a t t e r n of violence i s probably perpsruated t h r o u g h s o c i a l l e a r n i n g p r o c e s s e s ( 3 a n d u r a . 1 9 7 3 ) . Owens a n d S t r a u s ( 1 9 7 5 ) . f o r example. show ? h a t + h e morc v i a l e n c e e x p e r i e n c e d by a c h i l d , t h - g r e a t e r t h e t c n d a n c y t o f a v o r v i o l e n c e a s an a d u l t . A p p a r e n t l y t h e c h i l d comes t o b e l i e v e t h a t t h e b e s t r a y t o h a v e h i s own c h i l d r e n a c t o b s d i e n t l y i s t o u s e p h y s i c a l f o r c e , e v e n if h e was a f r a i d o f i t a s a child. r i n g e r ' s s t a t e m e r t t h a t :ndividual p c r s a n a l i t y h a s a g r e a t d e a l t o do w i t h t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f c u l t u r e a l s o a p p l i e s here. I f t h e c h i l d f e e l s t h a t t h e u s e of f o r c e i s t h e b e s t way a t c o n t r o l l i n g o t h e r members i f h i s f l a i l y , c u l t u r a l n o r m s t h a t may s u p p o r t t h i s v i e = a r e r e i n f o r c e d . The d i s c u s s i o n up t o t h i s p o i n t h a s c e n t e r e d on t h e formal normative system found in Mexican-8morican famIlieS.*3 nirande (1977) r e p o r t s that this formal st-ucture d o e s e x i s t b a t h a s been i n t e r p r e t E d b o l h a s a s o u r c e o f p a t h o l o g y and a s a s o u r c e o f warmth a n d s e c u r i t y . l l i r a n d e (1977) a l s o s u g g e s t s t h a t w h i l e t h e f o r m a l s t r u c t u r e of norms nay e x i s t , f a m i l i a l and s e x u a l r o l e s a r e b e i n g modified a s Mexican-lmericans a r e a s s i m i l a t e d , i n i n c r s a s i r g numbnrs, i n t o A a e r i c a l s o c i e t y . Eaukes and T a y l o r ' s 1975 s t u d y o f t h e power s t r u c t u r e o f n e x i c a n f a m i l i e s s u p p o r t s nirande's point. Thus. i t i s p o s s i b l e t h a t c h a n g i n g r o l e s may be m a n i f e s t i n l e s s s u p p o r t o f t h e f a t h e r ' s f c r n a l a o t h o r i t y a n d less d i s t a n t an$ l e s s s e v e r e f a t h s r - s o n

Ch.5.

Cultural consistency

P a g e 77

relations. As a rssult, t h e proposed l i n k b e t v c s r t h = f c r m a l n o r m a t i v e s t r u c t u r e and f a m i l y v i o l e n c e may be weaker t h a n p r e d i c t e d above. On t h e o t h e r hand, r e c e n t r e s e a r c h on f a m i l y v i o l e n c e among Anglo-Americans s u g g e s t s t h a t a s t h a t r a d i t i o n a l m a l e d o m i n a t e d power s t r u c t u r e becomes undermined, t h s r e m a p b e a tendency f o r family v i o l e n c e t o i n c r e a s e i n t h e s h o r t run ( s e e Brown, C h a p t e r 11 a n d A l l e n a n d S t r a u s . Chapter 12). T h i s may b e e s p e c i a l l y t r u e o f f a m i l i e s which become f e m a l e c e n t e r e d ( S t r a u s & &.. 1979).

J e w s traditionally h a v a b e e n c h a r a c t e r i z s a a s h a v i r g a l o v r a t e of family violence. most J e v s would b e c o n s i d e r e d i n o r above t h e middle c l a s s today, and t h i s s t e t u s might c o n t r z b o t e t o t h e i r l o v r a t e s o f family violrnce.*q Souever. e v e n a ? t h e t u r n o f t h e c e n t u r y . when most J e w s war? w o r k i n g - c l a s s immigraCtS, t h e y p r o b a h l y a l s o had l o v e r r a t e s o f f a m l l y v i o l e n c e t h a n o t h e r poor e t h n i c groups. Jewish f a m i l y v a l u e s may b e r e l a t e d t o t h e low l e v e l of f a m i l y violence. Figure 2 a p p l i e s t h e cultural-consistency f a m i l y v i o l e n c e t o Jewish-Americans.

1.

theory

of

the extent that intellectuality is s t r e s s e d , t h e e m p h a s i s w i l l b e on r a t i o n a l means a t s c l v i r g f a m i l y p r o b l e m s . r a t h e r t h a n on v e r b a l o r p h y s r c a l c o e r c i o n . To

B f u n c t i o n o f i n t e l l e c t u a l i t y i n J e w i s h f a m i l i e s . which may b e more c l o s e l y r e l a t e d t o n o n v i o l e n c e , i s t h e f a c t t h + t ncrms for articulateness, argumentativeness, and parect-child bargaining a r e prasent. T h e s e t h r e s norms w012ld s e e n t o s a n c t i o n c o n f l i c t b u t t o c h a n n e l i t o f f i n t o d i ~ c u s s i o n r a t h e r than physical action. Yaffe r e p o r t e d

Ch.5.

Cultural Consistency

Page

that: EOBe discipline i s far less strict among Jews than among other groups. Jewish parents arr naggers, screamers, nudgers--but not hitters. The child has to go pretty far before he'll get the back of his father's hand. And a lot more ConverSational freedom is tolerated. Jewish children are allowed to interrupt, cantradict the grown-ups, be "fresh* (1968:312).

Importance o f family i n Jewish identincarion (Shapiio and Daihefiky)

1

-

Religiosity ofmaie (Shapiro and Daihefrky, Bemrrein)

Pursuit o f Knowledge: the mind is a great tool. (Beinstein, Gordon, Shapiio and Darhefrky, Siiodtbeck, Yuffe)

Intense parentchild involvomeni (Shupiia and Darhefrky, Yrffe)

4

Anything far the Children (Shapiio and Dashefiky)

4

Cornpaision (Shapira and Dashefrkyj

4

lnlellecruality Shapiio and Darhefrky)

Daiheiiky, Yaffe) Bargaining

Non-Violence

Pwtootion: Bays perceive ihemielvei as like their father (Shapiio and Dahefrky) Figure 2. lewirh.American parent-child violence

c u l t u r a l Ccrsistency

Page 79

S i m i l a r l y . Z u k l s s t u d y o f 300 J e v i s h f a m i l i e s ( 1 9 7 8 ) d a s t r o r g c u r r e n t of e g a l i t a r i a n i s m running through s h families. p a r t i c u l a r l y i n more a s s i m i l a t e d , l e s s O ~ O X ones. T h i s f e e l i n g , combined w i t h t h s c h a n n e l i n g ggressien i n t o verbal rather than physical expression, s t o " t h e high l e v e l o f b i c k e r i n g t h a t o c c u r s between and a n d w i f e , between p a r e n t s a n d c h i l d r e n . a n d b e t w e e r Teasicg, s a r c a s m and r i d i c u l e = r e r e q u l a r l y o v ~ db r D.a r e n t s t o set limits o n c h i l d r e l ' s b e h a v i o r . " Eternally ln competltion. the Jewlsh f s m l l y 1s a aerltocracy.

....

Thus. lt is p o s s l b l e t h a t f r r q u e n t c c n f l r c t may b e a c h a r a c t e r l s t l c of J e w l s h f a m r l l e s . I f t h a t is t h e case, t h e f r e q u e n c y o f c c n f l i c t may b e a s l g n t h a t &wish f a m l l r e s a r e very stable. when c l o s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by frequent Conflicts rather than by the a c c u m u l a t i o n of h e s t i l e and a m b i v a l e n t f e e l i n g s , we may b e j n s t i f i e d , g i v e n t h a t s u c h c o n f l i c ? ~ a r e n o t l i k e l y t o concern b a s i c consensus, i n t a k i n g t h e s e f r e g o e n t c o n f l i c t s a s an i n d e x of t h e s t a b i l i x y o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s (Coslr. 1956:SS).

The f o l l o w i n g p r c p c s i t i o n c a n above discussion:

be

developed

from

the

2. The g r e a t e r t h e e m p h a s i s o n a r t i c u l a t e n e s s , argumentativeness. and parent-chill bargaining. t h e g r e a t e r t h e chacce that c o n f l i c t s r i l l be r e s o l v e d t h r o u g h d i s c u s s i o n r a + h e r t h a n v i o l s 3 l cr c o e r c i v e a c t i o n .

Pically, the basis of a cultural-consistency analysis c a n b e s h o v n by c o m b i n i n g p r o p o s i t i o n s 1 a r d 2 t o p r ? s e n t o n e r e l a t i o n s h i p between a b a s i c f a m i l y norm a n d t h e a c t u a l use of violent o r nonviolent action t o resolve a conflict. 3. The g r e a t e r t h e e x t e n t t h a t knowledge is stressed,

t h e p u r s u i t of a n d d e b e t e and c o n f l i c t a r e regarded a s legitimate, the g r e a t e r t h e c h a n c e t h a t c o n f l i c t s w i l l be resolved through discussion rather than violent o r coercive action.

Ch. 5.

C u l t u r a l Consistency

Page 80

CONCLOSIOA I n t h i s c h a p t e r we h a v e a t t e m p t e d t o c o n s t r u c t a c u l t u r a l - c o n s i s t e n c y t h e o r y of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . This theory i s b a s e d on t h e i d e a t h e t c u l t u r a l v a l u e s h a v i n g Po m s n i f s s t r e f e r e n c e t o v i o l e n c e a c t e i t h e r t o i n c r e a s e o r t o h o l d down t h e a c t u a l l e v e l of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ir c s r t a i n e t h n i c groups. V a l u e s a n d n o r m s w e r e l i n k e d t o g e t h e r , and t h e Corms were ;n t u r n l i n k e d t o t h e a c t o a l l e v e l o f v i o l e c c e i n a n e t h n i c group. The p e r p e t u a t i o n o f t h e u s e o f v i a l e n c e f r o m g e n e r a t l o c t o g e n e r a t i o r was a l s o examined. The flexican-American a n d J e v i s h - a a e r i c a n e t h n i c g r o u p s w e r e used t o i l l u s t r a t e t h i s t h e o r y . A h i g h e r l a v e 1 of family violence was assumed to bf present in n~xican-American than i n Jewish-lmerican fsnilies. The h i g h e r l e v e l o f v i o l e n c e i n Mexican-American f a m i l i e s was proposed t o be a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e v a l u e s of s e v e r e male dominance, s t r i c t d i s c i p l i n e . a n d s u b m i s s i o n t o t t e f i t h e r . s e v e r e a n d d i s t a n t f a t h e r - s o n r e l a t i o n s were s e e n t o b e t h s r e s u l t of t h e s e v a l u e s , l e a d i n g t o f e a r o f t h e f a t h e r , poor ccmmunicatiol, and a r e s u l t i n g h i g h l e v e l of p a r e n t - c h i l d violence. Perpetuation of t h i s s u b c u l t u r e i s accomplished t h r o u g h t h e d e s i r e f o r boys t o b e l i k e t h s i r f a t h e r s even though t h e y f e a r then, ard because a c h i l d turned a d u l t t r e a t s h i s w i f e a n d c h i l d r e n t h e same way h i s f a t h e r t r e a t e d h i s family. Modifications i n t h e formal normative s t r u c t u r e of lerican-American f am:lies challnnging the h u s b a n d - f a t h e r ' s f o r m a l a u t h o r r t y v e r e n o t e d and s e e n a s p o s s i b l y i n c r e a s i n g f a m i l y v i o l e n c e , a t 1 ~ 2 s tLn t h e s h o r t run. V a l u e s o f t h e J e w i s h e t h n i c g r o u p a l s o were examined i n this theoretical framevork. The b a s i c f a m z l y v = l u e s emphasized v e r e t h e p u r s u i t of krowlsdga and t h e u s e cf t h e mind r a t h e r t h a n t h e body. The v a l u e o f i n t e l l e c t u e l i t y r e s u l t i n g from t h e s e v a l u e s was p r o p o s e a t 3 l e a d f o t h e favoring of articulateness. argumertstiveness, and b a r g a i n i n g a s a way t o s o l v e f a m i l y a i s p u t e s . Thus, d e b a t e a n d r a t p h y s i c a l c o e r c i o n i s u s e d a n d t h e r e i s less f a m i l y violence. V a l u e s a r e p e r p e t u a t e d i n t h a t boys p e r c e i v e themselves a s l i k e t h e i r f a t h e r s . F i n a l l y . a s n o t e d ir C h a p t e r 1, t h e c o n c l u s i o n s o f t h i s chapter, l i k e t h e conclusions of the other t h e o r e t i c a l chapters. a r e n o t put forward a s e s t a b l i s h e d f a c t s . Rather. t h e y a r e intended a s s t i m u l i a r d hypotheses f o r empirical research.

ch.5-

Cultural Corsistency

Pege 8 1 NOTES

*A r e v i s i o n o f a p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e a m o a l m e e t i n g o f t h e N a t i o n a l C o u n c i l o n F a m i l y R e l a t i o n s . August 20-23, 1915. The p r e p a r a t i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r v a s s u p p o r t e d bp A a t i o n a l I n s t i t u t e o f m e n t a l R e a l t h g r a n t number 13050. i would l i k e t o t h a n k Professor Dorothy Pinnegan of Colby-Sawyer C o l l e g e f c r many h e l p f u l s o g g e s t i o n s and c o n m e n t s t h r o u g h t h e d e v e l a p m e n t of t h i s paper.

1. A n o t h e r s o u r c e o f p e r p e t u a t i o n c o u l d b e f e s a b a c k processes t h a t occur i r t h e proposed c a u s a l c h a i n b e i v e e r broad f a m i l y v a l u e s n o t r e l a t e d t o v i o l e c c a , norms o f violence, and t h e a c t u a l u s e o f violence. The u s e o f violence t o control a situation, resulting i n the label of violence. m i g h t s t r e n g t h e n t h e norm of v i o l e n c e t h r o u g h a self-fulfilling prophecy. in fact, the perceived e f f e c t i v e n e s s o f a norm o f v i o l e n c e o r n o n v i o l e n c e m i g h t e v e n s t r e n g t h e n t h e more b a s i c v a l u e from v h i c h t h e v i o l e n t I!! o t h e r words, i f t h e o r n c n v i o l e n t norm h a s c r i g i n a t e d . norm o f v i o l e n c e o r n o n v i o l e c c e i s a l e f f e c t i v e means o f c o n t r o l . t h e n t h e v a y o f l i f e t h a t s a n c t i o n s t h i s norm would be f u r t h e r r e i n f o r c e d . 2 . The G r e b l e r e_t_ a_&: (19701 study of urban L l e x i c a n - A e e r i c a n s f o u n d t h a t t h e v a l u e p l a c e d on t h e man a s a u t h o r i t y f i g u r e v a r i e s by income l e v 2 1 a n d n e i p h b a r h o o d . Rowever, nearly tvo-thirds o f t h o s e v i t h medium o r l o w e r income l i v i n g i n a r e a s v i t h a high psrcentage of mexican-lmericans f e l t t h a t t h e hustand s h c u l d have complete c o n t r o l o v e r t h e f a m i l y income. This findirg suggests t h a t t h e v a l u e o f male a u t h o r i t y i s q u i t e s t r o n g i n e t h n i c enclaves.

3. I would l i k e t o t h a n k P r c f e s s o r A l f r e d 0 Mirande o f of C a l i f o r n i a , S i v e r s i d e , f o r b r i r g i n g t o mg + h e Universi:y a t t e n t i o n a v i e w o f t h e Mexican-American f a r i l y which d i f f e r s f r o m t h e view which i s more p r e v a l e n t i n t h e literature. T h i s view implies that K~xizan-Rmrrican f a m i l i e s would h a v e a l o v e r d e g r e e of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e t h a n is suggested i n t h i s a r t i c l e .

4. E r l a z g e r ( 1 9 7 9 ) . i n a r e v i e w of s t u d i e s Examining t h e r e l a t i o n betweer s o c i a l c l a s s acd f a m i l y v i o l e n c e , r s p o r t e d d i f f e r e n c e s betveaa s o c i a l c l a s s e s , with physical p u n i s h m e n t i n c r e a s i n g a s o n e g o e s down t h e s t s t o s l a d a e r . HOveVer, t h e d i f f s r e n c e s z r s n o t a s l a r g e a s many would

Part 111 Social Organization and Family Violence

Important a s a r e t h e c u l t u r a l horns t h a make it l e g l c i m a t e f o r f a m i l y members t o u s p h y s i c a l f o r c e on e a c h o t h e r . t h s y do n o t f u l l e x p l a i n family violence. F i r s t , t h e s e norms z r y=gi$&b g u i d e l i n e s more f o r culturally a c t i o n s t h a n f o r c o l t u r a l l y rs&=$$ a c t i o n s So t h e q u e s t i o n r e s a i n s a s t o why sow* f s a i l i e do a n d o t h e r s do n o t e n g a g e i n s u c h p e r m i s s i b l W e must a l s o e x a m i n e how o r why norm violence. legitimizing violence within t h e f a n i l y ca i n t o being, a n d why s u c h norms c o c t i n u e exist. A s With most a s p e c t s o f s o c i e t y , r o s i n g 1 f a c t o r p r o v i d e s t h e answer t o t h e s e questions. R a t h e r a complex i n t e r w e a v i n g of f a c t o r s e x i s t s t h a t ve a r e j u s t beginning t o unravel. X3verer. Even a t t h i s e a r l y s t a g e i n t h e s c i e n t i f i c s t u d y o f f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . i t is c l e a r t h a t nzny o f t h e t h r e a d s making up t h e f a b r i c o f v i o l e n c e i n t h e family a r e t h o s e i d e n t i f i e d i n Chapter 1 a s 9 r.umbfr oE s o c i a l Organizational factors. t h e s e w e r e b r i e f l y d i s c u s s e d a; t h a t c h a p t e r . for example, the involuntary nature of aembership i n e f a a i l y , t h e p r i v a c y of t h e f a m i l y a s a s o c i a l i n s t i + u t i o a , a l d assignment. Of r o l e s w i t h i n t h e E a s i l y by a g e a n d s e x r a t h e r t h a n by i n t e r e s t o r competence.

The c h a p t e r s i n P a r t 111 t r e a t some of t h e s e s o c i a l O r g a n i z a t i o c a l f a c t o r s i n aetail, i n d i c a t i n g t h e t y p e s of s o c i a l arrangements t h a t g i v e rise t o s i t u a t i o n s i n which p e o p l e f E n a t a r e s o r t t o t h e use of violence. Sioce thesi a r r a n g e s e n t s a r e r e g u l a r i t i e s of s o c i a l l i f e . most o f which h a v e been p a r t o f :he s t r u c t u r e of t h e human f a m i l y f o r p e r h a p s t h o u s a n d s 3f y e a r s , we c a n s p e c u l a + e t h a t t h e y a r e a l s o a t t h e r o o t o f t h e persistence o f n o r m s t h a t p e r m i t v i o l e r c s i n t h e family. C u l t u r a l norms t e n d t o e v o l v e i n a vag that reflects, regularizas, and l e g i t i a i z e s t h e t y p i c a l b e h a v i o r of members of a society. I n s h o r f , as was n o t e d i n C h a p t e r 1, c u l t u r e and s o c i a l o r g a n i z a t i o n a r e t v s f a c e t s Even s o , t h e y a r e f a r f r o s of a single reality. h a r l n g a f i x e d and immutable r e l a t i o n s h i p t o each other. The e m e r g e n t n a t u r e o f a l l homar life dictates that cul5ure and social o r g a n i z a t i o n w i l l c o n s t a n t l y g e t o u t of Lins

Page 85 y ~ t he a c h o t h e r , w i t h a resulting restore the synchronizat~on.

pressure

tc

The c h a p t e r s i n P a r ? 111 h a s 3 a t l e a s t f o u r t h i n g s i n common. F i r s t , t h e y s h a r e what c o u l d be called an emphasis on structural ~ o n d u c i ~ e n e s s . Each c h a p t e r s e e k s t o e x p l a i n t h e high r a t e of c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c e i n t h e family by f o c u s i n g on some z s p e c t o f t h 2 s t r u c t n r e of r e l a t i o n s between f a m i l y n e n b s r s and on how t h e n a t u r e o f t h e s e r e l a t i o n s h i p s c o n t r i b u t e s t o o r dampens v i o l e n c e . Secocd. e a c h c f t h e a u t h o r s , 5n h i s Jr h e r own way. highlights the irony t h a t th? o r g a n i z a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of family l i f e c r e a t e s c o n d i t i o n s f o r warmth a n d i n t i m a c y a s w e l l a s f o r c o n f l i c t and violecce. T h i r d . t h e s e c h a p t e r s d o n o t p r e s e n t nau data, b u t i n s t e a d summarize and e x t e n d a l a r g e number of e x i s t i n g empirical studies ana t h e o r e t i c a l arguments. T h ~ yo r g a n i z e and make d e d u c t i m s from e x i s t i n g t h e c r y a n d r s s e a r c h on v i o l e n c e and f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . Nct t h a t they f e e l c o l l e c t i n g new d a t a i s u n n e c e s s a r p , but o r g a n i z i c g a n d i c t e r p r e t i n g . from a s c c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e , what i s a l r e a d y kcown a b c u t f a m i l y v i o l e n c e c a n g i v e new i n s i g h t s a n d a s o u n d e r b a s i s f o r f u t u r e empirical research. L a s t , p o s s l b l y t h e m c s t z m p o z t a n t a s p e c t of t h e f o r m a t of t k e c h a p t s r s i n P a r t 111 i s t h e i r exlmtra+.iar o t . ways in which Eccial sarrables ere :n-errelated. Po: uc-il r ? u z d e r s T a r C hou a nanbDr c r r - l e s 2 n ' sariehlc; f i t t o g e t h e r , e x p l a n a t i o n s of f a m i l y c o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c e v F l l b e i n c o m p l e t e .

Chapter 6

Sexual Inequality and Wife Bea Murray A. Straus . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

T h i s c h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s a major a s p e c t o t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e u n d e r p i n n i n g husband-wif violence: t h e s e x i s t o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e f a m i l It a r g u e s t h a and t h e s o c i e t y i n g e n e r a l . sexism produces v i o l e n c e because men us v i o l e n c e t o m a r n t a i n t h e i r p o s i t i o n a s "head of t h e household." n o r e i s involved i n sexism than t h e " r i g h t n t o b e t h e h e a d o f t h r f a a i l y as s u p p o r t e d by c u l t u r a l v a l u e s end beliefs; sexism is also g r o u n d e d in i ~ s t i t u t i o n a l a r r a n g e m e n t s - - s u c h a s t h e e x p e c t a t i o n t h a t men w i l l m a r r y y c u n g s r wonen a n d t h e s e g r e g a t e d l a b o r m a r k e t i x v b i c h women's j o b s a r e l p s s w e l l A paid--that maKe male dominance a r e a l i t y . society, o r groups within a society, may f a v o r equalitarian relationships, but u n l e s s these n o t i o n s g o beyond b e l i e f s a n d become r s f l e c t e a i n s o c i e t a l arrangements, t h e d o m i n a t i o n of women by men i s bound t o c o n t i n u e . Ban7 cf t h e i s s u e s examined i n t h i s c h a p t e r c r o p up a g a i n and a g a i n t h r o u g h o u t t.he vclume. These i s s u e s a r e c r i t i c a l i n t h e d i s c u s s i o n of practical steps to r e d u c e and e v e n t u a l l y eliminate husband-wife violence, a thrm? e x a m i n e d f u l l y i n C h a p t e r 13.

T h i s C h a p t e r d e s c r i b e s some o f t h e ways i n which r h male-dominant p a v e r s t r u c t u r e of t h e f a m i l y g i v e s r i s e t violence. T h i s i m p l i e s t h a t , a s o u r s o c i e t y msv?s t o v s r a nore e g a l i t a r i a n family system, both t h e a c t u a l l e v e l s o v i o l e n c e a n d t h e norms i m p l i c i t l y p e r m i t t f n g s u c h v i 3 l = n c s w i l l decline. Al'hougb t h i s decrease is t h e l i k e 1 l o w - t e r m outcome, i t is f a r f r o m a c e r t a i n t y . First. man c t h e r f a c t o r s a f f e c t t h e l e v e l of v i o l e n c e i n t h e f a m i l

- -

1.- D e f e n s e cf B a l e P . u t h 0 1 i t ~ . I r t h e c>nL.DxL of a n vidualistically oriented urban-industrial society, the r l p t i o n of s u p e r i o r a u t h o r i t y t o husbands i s a p o t e E t CE p r o d u c i n g p h y s i c a l a t t a c k s on wives. I n such a i e t y , m a l e - s u p e r i o r i t y norms a r e n o t c l e a r l y u n d e r s t o o d a r e i n t h e p r o c e s s o f t r a r e i + i c n , and t h e pz=sgs~;:Qe if e s u p e r i o r i t y anst be v a l i d z t e 4 by supprior 'r~sources" h a s v a l u e d p f r s o n a l t r a l t s and m a t e r i a l gools and v l c o s (Eodman, 1972). If e v e r y nan wsrs, i n f a c t . D e r i o r t o h i s w i f e i n s u c h r e s o u r c e s 3s i n t e l l i s e n c e . .owledge, o c c u p a t i o n a l p r e s t i g e . and income, t h e r e would b e c o n c o r d a n c e between t h e a u t h o r i t y a s c r i b s d a n 3 t h e d i v i d u a l a c h i e v e m e n t s e x ~ o c t e dt o acconDanP. t h a t a u t h o r i t v ach:evement-oriented societies. clelrly, such p 9 r i c r i t y i s n o t z l w a y s t h e case, d S s p i t E t h e s o c i e t a l r u o t u r e t h a t g i v e s men t r e m e n d o h s a d v a n t a g e s i n a c c e s s t o €58 t r a i t s a n d r e s o u r c e s . Consequently, many men f e e l n o s t c o m p e l l e d t o f a l l back on t h o "ul+.ima?a r e s o u r c e * * o f y s i c a l f o r c e t o P a i n t a i n t h e i r s u p e r i o r p c s i t i o n (Goode. 71; S e r a u s , 1974b:bb-57). P g r a p h i c i l l u s t r a t i c i ! of j u s t i s p r o c e s s i s t h e c a s e of J o e a n d J e n n i f e r r e p o r t s d Rossa (Chapter 10). B l l e c and S t r a u s g i r e s t ~ t i s t i cb?a , i d e n c e i n C h a p t e r 12.

.

-- ---

2. Com&a:p n a s c u l i n i t ~ . T a l c o t t P a r s o n s (1997) has Zrgued t h a t i n modern i n d u s t r i a l s o c i e t i e s , t h e s ~ p 3 r z t i o n o f t h e m a l e o c c u p a 2 i o n a l r o l e from t h e f a m i l y and ?he predominance of t h e mother i n c h i l d r e a r i n g c r e c t e s a f u n d a m e n t a l d i f f i c u l t y f o r men i n r e s p p c t t o a c h i e v i n g a masculine s e x u a l i d e n t i t y :

Ch.6.

s e x u a l Inequali'y The b c p h a s a t e n d e n c y t o f c r a a d i r s c t e m i n i n e i d e n t L f i c a t i o n . s i c c e h i s mother is t h model most r e a d i l y a v a i l a b l e a n d s i g n i f i c a n t h i But h e i s n o t d e s t i n e d t o become a n a d u woman. n o r e o v s r he soon d i s c o v e r s t h a t c e r t a i n v i t a l r e s p e c t s Women a r e c o n s i d e r a i n f e r i o r t o mer. t h a t i t would h e n c e b s shamefu f o r him t o grow up t o b e l i k e a "omin. Rex when b o y s e m e r g e i n % o what F r e u d i a n s c a l l t "latency period," t h e i r b e h a v i o r t e n d s to be marked by a k i n d of cog~gllpg $s;q&&&te h q g r e s s i o n t o w a r d women vho " a f t e r a l l a r e blamc," i s a n e s s e r t i a l c o n c o m i t a n t (p.305).

l l t h o u g h P a z s o n s ' e m p h a s i s i s on t h e p a r t i c u l a r constellation just described a s p a r t i a l explanatior I g s n e r a L l y b i g h l e v e l o f m a l e a g g r e s s i v e n e s s i? HsOCie?les. it a l s o seems l L k e l y t o be p a r t of t h e t h a t s o much male a g g r e s s i v e n e s s i s d i r o c t a d a g a i r s t wives i n p a r t i c u l a r . S i m i l a r l y , Parsons' analy shows t h e o r i g i n s of f e m a l e a g g r e s s i v e perticular structure of the family i n i n d u s t r i a l s c much o f t h i s a g g r e s s i v e n e s s is f o c u s e d s p e c i f i c a l l y aq men, e s p e c i a l l y h u s b a n d s . a s t h e a g e n t s o f women's r e p r e p o s i t i o n i n s o c i e t y . * 2 T h i s c l i m a t e if m n l u a l a r t a g n b c t v s e n t h e s e x e s p r o v i d e s a c o l t e x t :hi? is not o c o n d u c i v e t o a t t a c k s by h u s b a ~ d so n u i r s s b u t p r o b a b l y u n d e r l i e s a number o f o t h e r r e l a t e d pheriomeaa, s n c h a g r o w i n g e v i d e n c e t h a t i n mar7 i n s r e n c e s , " r a p e is a p, trip, n o t a passion t r i p D (Eezt, 1?75:40: Borgzss Aolmstrom. 1 9 7 4 1 . l o r e o v e r . a s i n t h e t y p i c a l homose tape in prisons (Davis. 1910). t h e degradatior humiliation of t h e victim is o f t e n a e a j o r mstivating f o r

3- Economic C o ~ s t r a i r t s, ? a g i s c r i m i n a t i Q Q . Thp ss ecO?.omic a n d o c c u p a t i o n a l s t r u c t u r e of s o c i e t y a l l o w s u few a l t e r n a t i v e s . Tbe j o b s o p e n t o women i r e 1 3 u e r s t a t u s and. d e s p i t e a n t i d i s c r i m i n a t i o n l e g i s l a t i o n . vo c o n t i n u e t o e a r n l e s s t h a n men i n t h e same o c c u p a t f o W i t h o u t a c c e s s t o good j o b s , women a r e d e p f n d e n t c n t h husbands. I f a divorce takes place, almas? a l l hnsban d e f a u l t c?. s u p p o r t p a y m e n t s a f t e r a s h 3 r t t i m e , ev a s s u m i n g t h e y c o u l d a f f o r d thsm i n t h e f i r s t plac C o r s e q u e n t l y , many women c o n t i n u e t o e n d u r e p h y s i c a l a t t a c trom t h e i r h u s b a p d b e c a u s e t h e a l t e r n a t i v e t n d i v s r c e pcverty (Gelles, 1976).

children, b u t a t t h e same time s o c i e t y e o s s r o t p r o r e l t h e r economic recompense f o r h e r doing s o , o r c h i l a c a r C e n t p r s t h a t t a k e o v e r p a r t o f t h e b u r d e n s3 t h a t s h e c a e a r n ecough t o support her children. Occupations d i s c r i m i n a t i o n , l a c k of c h i l d - c a r e f a c i l i t i s s , i n a d s q u a t

p o r t from e i t h e r t h e aovernmsnt o r t h e f a t h e r - - a l l omm i n t o r e m a i r i n g m a r r i e d e v e n whec t h e y a r e t h e f violence.

fir$&or

i&g S W e - ? a r € n t FEpppla. A n o t h e r of t h e norms t h a t h e l p s t o m a i n t a i n t h e s u b o r d i n a t i o n o f t h e i d ? a t h a t c h i l d r e r c a r r o t be a d s q u a t s l y b r o u g h t e parent. Thus, i f a woman i s t o h a v e c h i l d r e n , s h e o h a v e a man. TO t h e l i m i t e d e x t s n t t h a t research s u p p o r t s t h i s view. t h e s i t u a t i o n comes a b o u t o n l y of t h e c o n f o u n d i n g o f p o v e r t y a c d s o c i a l o s t r i c i s n n g l e parenthood. B l t h o u g h i t seems l i k e l y t h a t i f r e s s u r e a n d c o n s t r a i n t s w e r e removed, most women want t o l i v e w i t h a man, a n i m p o r t a r t n i n o r i t y d o e s nd l i v e s , i~ e f f e c t , in a state of fcrced ation. Thus. innumerable and. under present ons, u n n e c e s s a r y s o c i a l and a c o x o a i c c o n s t r a i n t s t h e s i c g l e - p a r e n t f a m i l y from b s i n g a v i a b l e s o c i a l a nd f o r c e s n a r y women t o a c c e p t o r c c n t i n u e Pate, StrSSSfnl relationship. 1. E p s ~ a g c e of ~ j f g rg= Xpggp. undsr t h e - t s y s t e m , b e i n g a w i f e a r d m o t h e r i s t h e most r t a n t s i n g l e r o l e f o r a woman. IndEed, Emerican u r a l n o r a s a r e s u c h t h a t o n e CEnfor b e i f u l l voman ss m a r r i e d . E mar, O R t h e o t h e r hand, h c s t b p o p t i o n o f s t i n g much o r l i t t l e o f h i m s e l f i n t h e h u s b a n d - f a t h e r d e p e n d i n g o n h i s i n t e r e s t , a b l l i t y , a r d c:zcumst.arces. S h o r t , *he s t i g m a of b e i n g a d i v o r c e d aaz i s s a a l l a r e d w i t h t h a t o f b e i n g a d i v o r c e d womac--to whlcn a cia1 term, with o v e r t o n e s of immorality, ha5 been ached: divorcee. T h i s f o r c e d d e p e n d e n c e on t h e w i f e E a s t h e basis f o r a respected positior i r society aakes d i f f i c u l t f o r a womal t o r s f u s f t o t o l e r a t e m i l e v i c l e n c e d end t h e marriage.

7 . A e g a + j x Self-Image. Wnder t h e p r e s e n t social rncture, women t e n d t o d e v e l o p n e g a t i r ~ s e l f - i m a g e s , p e c i a l l y i n r e l a t i o n t o t h e c r u c i a l t r a i t of a c h i s s e s e n t orner, 1972: Truxisger. 1971:260). A s a conraquence, -clings o f g u i l t a r d masochism d e v e l o p , which p a r m i t women 0 t o l e r a t e male a g g r e s s i o n a c d v i o l e n c e a n d , i n some x t r e m e c a s e s , t o s e e k it. P u l l s e x u a l e q u a l i t y would l i m i n a t e t h i s a s a s e x u a l l y s t r u c t u r e d p a t t e r n of bshavior. v e n t h o u g h i t may r e m a i r o r a n individual-to-indisiaual asis. Only 2 de-emphasis on i n d i v i d u a l c o m p e t i t i v e ChiovBment w i l l f n l l y e l i m i n a t e t h i s problem.

--

8. Women a s C h i l d r e n . The c o n c e p t i o n o f women a s t h e r o p e r t y o f men i s n o l o n g e r p a r t o f t h e l e g a l s y s t e m o f ndustrial countries. Aowever, Elements of t h i s o u t l o o k l i n g e r i n t h e f o l k c u l t u r c and a l s o s u r v i v e i n c e r t a i n a s p e c t s o f + h e l a w , s u c h a s i n 'he s t a t o t e s t h a t d e c l a r e t h e h u s b a n d t h e h e a d o f t h e b o u s e h o u l d a n d g i v e him v l r i o u s r i g h t s o v e r h i s w i f e , l i k e t h e r i g h t t o c h o o s e t h f p l a c e of

Ch.6.

Sexual I n e q u a l i t y

a b o d e , t o which t h e w i f e must conform.*3 I n additio is t h e r e l a t e d c o c c e p t i c n o f women a s u c h i l d l i combination, these aspects of t h e saxist orgaciz S o c i e t y g i v e husbands a c o v e r t moral r i g h t t o use f o r c e OP t h e i r w i v e s a n d o g o u s t o t h e o v e r t l e g a l -p a r s n t s t o use p h y s l c a l f o r c e on t h e i r c h i l d r e n ( s e e G 1979:58).

9 , &l_e o r i e n t a t i o n sE $25 QhB:n_al ~nsticf Not o n l y i s much male v i o l e n c e a g a i n s t w i r e s a t t r i b u t a t h e s e x i s t organization o f s o c i e t y , but t h e f i n a l tnd i s t h a t t h € male-oriented o r g a n i z a t i o n of t h e c r j u s t i c e s y s t e m v i r t u a l l y g u a r a n t e 4 s t h a t few vcmaa u i able t o secure legal relief. To b e g i n v i t h , t h e l o n g i n o b t a i n i n g c o u r t o r d e r s and " p e a c e bondsmake u s e l e s s i n s e c u r i c g i m m e d i a t e r e l i e f f r o m t h e dan another assault. Even w i t h o u t . t h G s e d e l a y s . many cannot a t t e n d c o u r t because o f t h e l a c k of c h i 1 a r r a n g e m e n t s d u r i n g t h e l o n g h o u r s o f w a i t i n g f o r a ca Come UP Or because, zs O f t e P h a p p e z s , t h e c a s rescheduled. P-mong a t h e r i m p e d i m e n t s t o s e c u r i n ? p r o a g a i n s t a s s a u l t s by a h u s b a r d a = € + h o s e d s s c r i b e d s e c t i o n o f C h a p t e r 3 o r * ' L e g i t i m a t i o n of Rusban V i o l e n c e by t h e C o u r t s and P o l i c e " : i m m u r i l y from s u i f a i l u r e o f p o l i c e t o a c t a g a i n s t hUsSands, :hs " c o o l i n g by p o l i c e , p r o s e c u t i n g a t t c r r e y s , a n d j u d g e s o f wive a t t e m p t t o b r i n g c o m p l a i n t s , a n d t h e d e n i a l of c o a p s n s by p u b l i c c o m p e n s a t i o n r e v i e w b o a r d s . SEXUAL LIBERATION AWD TPE REDUCTION OF NRRITAL RSSRO A l r h o u g h Goode b e l i e v e s t h a t f o r c e o r i t s t h r e a t u l t i m a t e l y n e c e s s a r y f o r t h e e x i s t e n c a of s o c i e t y , h ~ c o n c e d e s t h a t *'...the amount o f f o r c e now a p p l i e a i n t h various a r e a s of family l i f e is not] e i t h e r necess o r d e s i r a b l e n (Gocde, 1971:92]. One of t h e ways i n uh t h e amount o f f c r c e [ n e c e s s a r y t o m a i n t a i n a v i a b l ~p a t t of f a m i l y l l f e ] c a n be r e d u c e d i s t o r e d u c e t h e d e g r e e i n e q u a l i t y found w i t h l c t h e family. C h i l d r e n ' s immatn i m p o s e s a l i m i t on t h e e x t e n t t o which t h e y c a n be g r e q u a l i t y v i t h t h e i r parents. But t h e p a r t i c u l a r e c o n o and physical conditinns t h a t may have justified s u b o r d i n e t e p o s i t i o n f o r women i n e a r l i e r p e r i o d s o f h i s t a r e C l e a r l y n o ' l c c g e r present.

...[

...

The g o a l s of t h e v o a e n l s movement a r e c e n t s ~ r d elimlnating each o f t h e violence-producing lnequit discussed i n t h i s chapter. S i n c e t h e s e f a c t o r s account t h e h i g b l e v e l o f p h y s i c a l a s s a u l t s on women by t h h u s b a n d s , a c h i e v e m e n t o f t h e g o a l s o f t h e f e m i n i s t movem i s t r e m e n d o u s l y i m p o r t a n t f o r a n y r e d u c t i o n of m a r i assault.

Pege 91 t h e process of advocating these fundamental 1 c h a n g e s t h e women's movement h a s mads v s r i o u s coctrihutions. F o r e x a m p l e , t h e i d e o l o g y of t h s movement i t s e l f e n c o u r a g e s women t3 r e s i s t a l l oppression. e s p e c i a l l y physical violence. Thsro n a n e x p l o s i v e growth of " b a t t e r e d - w i f e s h e l t e r s . " g i n E n g l a n d a b o u t 1972 and i n t h e n n i t e a S'ates 1975. T h e s e p r o v i d e imoedia'e physical escape, a r l y f o r t h o s e w i t h young c h i l d r e n who night e h a v e x o a l t e r n a t i v e t o b e i n g v i c t i m i z + d by t h e i r vomen's movement h a s b e e n p e r c e p t i v e i n r e c o g n i z i n g p e r i o r m a l e p h y s i c a l s t r e n g t h and s k i l l a r e i m p o r t a n t f t h e p r o c e s s b y which m a l e dominance i s a a i n t a i n a d . r e c o g n i t i o r p e r t l y a c c o u n t s f o r t h e emphasis on k a r a t e her self-defensive training. Enwover, i t i s u c l i k e l y karats w i l l , i n fact, p r o t e c t womeo f r c m a s s a u l t , e t h a n t h e a b i l i t y t o r e s p o n d p h y s i c a l l y p r o t e c t s men a s s a u l t by o t h e r men. Boreover. t h e k a r a t e approach u t i o n a l t z e s t h e r o l e of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i r s o c i a l c t i o n and h e n c e i n c r r a s z s t h e l i k e l l h o o a o f f u r t h e r ce. Ieverthelsss, the ehphasis on physical ~ f e n s e t r a i n i r g i s an important s p u & s t e p towards e n t o a l e l i m i n a t i o n o f v i o l e n t rsp:essiDn of rsaen. h i s e v e n ? u a l i t y w i l l Only Clme a b o a t i f t h e more e n f a l p r o b l e m s o f s e x u a l i n s q u a l i t y c a r be 0v;:coms. ately, e m p h a s i s h a s s h i f t e d from t r a i n i n g i n t h e u s 9 s i c a l force t o t r a i r i n g i n "assertiveness," which i s o r t a n t S t e p i n t h e d i r e c t i o n of s e x u a l e q u a l i t y . * u Bevsrtheless, t h e d i f f i c u l t i e s of t h e period of s i t i o n cannot be overlooksd. The l o n u - r u n c o n s e q u e n c e s a more e q u a l i t a r i a n s o c i e t y may b e t 3 l e s s s ~ t h e uency w i t h which w i v e s a r e v i c t i m s o f a s s a u l t by b z ~ . d s . E u t , w e s u g g e s t e d e a r l i e r ( s e e a l s o Kolb and a u s , 1974: W h i t e h u r s t , 197U). t h e & & ~ ~ = ECYo n~s e q n e n c e s y b e t h e o p p o s i t e , b e c a u s e a s i z a b l e number of mec w i l l e a s i l y g i v e up t h e i r sex-stereotyped roles. A 1 1 three t e r s i n P a r t IT document t h i s i n d i f f e r e n t ways: a case of a s p e c i f i c couple, l o g i c a l deduction, and s t i c a l d a t a on a l a r g e s a m p l e o f c a u p l e s . Like a d i t i o n a l l y o r i e n t e d women, men a r e c o c d i t i o n e d by t h e i r l r u r e t o p e r c e i v e o n l y t h e p r e r o g a t i v ? s and a d v a n t a g e s of e t r a d i t i o n a l male r o l e , a n d t o i g n o r e i t s b u ~ d e n r , s t r a i n t s , 2nd disedv3ntages. Thus, a l e s s v i o l e n t w o r l d d l e s s v i ~ l e n c e i n t h 4 f z m i l y r e q u i r e men's a s w a l l a s men's l i b e r a t i o n . Ocfortunately, p r o g r e s s t o w a r d s e x u a l e q u a l i t y end reedom f r o m s e x u a l l y s t e r e o t y p e d r o l e s h a s r o t b a s n a s g r e a t a s seemed p o s s i b l e i n t h e e a r l y 1 9 7 0 s . R t present (1978-74). t h e r e is even c o n s i d e r a b l e d o u b t t h a t t h ? F q u a l B s t a t e - h y - s t a t e t a l l y by the R i g h t s Bmendaent w i l l p a s s . I n t e r n a t i o n a l Women's Year Commission f o u n d t h a t s t a t - l a v s

Ch.6.

Sexual I n e q u a l i t y

(which g o v s r n most d o m e s t i c m a t t e r s ) c o n t i n u e t o g i s u b s t a n t i a l l y fewer z i q h t s t h a n t h e i r husbands i n r i n h e r i t a n c e , divorc5, p r o p e r t y ownership, domestic and a d u l t e r y ( u n i t e d P r e s s , O c t o b e r 30. 7 9 7 7 ) . Kan show t h a t t r a d i t i o n e l s e x r o l e s r e m a i r e n t r e n c h among t h e ycung. F o r example, a survey o f 1 7 - p a r t h e Wational Bssessment o f E a u c a t i o r a l P r o g r s s e foun n n l y h a l f o f t h i s a g e g r o u p t h i n k s a l l women s h o u l d b t o p u r s u e careqrs O u t s i d s t h e h o n e (Be* F o r k T i r n s s , 2 1977: 826: see a l s o R e i n h o l d . 1 9 7 7 ) . 8.5 a r e c e n t c o e m e n t a r o r p u t it: "Scrakch alm3s man, and y o u ' l l f i n d w i s t f u l memories nf h i s a o f h e r a s o c k s and c o o k i n g Sunday lunch...." (Prarckn. 1977; a l s o Stapp and Pines. 1976). The d e t l i l s v a r y , of c o with t h e s e t t i n g and t h e socioeconomic l e v e l , but t h e o f m a l e s u p e r i o r i t y r e e a i r s t h e same. I n t h a t same a r P z a n c k e t e l l s abou' a f r i e r d :

...

who h a s made a name for herself i e d u c a t i o n a l f i l m s i n new Ycrk, had a i c n e r i n LJ Anqeles r e c e n t l y with a n o t h e r o l d f r i e n d . uh h a s made a much b i g g e r n a n s f o r h i m s e l f i n televisior. S e t t l i n g down over late-night brandies, s h e was s t u n n e d vhsn h e t u r n e d t o h e r I can't imagine being andsaid, V c u krow, m a r r i e d t o you. I d p a n i c 2nd run." "Why?" S a l l y askea, h u r t t h a t F h e i r f r i - ~ d s h i o vhich m v e r e v e n t o u c h e d on t h e s u b j e c t of had m a r r i a a e . seemed s u d d r n l v f l a w e d . "You're 1 star," he s a i d . But. S a l l y p o i n t e d o u t , h l was t h e o n e g e t t i n g q u c t e d i n T i n e a n d B e v s r e e k and was p r o b a b l y e a r r i n g $100,000 a year t o her 820,000. "Eaybe so." he s a i d d e c l a r a t i v ~ l y . " b u t u n d e r n e a t h !t a l l I think you're smarter t h a n I am."

-.

what l u r k i n g t e r r o r s p o s s e s s men when t h e i r womln a c h i e v e s u c c e s s on t h e i r own? Ths t r u t h o f t h e m a t t e r is, t h a t i n s p i t e o f V i r g i n i a slims, ve h a v e n ' t come s u c h a l o n g r a y . b a b i e s ( P r a n c k e , 1977:uU).

xual Inequality

Page 9 3

T h e r e a r e , of c o u r s e , many o t h e r f a c t o r s which te t o t h e e x i s t e n c e a n d m a i r t e n a n c s 5f norms ng i n t r a f a a i l y v i o l e n c e . Owens a d S t r s u s ( 7 9 7 5 ) , ample, p r e s e n t d a t a on t h e c o r r e l a t i o r o f c h i l d h o o d n c e s of v i c l e n c e ( i n c l u d i n g v i c t i m i z a t i o n ) with ence a t t i t u d e s and velues. See a l s s t h e d i s c o s s i a c e i n f l u e n c e of s o c i e l y ' s p o s i t i v e Evaloation of E i n C h a p t e r Y; ar.d i n S t r a u s . 1979a. 19146.

.

S e e w h i t i n g (1965:137) a r d t h e d i s c u s s i o r . of " t h e fs: o t h e r y t h " =a S t s i n a e t z a c d S t r a u s (1979:lO-13) n which t h e p a t t e r n o f m a l e - f e m a l e r e l a t i o n s h i p s b u i l t t h e s o c i e t y h e l p s t o c r e a t e antagonism bEtw~Enr h e and h e n c e s t r e c g t h e n s tho associatiJn between y and v i o l e n c e .

. It

i s p e r t i n e n t t h a t . EvEn i n a s t a t e known f o r i t s a n d f a m i l i a l e x p e r i m e n t a t i o n , a s r e c e n t l y a s 1971, l i f o r n i a S t a t e B a r I s s o c i a t i a n v o t e d ~ p tt o r e p e a l e g i s l a t i o n ( T r u c i n g e r , 1971:216). 4. The combir.ation of sexual equality, ffaals rtiveness, a n d s e x u a l l i b e f a t i c r mioh' a l s o c o n t r i b u t e educing rape. I f women w e r e t o e s c a p e t h e c u l t u r a l l y s o t y p e d r o l e o f d i s i n t e r e s t i n a n d r e s i s t a r c * 3' s e x . were t o t a k e o n a n z s s e r t i v e r o l e i n e x p r - s s i n a + h e i r sexuality. r a t h e r t h a r . l e a ~ l n gs u c h s x p r a s s i o n t c t h s e r t i v e n e s s o f men, womsn's L E V s t a t u s m i g ? t c s n t r i b u t a t o r e d u c t i c r i n r a p e i n s e v e r a l nays. P x r s t , many r a p e s an i l l e g i t i m t e e x t e r s i o r . of s a n c t i o r e d t e c h r i q u ? s of e r c o m i n g " t h e c u l t u r a l l y p r e s c r i b e d r e s i s t a n c e of women EX ( K i r k p a t r i c k and Kanin. 1951). Seccnd. the u n d i n g o f SEX a n d a g g r e s s i o n t h a t i s b u i l t i n t o o u r r u r e c o u l d be r e d u c e d ( S t e i n m e t z a n d S t r a u s , 1974: 70-13). rd, t o t h e e x t e n t t h e t s h a r p l y d i f f e r e n t i a t e d sex r o l e s of "compulsive responsible for t h s , phenomena c u l i n i t y ' and s t r u c t u r e d a n t a g o n i s m b e t w e e n t h e s e x e s , e l i m i n a t i o n o f s e x u a l i n e q u a l i t y woold r e d u c e t h e Dumber "power t r i p " a n d " d e g r a d a t i o n c e r e m o n y l m o t i v a t e d r a p e s o v n m i l l e r , 1975).

Chapter 7

Stress and Family Violence Keith M.Fanington This c h a p t e r emphasizes t h e e f f e c t of f a m i l y s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s o n t h e amount Of S t r e s s e x p e r i e n c e d . Parricgton suggests t h a t compared w i t h most o t h e r g r o u p s , t h ? f a m i l y E x p e r i e n c e s more stress a n d may b ~ less c a p a b l s Of c o p i n g w i t h i t . The f a m i l y , b e c a u s e o f i t s u r i q u e s t r u c t u r e , e l s o may b e l e s s e f f i c i e r t i n d e a l i n g v i c h s t r ~ s s f n ls i t u ~ t i m s . It is interesting to contrast this s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e with t h e i m p l i c a t i o n s o f a "medical" model f o r t h e cortr31 of violence. "Curzngw v i o l e n c e t h r o u g h d r u g s snd s u r g e r y h a s a p o w e r f u l a p p e a l t o laymen a n a SciEntiSts alike. I f a day d o e s a r r i v e when it becomes r o u t i n e t o t a k e a p i l l when we f e e l t h s Urge t o k i c k a co-worker o r t h r s v a punch a t o u r mate, i n t r z f a m i l y v i o l e n c e w i l l p r o b a b l y s t i l l exist. I f t h e f a m i l y r u n s o u t of n o n a g g r e s s i o n p i l l s . o n e s p o u s e c o u l d blame t h e o t h e r f o r b e i n g l a x , and might f e e l j u s t i f i e d i n h i t t i n 3 t h e O t h e r s o t h a t he o r s h e won't forget the n e x t time. o r p e r h a p s a mother w i l l s l a p h e r c h i l d because t h e c h i l d r e f u s e s r o swallow t h s nonaggression p i l l .

FaSringCOn's point of view is that r e g a r d l e s s of m e d i c a l t e c h n o l o g y , t h e s t r u c t u r e o t r e l a t i o n s t i p s b e t w e n f a m i l y members must change i t v z o l e r c a i s t o be redoze*. If c o n f l i c t s o t i n t e r e s t and s t r e s s i n family l i f s a r e i n e v i t a b l e , t h s n t h o f a m i l y must d e v e l o p a Structure for resolving thase conflicts nonviolently. B l t h o u g h C h a p t e r 13 o f f e r s some suggestions. a c h i e v i r g t h r s e ends will be difficult. since, a s Farrington p o i n t s out. f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e works a g a i n s t t h e n o n v i o l e c t r e s o l o t i o r of s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n s .

P GENERAL STRESS FBhlEQOEK The c o n c e p t o f stress h a s h a d a h i s t a r y markPd by c o n s i d e r a b l e c o n c e p t u a l ambzguity and d i s s e n s i o n (nechanic, 1962: C h a p t s r 1; 1968:296-300; Lazarus, lQ66:Ct.ap%?; 1: Levzne a n d S c o t c h . 1967:163-165; S c o t t a n d Sowazd, 1970; (1) acGrath. 1970). S t r e s s has been d e f i n e d ana s t u d i e d a s a t h r e a t e n i n g o r d i s r u p t i v e s t i m u l u s (Grinker and S p i e g s l , 1945; B a s o w l t z & g . , 1955:7; Hill, 1958: Janis. 1958:13); ( 2 ) 3 p a r t i c u l a r r e s p o n s e o r p a t t e r 3 of r e s p e n s e s i n ? h e face o f s u c h a s t i m u l u s (Eas0wit.z a_&.. 1955:289: Janis, 1958:13; E e c h a n i c , 1962:7): o r (3) a s k a t e o f t h e organzsm a s it is e x p ~ r i e c c i n gs u c h a s t i m u l u s ( S e l y e . 1956: Dohrecrend. 1961; Wolff. 7 9 6 8 ) . The ? r o b l e m s s r i s i c g from t h i s l a c k o f a common d e f i n i t i o n h a v e l e d a number o f t h e o r i s t s t o abandon t h e a t t e m p t t o a c h i e v e s p e c i f i c i t y , and i n s t e a d t o u s e t h e term " s t r e s s " t o r e f e r t o a g e n e r a l f i e l d o f s t u d y t h a t e n c o m p a s s e s a l l o f t h e s e more s p e c i f i c phenomena ( J a n i s , 1958:ll-13: L a z a r u s , 1966:27; Levine ana Scotch. 1967:169: BcGrath. 1970:16). T h i s i s t h e approach taken i n t h e "general s t r e s s madel,* a c c o r d i r g t o which f a m i l y v i o l e c c s w i l l be a n a l y z e d i n t h i s c h a p t e r .

er

Components Of S t r e s s The phenomenon of s t r e s s c a n b e s e e n a s compossa o f s e v e r a l d i s t i n c t elements. Drawing fcam s c h e m e s d e v s l o p s d by E i l l ( 1 9 5 8 ) . Dohrenvend ( 1 9 6 1 ) . L e v i n e and S c o t c h ( 1 9 6 7 ) and BcGrath (1970). t h e g e n e r a l s t r e s s model t r e a t s t h e f o l l o ~ i r ga s t h e c o m p o n ~ n tp a r t s o f a n y s t r e s s s i t u a t i o c : 1. --The S t r e s s o r --

Stimulus.

T h i s r e f e r s t o any s i t u a t i o n

o r condition, e n c o u n t e r e d by a n i n d i v i d u a l o r g r o u p , t h a t i s capable of producing d i s r o p t i o n o r threat for that l n d i v i d o a l o r group. When t h i s c o n d i t i o n o c c u r s , it c a n b e

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and F a m i l y V i o l e r c e

s a i d t h a t t h e s t i m u l u s is i m p o s i n g a "denand" on i r - v c l v e d , by r e g u l r i r g t h a t Some r e s p o n s e be a a l l e v i a t e t h e s t r e s s o r s i t u a t i o n a n d remove t h e t h r d a n g e r o r disruption. Some t h e o r i s t s h a v s v i e w e d StrPssor s'im necessarily synorymoos with major tragedi catastrophes. This i d s a is u c f o r t u n a t e , f o r i t igno s u b t l e e f f e c t s of l e s s d r a m a t i c s t i m u l i . Re S Eoward r o t e : The c o n c e p t o f s t r e s s h a s b e s n t 3 o c l o s T equated with extreme trauma acd duress. a s s o c i a t i o n h a s hed t h e e f f e c t o f d i v e r t : a t t e n t i o n away from t h e s t u d y o f s t i m u l i t h a r e w e a r i n g t o t t e o r g a n i s m , and t h a t hav important physlological acd psychologicl COnSsquences f o r it, b u t which a r e n e i t h c d r a m a t l c o r e s p e c i a l l y ur.usual...both trauaati and n o n t r a u m a t i c but wearing events ar S t T e S S f U l i n ? h e SeCSE t h a t t h ~ yb o t h p r o d u c the same types cf ptysiological ac p s y c h o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e s (1970:266-267). IC f a c t , i t is n o t e v e n n e c e s s a r y t h a t the. s t i m o l viGved i n n s g a C i v e t e r m s . Hany c e u t r a l l y o r even p o s i d e f i n e d r t i m o l i a x e c a p a b l e o f p l a c i n g g r e a t demands B. t h o s e e x p e r i e n c i n g them ( K o l a e s a n d Bahe, 1 9 6 7 ) . p e o p l e r e s p o n d a s much t c t h e i r p e r c e p t i o n o f a s i t u a t i t o the actual situation, virtually a l l stimuli i n S o c i a l environmezt have t h e p o t e n t i a l t o produce s t r e s s some i n d i v i d u a l s .

2. O ~ j ~ g DEmand. v e This r e f e r s t o t h e "object realit? of a g i v e n s i t u a t i o r . To t h e e x t e n t t h a s t r s s s o r StimU1uS p o s e s demands t h a t a r e i n d e p e n d e n t of cognitive procosses of d e f i n i t i o n and percoption, I n d i v i d u a l O r g r o u p i n v o l v e d c a n be s a i d t o b e e x p e r i e n c objective demand. While p e r h a p s q u i t e csmmon a T p h y s i o l o g i c a l o r S i o c h e n i c a l l e v e l s of hnnan E r i s t e n s t r e s s o r s t h a t cornpletsly bypass c o g n i t i v e auarsness e v a l u a t i o n a r e p r o b a b l y somewhat r a r e a t t h e s o c i a l l e v Rowever. t h i s i s no? meant t o i m p l y t h a t o b j e c t i v e dsmana n e v e r a n importanC aspect of "sociolzglcal" str situations. For example, f a c i n g t h e t h o u g h t of p a r a c h u t fxom a p l a n s . 0; b e i n g c o n f r o n t e d b y w h i t a p p e a r s t o be armed c r i m i n a l , a r e s i t u a t i o n s t h a t p o s e a r e r y r e a l t h r t o t h e unfortunate victim, irdependent of that pars3 s p e c i f i c e v a l u a t i o n and d e f i n i t t o n of t h e s i t u a t i o n .

-- ---

3. S u b j ' = i & E Qg-=d. ?.ppley and ?rumbull h Observed t h a t . "With t h e e x c e p t i o n of EXtreBs and s u d l i f e - t h r e a t e n i n g s i t u a t f o r s . it i s r e a s o n a b l e t o s a y t h a t s t i m u l u s i s a s t r e s s o r t o a l l i n d i v i d u a l s txposed t 3 i (1967:7). T h i s v a r i a t i o n i n what i s v i e w e d a s s t r e s s f u l

145s

and Family V i o l e c c e

Page 97

i n d i v i d u a l d i f f c r e z c f s i n l e a r n i n g and e x p e r i s a c e . h a s a p t l y n o t e d , "Ran is vulnerable [ta s t r o s s ] he r e a c t s n o t o n l y t o t h e a c t u a l J X I S ~ C C S of b u t t o t h r e a t s and symbols of danger e r p e r i e c c s a i n t" (1968:3). therefor^, ii f r e q u e n t l y h a p p e n s t h a t a 5 p o s i n g 10 r e a l " O b j e c t i v e " danger i s nonerhsless e d a n d d e f i n e d + s p r o b l ~ m a t i c . 12 s o c h a n i r s t a n c e , es l i t a e d i f f ~ r e l c f how mnch o b j e c t i v e demand g exists: what p : irportazt is that the definition e r o r t h r e a t h a s been made, and t h s i n d i v i a u a l f s ) d w i l l be a c t i n g i n a c c o r d a n c e w i t h t h i s d e f i n i i i o n . t h e t e r m i n o l o g y o f t h e g e n e r a l stress s o d e l . t h i s c a n r r e d t o a s " s u b j e c + i v e ' demana.

RPsBzse S a D a b i l i t L s s . T h i s c a t e g o r y i n c l u d e s a l l a s k i l i s , a t t r i b u t e s . a n d r e s o u r c e s t h a t an i n d i v i d u a l up h a s a t i t s d i s p o s a l i n d s a l i ~ g v i t h s t r e s s o r i. RlthOUgh the list of pOssibl9 T%spDnse l l t i e s is F c d l e s s , some o f t h e more i m p o r t a n t o m s a i n c l u d e p a s t e x p e r i e n c e Ln a s a l i n g w i t h s i m i l a r 1886, v a r i o u s s k i l l s t h a t h a r e been l e a r n e d o r a c q u i r e d , l l i g e n c e and c r e a t i v i t y , t h e m o t i v a t i o n r o d e a l w i t h t h e a t i o n , s u p p o r t and e n c o u r a g e m e n t f r o m o t h e r s i n * h e - a 1 s y s t e m , t h e a s o o r t o f e n e r g y a v a i l a h l c , 325 t h ? i t y t o ccctrol o r e t s emcticnal state. ill o f these s e e l e m e n t s a r e v i e v e d by t h e g e n e r a l s t r e s s a o ? e l a s n i n g t o form a r e s e r v o i r of p o s s i b l ~ r e e p o c s a s t o ssful stimuli. 5, thgice of 2eazss. Rhen a n i n d i v i d u a l o r g r o u p i s r o n t e d by a s t r e s s o r s t i m u l u s , o n e o r more r e s p o n s e s be s e l e c t e d from t h o s e a v a i l a b l a a n d a p p l i e d 'cward s stressor. Obviously, j u s t as i n d i v i d u a l s ana g r o u p s y s u b s t a n t i a l l y v i t h r E g a r d t o what :hey s e z a s p o s i n g a e a t o r problem. s o a l s o w i l l t h e y v a r y i n t h e i r c a p a c i t y d e a l w i t h v a r i o u s e i t u a t i a n s acd i n t h e repocses t h a t Bousver, it seems e y w i l l make 11 a g i v e n s z t u a t i o n . a s o n a b l e t o assume t h a t , i r t h e g r e a t ~ a j o r i t y o f c a s e s , e f f o r t w i l l b e m d e t o meet t h e i n p a n d t n g d e a a n d s t o t h e a t e s t degree possible. This d o e s n o t imply t h a t t h s b e s t i c e "ill a l u a y s b e made, b u t it d o e s a s s o n e ths: t h e i v i d u a l o r group w i l l he n o t i o e t s a t o a c t i n i t s b e s t e r e s t by making what i t b e l i e v e s t o be an a p p r 3 p r i a t e 6 , S t r e s s Lev1.2. I f t h r~e s p o n s e made t o a s t : e s r o r s t i m u l u s i s S u t f x i e n t t o meet and s l i m i n a t e t h e d p n a n d s b e i n g p o s e d by t h a t s t i m u l u s , i t c a n be s a i d t h a t n a s t e r y , o r ~ u c c ~ s s f u rlE s o 1 u t i o P of t h e problem, h a s t a k e n p l a c e . Under t h e s e c i r c u m s t a n c e s , t h e s t r e s s o r s i t u a t i o n s h o u l d no l o n g e r be p r o b l e m a t i c . I n f a c t , t h s i n d i v i d u a l o r group w i l l p r o b a b l y b e more e f f e c t i v e i n d e a l i n g w i t h s i m i l a r p r o b l e m s i n t h e f u t u r e b e c a u s e o f t h i s experience ( S c o t t and a o v a r d . 1970:272). I n t h i s s e r s e , it c a n b t a r g u a d ' t a t stress h a s c e r t a i n p o s i t f v e consequences, p r o v i d e d it

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family BLoleece

r e m a i r s w i t h i n r e a s o n a b l e limits. Eowever, ? h e r a s p o n s e made t o a s t r e s s o r s t i n o t g u a r a n r e e t h a t demand w i l l b e e l i m i n a t e d insLances, t h e responsefs) rill b~ insuffi inappropriate. and m a s t e r y w i l l n o t occur. Th s u c h f a i l u r e on t h e p a r t o f r e s p o n s e c o p a D i a c c o r d i n g t o t b e g e n e r a l stress model, a n i n c r e a " s t r e s s l a v e l ' of those Lnv~lved. Viewing "stress" a s t h e d i s c r e p a n c y betw€en d response capabilities is cot a nev i a e a : c a n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n i s s u g g e s t e d by Mechanic (1962: 1968:301) and XcGrath (1970:17-211, and i s i n p l i c i a n d s o w a r d ' s e p r o h l e n - s o l v i n g w s t r e s s model (1970 1965). E c c o l d i n g t o t h i s view. t h e g and S c o t t , d i s c r e p a n c y between i m p e n d i n g demands an* 4 a i s t i l g c a p a b i l i t i e s . t h e g r e a t e r t h e s t r e s s l e v e l of t h e i o r group i n question. I n u s i n g t h e term " s t r e s s r a t h e r t h a n simply ' s t r e s s , " t h e g r n e r a l stre a s s u m e s t h a t man a n d t h e g r o u p s h e f o r m s a r e i n ?. c s t a t e of s t r e s s , and t h a t a s-&Qt_e congru?rce demands a n d r e s p o r s e c 2 p z h i l ; t = e s f o r acy indLoi group i s impossible.

In a c c o r d a n c e v i t h t h i s v i e w t h a t s t r e s s "constant" i n huaan e x p e r i e n c e , t h e g e n e r a l s t r e s s Suggests t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s ana groups adapt t o t h i s f a c l i f e by d e v e l o p i n g a s L r e s s l e v e l a t v h i c h t h e y f e e c o m f o r t a b l e a r d f u n c t i o n most E f f e c t i v e l y . ThPsa flop s t r e s s l e v e l s d e v e l o p o v e r time, a n d t h e y r e p r e s e combined p r o d u c t o f a number of s o c i a l , psychological StruCturaL f a c t o r s . Scot'. and Howard s u g g e s t t h a t i h = w i d e I n d i v i d u a l v a r i a t i o n s i n t h e s e optimum s t r e s s 1s w i t h some p e r s o r s a c d g r o u p s d e a a n d i 3 g more c o n g r u e n c e others: The c a t u r e o f t h i s l s v e l v a r i s s tremendously BmOng individuals: T h e r e a r s p e r s o n s xho r e g u i r e h i g h and s u s t a i n e d l e v e l s o f s t i m u l a t i o r i n o r d e r t o f e e l c o m f o r t a b l e and s a t i f l e d : t h e r e a r e o t h e r s vho r e q u i r e c a m p a r a t i r e l y l a w levels of srlmulatlcn, a n d v h o f s e l most C o m f o r t a b l e when demands made o n them arr tightly d i s p e r s e d a r o u r d v e r y low a c t i v i t y l e v e l s (1970:270).

I n a d d i t l o n t o p u r e l y i n d i v i d u a l d i f f e r e n c e s i n optim str%ss l e v e l . s u b s t a n t i a l m a c r o s c o p i c v a r i a t i o n b e t v s E n a among s o c i e t i e s is a l s o l i X s l y , w i t h sems g r 2 u p s a c c u r t a m t o a much h i g h e r l e v e l of s t r e s s t h a n o t h e r s . B e c a u s e t h e s e optimum s t r e s s l e v e l s a r e , i n e f f e c t , c u m u l a t i v e p r o d u c t o f a l l p a s t e x p e r i e n c e , t h a y a r e lik t o be f i r s l y e c t r e n c h s d a r d q u i t e r e s i s t a n t t c r a p i d

s~

and F a n i l y V i o l e n c e

Pilge 9 9

nge.

On t h e o f h e r h a r d , a n i n a i v i d u a l o r g r o u p ' s is l i k e l y t o be s u b j e - ? to f l u c t u a t i o n , d e p e r d i n g on t h e p a r t L c u l a r s t i m u l i d. F o r t h e most p a r t , t h e s e c h a n g e s s h o u l d b e 811nor. 211OY%Dg t h e s t r e s s l e v e l t o r e m a i n w i t h i n limits. In those le, o r a t least tolerable. i n which c h a n g e s a r e n o t minor, w h e r e s t r e s s l e v e l exceeded, t h e s i t u a t i o n becones problematic.

+&& s t r e s s l e v e l

d i n g t o t h e g e c s r a l s t r e s s model, c h a n g s s i n e v e 1 o c c u r w h e t h e r t h e d i s c r e p a n c y between demands n s e c a p a b i l i t i e s is "positiven o r "negativeo i n Just a s t h e demands b e i n g p l a c e d ??. a n 1 o r g r o u p n a y b e c o o g r e a t , s o t o o c a n t h e y be t o o G r a t h u s e s t h e t e r m s " o v e r l o a d " and u u n d e r l o a a m t o h i s d i s t i c c t i o n , and s t a t e s :

.

re is ncw a substantial body of it~ratDre...whlch s u g g e s t s t h ~ t tress-like f f e c t s may r e s u l t f r o m a n env:ror.ment that p l a c e s t o o l i t t l e a s n a n d on...tha f o c a l organism works s u c h a s Paliner's t h e o r y l i n k i n g " t ? n s i ~ n ' and ce (197U; 1972). Klausner's s t u d i e s of s t r e s s - s e e k i r g , A e r o c ' s i n v = s + i g a t i o n of t h e ' l p a t h o l o g y of b o r e a o a " and s e i d ~ r b e r g ' sc l i n i c a l d e s c r i p % i o c of t h e "trauma t l 9 s s n e s s 1 ' (1972) seem t o s u p p o r t t h e c o 9 t e n t i o n ? h a t t l e demand c a n b e j u s t a s d a n g e r o u s 2s t o o much.

o s u m n ~ r i z et h e n o t i o n o f s t r e s s l e v e l , it c a n be s a i a " S t r e s s n o t o n l y r c v o l v e s a * s t a t e ' of t h e f o c a l SP and a ' s t a t e ' of t h e environment, but a l s o i n v o l v e r The .latlonship between t h e two11 (McGrath. 1970:16). ter t h e discrepancy betvefn e x i s t i n g demanas and l a b l e respocse capabilities, t h e g r e a t e r v i l l be t h e s5 l e v e l of t h a t i n d i v i d u a l o r grcup. T3 t h e e x t e n t t h i s i m b a l a c c e i s n o t p r e s e n t l y , and d o e s 0 9 t s u d d e n l y me, t o o g r e a t : a s l o r g a s m a s t e x i s t i n g demands c a c b s t s a t i s f a c t o r i l y from w i t h i n t h e s e r e s p o n s e c a p a b i l i t i e s ; d a s l o n g a s enough demand e x i s t s t o c h a l l e n g e t h e d i v i d u a l o r group s u f f i c i e n t l y . f h e s t r e s s l e v e l c l n be i d t o h e a t a minimal. nonproblematic l e v e l . iioverer. if i n c r e a s e i n t h e a c t u a l s t r e s s l e v e l of a r i n d i v i d u a l o r r o u p i s a s i g n i f i c a n t d e p a r t u r e f r o m t h e optimum s t r e s s ~ v e l o f t h a ; i n d i v i d u a l o r g r o u p , t h i s c h a n g e is l i k e l y t o ve o v e r a l l n e g a t i v e c o n s e q u e n c e s f o r t h o s e i c v o l v e a .

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family V i o l e n c e

unresolved S t r e s s S l t u a t l o n s I n t h e d i s c u s s i o n t h u s f a r , it h a s b e e n a r g u e d t h variables i n t e r a c t t o determine an individual's o r g s t r e s s level. From t h i s p r o p o s i t i o n , i t f o l l o w s t h a t a i l u r e t o a c h i e v e m e s t e r y o v e r a p a r t i c u l a r st s t i m u l u s c a n b e ~ t t r i b u t e dt o ( 1 ) t h e n a t u r e o f t t . ~st situation, and/or (2) t h e r e s p o n s e ( s ) made by Experiencing t h i s s t r e s s o r s i t u a t i o n . As ve s h a l l characteristics cf e a c h o f t h e s e e l e m e n t s o f t h e s e x p e r l e f i c s c a n p r e c l u d e s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n 3f t h e p a t hand. that

First, i n considering s t r e s s o r s t i n u l i , it i s o problems v a r y i r terms o f t h e i r p o t e n t i a

response. n o m a t t e r what t h e y a t t e a p t . S c ? r t and Pouara (1970:271; Yoward a n d S c o t t , 1965:146-147) b a v s identified t h r e e t y.p. e s of problem s r t u a t l o n s t h a t p r e l u d e s u c c e s s f u l map:=ry: (11 prctl+ms *tk- jcsc d e a a c l s r r FIC?:s :f ?he org??:sa.n r e p o r r e c?p=.b:lil:=s. (2) p r o b l = l r i k a t t a w * co demands e x i s t . s o t h a t i t is i m p 3 s s i b l e t o mse s ~ c c e ~ ~ F u 1 1 yIP . a n y of t h e s e s i t u a t i o n s , no n a t t s r e s p o n s e ( s ) a r e chosen, t h e y simply w i l l n o t be s u f L t o a c h i e v e maszerp a v e r t h e s t r e s s o r s t i m u l u s . C o n c e r n i n g t h e r e s p o r s e s made t o s t r e s s s i t o a t S c o t t a n d Howard (1970:272: Eoward a n d S c o t t . 1965:147have r.icely d e l i c e a t e d a typology o f possLble resp3c T h e s e i n c l u d e (a) t h e a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e , i n which t i n v o l v e d meet t h e p r o b l e m "head-on," and a t t e m p t t o s o l v i n a d i r e c t and meafiirgful f a s h i o r . , (b) t h e d i v ~ r e s p o n s e . i n which r e s o u r c e s a n d e E e r g y a r e a p p l i e d t o problem b u t a r e ~ 1 s d i r e c t e d . t.t;us l e a v i n g t h e a c t u a l pr v i r t u a l l y untouched, and ( c ) t h e i n e r t response, i n e f f a %on-response.' i n which t h e r e i s no m e a n i n g f u l a t t 4 made t o r e s o l v e t h e p r o b l e m a t h a l d . Even r n stress s i t u a t i o n s i n which a n i n d i v i d u a l group faces a stresscr stimulus that is potecti solvable--in t h a r they possess response cepabili sufficient ro meet i t s demands--only by z h o o s i n g a s s e r t i v e response w i l l they a c t u a l l y achieve msster Divergent o r i r e r t responses a r e not a c t u l l l y d i r e c t e d t h e problem ir q u e s t i o n ; t h u s , t h e s e r e s p o n s e s a r e u n a b t o C o n t r i b u t e d i r e c t l y t o a r e s o l u t i o n of t h a t problem.

s t r e s s and P a n i l y V i o l e n c e

Psge 1 0 1

~ e n c e so f t h e F a i l u r e t o A c h i e v e n a s t e r y

r t h e a b o v e r e a s o n s , t h e r e a r e r u a e r o u s stress t i o n s i n whlch t h e demands p o s e d by a s t r e s s c r s t i s u l u s o t b e met s u c c e s s f u l l y . Responses t o t h e s e s z r P s s o r s e made, y a t m a s t e r y o f t h e s i t u e t i o n f l o s s n o t r e s u l t . p l a i n e d e a r l i e r , ' h i s d i s c r e p a n c y between demand a n d e c a p a b i l i t i e s r e p r e s e n t s t h e s t r e s s l e v e l of t h s u a l o r group i n question. And, t o t h e a x t e n t t h a t i s c r e p a n c y r e p r e s c c t s a d r a s t i c o r m a j o r c h a n g e 2n Stress l e v e l - - i n t h e d i r e c t i o n away from o n e ' s o p t i m a l s level--it i s t o be e x p e c t e d r h a t t h i s u n r e s o l v e d s i t u a t i o n may become e v e n more p r o b l e m a t i c a v e r t i m e . o r s x a m p l e , ? h e c o n t i n u e d p r e s e n c s o f t h s s t i l l onmet nay h a v e a s e r i o u s i m p a c t npon t h o s e i n r c l ~ e 3 . F o r e, t h e f a i l u r e t o r e s o l v e a problpm o f f = ~ l t y n i c a t i o n betweex a h u s b a n d a c d w i f e c a r e a s i l y l s a a t o , m o r ~s e r i o u s , m a r i t a l p r o b l e m s .

s

1 second p o s s i b l e consequ-nce 3f a? iniffmcLive o n s e t o stress may b e t h a t , n o t o n l y h a s t h i s r e s p o z s e ed t o d e a l with t h e c r i g i 2 a l problem, b u t i t pay h a v e 1s w ~ l f f v e r t e n t l y i n t r o d u c e d new s t r e s s o r s t i m u l i . 8:3) s u g g e s r s , t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f a r e s p o n s ? mede t o a 55 s i t u a t i c n may t u r n o u t t c he mare d ~ m a g l r gt h i n t h e cts of t h e s t r e s s S i t u a t i o n i t s e l f . Par zxsmple, e r e a s a h u s b a n d h i t t i n g h i s w i f o might a p p e a r t o i ? r m i n a t a f e c t i v e l y a c u r r e n t nari'al argument, t h i s divergent sponse could, on a l o r g - t e r m b a s i s , c s u s s r ? s c n t m e r f and s t i l i t y t o b u i l d up w i t h i n t h e w i f e , t h u s p o s i n g an e v e n r e s e r i o o s problem f o r t h e f u t u r e .

E l s o , t h s r e i s what S c o t t a r d Rovard h a v e t e r m e d t h e c o r d o r d e r problem" o f h a n d l i c g t h e u n r e s 3 l v e d t = n s i o n s t have a r i s e n d u r i n g t h e a t t e m p t t o r e s o l v e t h e c u r r e n t 45.5 situation. These " t e n s i c n s n r e f e r t s a s t i t e of rgy arousal within t h e individual. I n t h e words of Sco't EOwBrd:

...

e v e c when p r o b l e m s E r e s u c c e s s f u l l y s o l v e a . 3 t i m e gap e x i s t s between t h e i n i t i a l p r c v o c a t i o n and t h e u l t i m a t e r e s o l u t i o n . During t h e t i m e i r which t h e problem i s b e i n g d s a l t w i t h , t h e organism 1s i n a s t + t e o f q r s a t e r ar l E S S = r Bobilization, a s t a t e i n u h i c h Energy and r e s o u r c e s are bound up s o t h a t t h s o r g a n i s m experiences tension. In cases of successful are evantually problem salving. tonsicns d i s s i p a t e d and t h e organism r e t u r n s t o i t s u s u s l l e v e l of functioning. when p r o b l e m s a r e c o t Solved, however. tensions persist until The mechanisms a r e f o u n d t o c o p e w i t h them. f a i l u r e t o master t h r e a t s t h e r e f o r e gives r i s e t o a second-order problem: t h a t of dealing

...

Ch.7.

Stress ard Pamllp Vrolence

Page 102

Page 103

r---~ C T ~ S S O should ~

.~

~resentno further difficult~. Rcuever.. ir -~ instances, the stressor situation will not be resalved he responses made. Ir these situations, the disczspancy een demand and responsa capabilities rspresents an ease in stress level. This increase in stress leo.1 has potenfial to produce additional problems for those Ired. Let us now apply this framework to the stuay of ~

~~~

APPLYING TRE G W F R A L STRESS MODEL TO InTBAPAnILP B I O L 3 7 C Y ss and %he Family

A number of theorists have already begun to irdicite importance of "stress" for explaining a major portion of afaeily violence, especially in the area of chila sbuse. example, Blumberg (1964-1965) views overz~alonsphysical shment of children by parects as being as much s result the various 5treSSe~experienced by *he child's pareots t is a result of the actual desire or neea to coctrol child's behavior. In Plumberg's words, "When everything getting On top of 2 no+her she smacks more" 64-1965:19Y). Gil (1971) explains . socioec3nomic fferences in child abose as resulting at least partially m the difterential number and saverity ~f strassful eriances characterizing family life at different social ss levels. In explaining violence directea toward laren, Gelles' "social psychological' model of child use (1973) attributes primacy to a variety of "situational The ccnmon thread rurnicg through these statements is at any theory that attempts to explain irtrafamily olence nust give primary consideration to the structural biables likelp to determine a family's predisposition to olence. This is precisely what the stress fraseuork 1 1 0 ~ s US to do. since it views these structural - ~- variables StrPsSOr SIinuli thac impose demands on individuals and milies, and to which scme response must be made if stress VelS are to remain within tolerable limits. ~

There can be little doubt that the modern family, both a social unit and through its indiviaual members, cour.ters numerous stressor stimuli in the course of its y-to-day existence. As Campbell statss,

[ M o d e r n ] c h a n g e s [ i n f a m i l y s o l i d a r i t y ] a o 30 n e c e s s a r i l y s i g n i f y a d e c l l n e i n t h e impnrtanc Of t h e f a m i l y . They do r e f l e c t t h e i n c r e a s i n p r e s s u r e s which t h e f z m i l y i s under--but t h ~ s s t r e s s e s f r e q u e n t l y stem p r e c i s e l y from t h e f a c t h a t more i s b a i n g drmanded o f f a n i l y l i f e t h a n e v e r b e f o r e (1969: 251)

-

The s t r e s s o r s t i m u l i t h a t c o r f r o n t f a s i l i e s and members s t e m f r o m many d i f f e r e n t s c u r c e s . For example a r e relatsd t o t h e functions t h a t t h e famil7 is "entr u i t h p e r f o r m i n g , b o t h w i t h r e g a r d t o i t s i n d i v i d u a l me and t o t h e l a r g e r s o c i a l s t r u c t u r e . Others a r e t h e of PErtiCUlar c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of i 3 d i v i d u a l family such a s t h e i r s t a t u s i n t h e scc'el s t r a t i f i c a t i o n s y s t t h e i r p r e s e n t p o s i t i o n i r t h e " f a m i l y l i f e c y c l e . " Eo r e g a r d l e s s of t h e S p e c i f i c o r i g i n s o f t h e s t r e s s c r s t h a t c o n f r o n t any p a r t i c u l a r family. t h e p o i n t t n b h e r e i s t h a t t h e s e c o n f r o n t a t i o n s a r e f a c t s of l i f e - - n o t i s o l a t e d and o u t - o f - t h e - o z d i n a r y CccurrencEs

I n addrtion t o these external stresses, the f i t s e l f is o f t e n a s o u r c e o f stress. i n t h a t many p r o c a n be t r a c e d back t c p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y s i t o a t i m stroctures. F o r example, Croog (1970) n o t e s t h a t problems a s i n t r a f a m i l y v a l u e c o n f l i c t s , t h e p a r t i c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s of t h e various stages of t h e family c y c l e , and problems o f r o l e c o n f l i c t a r e p o t e n t i a l s o o Of Stress t h a t a r i s e f r o m d i r e c t l y v i t h i n t h e E a s i l y u IP a d d i t i o n t o t h o s e s t r e s s e s t h a t e m a n l t e from w i t h i f a m i l y a r e numerous e v e n t s e x p e r i e n c e d by i n d i v i d u a l me m t h e " e x t e r n a l world,* v h i c h a r e t h e n b r o u g h t back t h e family s e t t i n g . R l t h c u g h t h e f a m i l y i s comnsnly Lho o f a s a p l a c e v h i c h f a m i l y members c a n b r i n g t h e s e e x P r e s s u r e s and " l e t o f f s t e a m , " t h i s a c t i o n may h a v e o As n e g a t i v e consequences f o r t h e family a s a uhsle. s t a t e s , "The r e l e a s e of t h e s e e m o t i s c s n a y i n t h s m s c r e a t e t e n s i o n s i t u a t i o n s t h a t h a v e t h e e f f e c t s of strss a s f a r a s o t h e r f a m i l y members a r e c o n c e r n & " (1970: Even i n s i t u a t i o r s i n v h i c h t h e f a m i l y i t s e l f i s n o t s o u r c e o f a p a r t i c u l a r p r o b l e m , t h e f a m i l y may o e r e r t h e a m p l i f y t h e e f f e c t s o f t h a t p r o b l e m on i t s members, o p e r a t i n g a s a " c r y s t a l i z i n g e n t i t y v i t h i n vhich t s t r e s s o r s e m e r g e a n d e x e r t t h e i r i m p a c t " (Crsog. 1910:25 V l o l e n c e a s a Response t o S t r e s s If t h 9 f a m i l y d o e s e x p e r i e n c e numezous stres i t E o l l c u s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y mcmbsrs, situations. f a m i l i e s a s s o c i a l u n i t s , o f t e n w i l l b e c a l l e d on t o i t t s to meet a n d e l i m i n a t e t h e demands p o s e d b y v a r i stressors. 3.36, a s d i s c u s s e d e a r l i e r , when c o n f r o n t e d w a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n , t h e s e p e o p l e w i l l l o o k '0 t h r e p e r t o i r e s o f r e s p o n s e c e p a b i l i t i e s a s t h e y t r y t o come

s t r e s s and Family V i o l e n c e

Page 1 0 5

response t h a t produces mastery. l e a r l y . a s Goode (1971:629) has suggested i n h i s u r c e t h e o r y " of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e , t h e p o t e n t i a l t o u s e c e c a n b e r e g a r d e d a s a n i m p o r t a r t r e s o u r c e of d u a l s o r groups. P n t i n t o t h e terms o f t h e g e n e r a l 5 model, t h e c a p a c i t y f o r v i o l e n c e r e p r e s e n t s a p o r t i o n i n d i v i d u a l ' s o r group's response c a p a b i l i t i e s t h a t can p l i e d t o t h e s o l u t i o c o f v a r F o u s problems.

st o n l y i s v i o l e n c e a Qpss&&f r e s p o n s e t 3 s t r e s s f u l .lors: in o u r s o c i e t y , it o f t e n r e p r e s e n t s a n &&t response. X s stein me?^ and Straus note. i c a n s h a v e a l v a y s had a p r o p e n s i r y t o u s e v i o l e n c e t o B major r e n a t i o r a l and p e r s o n a l goals4* 1 9 7 : 1 U l ) n f o r t h e prevalence of v i o l e n c e thr2ughout o u r t y ' s h i s t o r y h a s been t h a t 5 u r s o c i a l norms and r a l v a l u e s a c t u a l l y s a n c t i c r a n d l e g i t i m i z e t h u~s e o f n c e a s a p p r o p r i a t e b e h a v i o r i n many s i t u a t i o n s ( s e e er 3 ) . T h i s C o r m a t i v e E p p r o v a l ? f v i o l e n c e seems t o b e i a l l y t r u e w i t h i n t h = c o n t e x t o f ths f a m i l y , w h e r r , f o r l e , i t i s a c c e p t a b l e , o r a t l e a s t p e r m i s s i b l e , t o spank sbehavlng c h i l d o r slap a nagging rife when unstances " c a l l for" s u c h behavior. IS

V i o l e ~ c eUsed a s a R e s p o n s e t o S t r e s s ?

The u s e of v i o l e l c e a s a p o s s i b l e r e s p o n s e t o s t r e s s uations represents an interesting paradox. The i l a b i l i t y of n o s t r e s o u r c e s f o r any p a r t i c u l a r i n d i v i d u a l f a m i l y is l i k e l y t o depend o r a number of s t r u c t u r a l acd r s o n a l f e a t u r e s , i n c l u d i n g s o c i o e c o n c n i c s t a t u s , 39%. and x. Borever, v i r t u a l l y everyone p o s s e s s e s th+ r e s o u r c e o f s n t i a l violence. It i s t r u e t h a t d i f f e r e n t i n a i Y i a u c l s 1 r e q u i r e v a s t l y d i f f e r e n t s i t u a t i o n s t o provcke then t o e r t e n t t h a t t h e y w i l l commit a n a c t o f v i o l e c c a o r ression. I l s o , t h e a c t u a l means o f e x p r e s s i n g v i o l e n c e , t h e r e s u l t i n g msuccessn of t h e a c t , r i l l v a r y g r e a t l y . ever, t h e p o i n t t o b e made h e r e i s t h a t , w h e r e a s t h e s e s s i o n o f most o t h e r r e s o o r c e s v a r i e s from p e r s 3 n t o e r s o n and f a m i l y t o f a m i l y , t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r v i o l e n c e i s a c o n s t a c t " p a r t o f a l l i n d i v i d u a l and f a m i l y r e s p o c s e pabilltles, n o m a t t e r how e x t e n s i v e o r how minimal t h e malrder of t h e response c a p a b i l i t i e s . on t h e o t h e r hand, a l t h o o g h e v e r y o n e cqn u s e v i o l e n c e , a t e v e r y o n e do=. V i o l e n c e is n o t a l m y s t h e r e s p o n s e hosen t o a s t r e s s f u l s i t u a t i o n . I n f a c t . i t i s used Elatively infrequently. Thus. o ~ eq u e s t i o n of m a j o r m p o r t a n c e c o r c e r a s t h e i s s u e o f ~ g q pv i o l e n c e i s usEd a s a n S S E r t i V 0 r e s p o n s e t o a s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n . a n d Kg1 it is u s e d n those instances.

Ch-7.

S t r e s s and Family Violence

The A v a i l a b i l i t y o f R l t e r n a t i r e R e s p o n s e s t o S t r s s s One o f t h e most i m p o r t a n t c o n s i d e r a t i o n s i n a n s q u e s t i o n c o n c e ? n s t h e n a t u r e of t h ? o t h e r r e capabilities. A s B e t t e l h e i m s u g g e s t s . " w h e t h e r o r n w i l l u s e v i o l e n c e o r avoid it depends e n t i r e l y 0 . a l t e r n a t i v e s o l u t i o n 5 a r e known t o a p e r s o n f a c i n problem" (1967:301). S i m i l a r l y . S t e i n m e t z and S t r a u s a this

We b e l i e v e t h a t t h e w i l l i n g n e s s and a b i l i t y t o us6 p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e i s a 'resource'.... E f a m i l y member c a r use this resource tc CompePSate f o r l a c k o f o t t e r s u c h r s s o u z c e s i r money, k n o u l e d g e , a n d r e s F s c t (1974:9). Goode h a s d e v e l o p e d t h i s g e n e r a l i d s a i n b:s rtsg t h e o r y of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e (1971). Goode i d e n t i f i e s " f o a n d i t s t h r e a t " a s on9 o f f o u r m a j o r s e t s of r e s s u r c e s t a n i n d i v i d u a l c a n u s e i n c ? L c m p t i r g +o a c h i e r e d e s r r s d i V i o l e n c e c a n b e u s e d a s z r e s o u r c e uhen o t h e r a l t e r p a resources, i.e.. e c o n c m i c , p r e s t i g e , and t r a i t r e s o o r a r e u l a v a i l a b l e o r have proved i n e f f e c t i v e . RDusver, G e m p h a s i z e s t h a c t h e a c t u a l u s e of v i o l e n c e i s l i k e l y t d e p e n d e n t upon t h e s t a t e o f the individual~s resources. Thus. lf o t h e r a p p r o p r i a t e r e s o u r c e s do e it i s l i k e l y t h a t o n e o r more o f t h e s e w i l l be t r i a d s o l u t i o n t o t h e problem i n s t e a d o f v i o l e n c e . as states: most p e o p l e do c o t w i l l i n g l y c h o o s e overt v l o l e n c e vhen t h e y command o t h e r means b e c a u s e t h e c o s t s of using f o r c e a r e high i n a r y s o c i a l system, but especially i n t h e family.... C o n s e q u e n t l y , it i s a g e n e r a l r u l e t h a t t h e g r e a t e r t h e o t h e r r e s o u r c e s a n i n d i v i a u a l can command, t h e more f o r c e h e c a n m u s t e r . hut the l e s s h e w i l l a c t u a l l y d e p l o y o r u s e f o r c e i n 3n o v e r t manner (1971:628). Thus, we s e e t h a t v i o l e n c e and a g g r e s s i o n a r e ' s u b s t i t u t f o r o t h e r t y p e s of r e s o u r c e s vhen t h e s e o t h e r r e s o u r c e s a r o t a par' o f e x i s t i n g r e s p o n s e c a p a b i l i t i e s . S U b c ~ l t u r a lo r F a m i l y Norms R e g a r d i n g V i o l e n c e Ox t h e o c e hand, it h a s b e e n a r g u e d t h a t o u r s o c i h a s norms a n d v a l u e s t h a t p o s i t i v e l y s a n c t i o n t h e u s e vlOlePCe i n t h e f a m i l y s e t t i n g . Rnd t h i s l e g i t i m i z a t i o n a g g r e s s i v s b e h a v i o r is l i k e l y t o i n c r e a s e t h e e x t o n t which violence is ~ c t u a l l y u s e d a s a " p r o b l e m - s o l o technique" within t h e family.

h.7.

S t r e s s and Pamily Violence

Page 107

Aouever, a s Wolfgang a n d P e r r a c u t i s u g g e s t i n t h e i r s u b c u l t u r e o f v i o l e n c P t h e c r y (1967), i t i s a l s c l i k r l g * t h e n o r m s g o v e r n i n g t h e a p p r o p r i a t e n e s s o f t h e u s e of o l a n c e w i l l a l s o vary somewhat wirhiq s o c i e t y . Thus, i n cme s e g m e n t s of s o c i e t y , v i o l e n c e nay be r e g a r d e d a s mars u l t u r a l l y a c c e p t a b l e t h a n it is i n o t h e r p o ~ t i o n so f A s t h i s 1eg:tiaation of violence v a n e s , the ociety. r e d i s p o s i t i o n t o use violence a s a response t o s t r e s s t u a t i o n s should vary accordingly. Thus, in those ubcultures.' a n d i n t h o s e p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y ur:ts, vhere i s t i r g norms most e x p l i c i t l y s a n c t i o n violence and grfssion, we s h o u l d most o f t e n ~ x p p c t T o S p O n 9 5 o f a o l e n t nature. st E x p e r i e n c e w i t h V i o l e n c e

E m p i r i c a l e v i d e c c e s u g g e s t s t h a t p e r s o c s who b e h a v e g g r e s s i v ~ l y w i t h i c t h e i r f a m i l i e s t e n d t o have f a m i l y a c k g r o u n d s o f v i c l e n c e (Xeinpe e l 2.. 1962: S t c s l ? and o l l o c k . 1968: G i l . 1 9 7 1 ) . T h i s s u g g e s 5 s t h a t . n o 5 o n l y i s i o l e n c ~a l e a r n e d b e h a v i o r . b u t i n a d d i t i o n , i s t a u g h t end r z n s n i t t e d by t h e f a m i l y a s p a r t o f t h e s o c i a l i z a t i o n recess. Thus. it c a n be a r g u e d t h a t t h e f a m i l y o p e r a t e s a s " t r a i n i n g ground" f c r v i o l e n c e ( S t e i n m e t z and S t r a u s , 974: Pa?? I V : G e l l s s a r d S t r a u s , 1978). Violence.

Tension. and F r u s t r a t i o n

Thus f a r , d i s c u s s i o n h a s c e n t e r e d on t h e use o f i o l e P c e a s a n a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e t o a s t r e s s 3 r s:imulus. h e i m p l i c a t i c n h a s been t h a t violent?, wher u s e d i n t h i s ashior. r e p r e s e n t s a r a t i o n a l a t t e m p t on t h e p a r k o f a e r s o n t o d e a l w i t h a p r o b l e a a t i c s i t u a t i o n i n what t h a t e r s o n b e l i e v e s i s a n a p p r o p r i a t e and e f f e c t i v e a a c n e r t o h i e v e a d e s i r e d end. T h i s c o a c e p t i c n of s t r e s s - i n d u c e d o l e r c e seems c o n p a r a b l e t o what G e l l e s and S t r a u s h a v e r a e d i n s t r u m e n t a l violerce--"the u s e of p a i r o r i n j u r y a s p u n i s h s e n t t o i s d u c e a n o t h e r p e r s o n t o c a r r y o u t some a c t

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family Violence

o r r e f r a i n f r o m ar act11 ( 1 ' 3 7 8 ) . Aovever, t h e r e i s a n o t h e r p l a c e i n t h e g e n e r a l model where v i o l e n c e i s e x p e c t e d t o o c c u r - a s a c o n s e q of t h e s e c o r d - o r e e r problems o f t e n s i o n and f r u s t r a t i s c a n r e s u l t from u n r e s o l v e d stress s i t u a t i o n s . In fa 15 h e r e t h a t i n t r a f a m i l y v i o l e n c e is l i k e l y t3 occu often--not a s an assertive, prcblem-oriectsd at+e achieve mastery of a s i t u a t i o n , but rathor a "irrational.' lashing-out b e h a v i o r spawned by s e e u n r e s o l v a b l e problems. And, just a s the concep s t r e s s - i ~ d u c e d v i o l e n c e appear; t o corresp3nd c l 3 s a G e l l e s a n d S t r a u s * definition o t " i n s t r u m e n t a l " v i o l e n c does t h e idea of violence a s a r e a c t i m t o frus'ratio t e n s i o n seem r o u g h l y c o m p s r a b l e t o " e x p r a s s i v a " V i o l e c d e f i n e d by t h e s e a u t h o r s - - - t h e usof p h y s i c a l f a c a u s e p a i n o r i n j u r y a s ar. end i t s e l f " ( G e l l e s a n d s 1978)

.

F r u s t r a t i o n and S t r e s s AS u s e d by S o c i a l scientists. the concfp f r u s t r 3 t i o n seams t o r 9 f e r most o f t e n t 3 i n e m o t i o n a l s a c c o m p a n i e d f r e q u e n t l y by a n g e r and a n x i e t y , t h a t may a vhen a n i n d i v i d u a l i s p r e v e n t e d from a t t a i n i n g a ass gnal. W e s u g g e s t t h a t t h i s a f f e c t i v e s t a t e of f r u s t r a can, l i k e tension, b e viewed a s a ' s e c o n d - o r d e r prob S p r i n g i n g from t h e f a i l u r e t o s a t i s f a c t o r i l y r e s o l v e s t r e s s situation--in e f f e c t , ar " e m o t i o r a l c o u n t e r p a r t t h e unexpended e n e r g y t h a t S c o t t a n d Bovard t e r m " t e n s i o

Tb* i n c o r p o r a t i o n o f s t r e s s - p r o d u c e d " f r u s t r a t i o n " t h e g e n e r a l stress modal a p p e a r s t o b s c o i s i s t e n t w i t rest o f t h e framework. I m p l i c i t i n t h i s trsatmen f r u s t r a t i o C a r e a l l of t h e n e c e s s a r y e l e m e n t s o f a s s i t u a t i o n discussed earlier: (a) a s t r e s s o r s t i m u l u s , t h e form o f a d e s i r e d g o a l , and p r e s s u r s s . b o t h i n t e r n a l external. t o a t t a i n t h a t aoal: lbl o b i e c t i v e scd S u b l e c t i v e demand t o a c h i e v e t h a t Goal:. t.c .l t h e r e s p o n s e c a p a b i l i t i e s o f t h e p e r s o n f r o m which an a s s e r t i v b , a n d (a divergent. o r a r t u e r t r e s p o n s e , w i l l be c h 3 s e n : d i s c r e p a n c y between demand and r e s p o n s e , i m p l y i n g t h a t . o l e recson o r another, t h e d e s i r e d g o a l h a s n c t be attaiced.

..

Vlewing f r u s t r a t i o n i n t h i s manner. t h e g e n e r a l s t r e model i s a b l e t o t r e a t a v i d e r a n g e o f s p e c i f i c s i t u a t i o and c o n d i t i o n s a s n f r u s t r a t i c g . " For e x a a p l e , a mother m beccme u f r U s t r a t E d ' by t h e f a c t t h a t h e r young c h c o n t i n u a l l y c r i e s and misbehaves. e husband and f % t whose r a c i a l and e d u c a t i o c a l b a c k g r o u n d p r e v e n t s hLm f o b t a i n i n g a s t a b l e job t h r o u g h v h i c h he can s u p p o r t f a m i l y may w e l l be " f r u s i r a t e d * . by t h i s s i t u a t i o n . a no may f i n d t h e h o u s e w i f e - m o t h e r r o l e " f r u s t r a t = n g q l i n t c r s s

T h s Q e n e r a l s t r e s s model would n o t d e n v

the

important

e e n a s a r i s i n g from a n u n r e s o l v s d s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n . t h e a e n e r a l stress model s e e s a l l f r u s t r a t i o n a s l y i n g t h e e x i s t e n c e o f Stress, ln. t h ~ t it u l t i m a t e l y s f r o m t h e discrepancy b e t v e e n a d e s i r e d g o a l a n d t h e i t y t o aChieVE t h a t g c a l .

7s.

.ration

and t h e Family

A number o f i n v e s ? i g a t o F s h a v e l r c k e e fTuS+r?.ti3E w i t h afamily violence. F o r example, G i l ' s t h e ? r y of c h i l d = (1971) h o l d s t h a t t h e p o v e r t y e x i s t i n g i n t h e l o v e r econonic levels cf society creates frustrstions s e d 1c c h i l d abuse. O'Brien e x p l a i n s v i o l e n c e between n d s a n d w i v e s by s u g g e s t i n g t h a t t h e i n a b i l i t y t o h i e v e a d e q u a $ e e c o n o m i c r e v a r d s m i g h t r e s u l t i n "f a n i l y t e r e d v e n t i n g of t h e a g g r e s s i v e n e s s on t h e p a r ? of t h e s b a n d which had its antecedence in frusL.rstions o u n t e r e d i n t h e l a r g e r s t r u c t u r e s o f t h e s o c i a l and nomic w o r l d " ( 1 9 7 1 : 6 9 6 ) . s h i t e h u r s t (1974) p r e d i c t s t h a t t r e n d t o w a r d g r e a t e r e q u a l i t y f o r women may u s 1 1 p o s e a j o r s o u r c e of f r u s t r a t i o n , a n d h e n c e o f v i o l e n c e , f 3 r men c a n n o t c o p e w i t h t h e i r new s t a t u s .

BUT. v h a t i s i t a b o u r t h e f a m i l y t h a t h a s promptea t h e s e d o t h e r f r u s t r a t i o n - b a s e d t h e o r i e s of f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ? I s ere a s p e c i a l connec'ion b e t v e e n f r u s t r a k i o n and t h e mily? Is t h e f a m i l y a more l i k e l y s e t t i n g t h a n o t h e r c i a 1 groups f o r t h e geceration. and a c t i n g s u t . of ustration?

The f a m i l y c a n be r e g a r d e d a s a u r i q u e s o c i a l e n t i t y i n P a r t of t h e r e a s o n e r a s of i t s p o t e n t i a l f o r f r u s t r a t i o n . o r t h i s s p e c i a l positioz, a s discussed e a r l i e r , i s that the a m i l y r o u t i n e l y e n c o u n t e r s numerous s t r s s s o r s t i m u l i i n t h e c u r s e of i t s d a i l y Existence. The s h e e r number o f S t r e s s e s a c e d p r o b a b l y e n s u r e s t h a t et l e a s t some o f t h e s e c a n n o t b e esolved. I c additicn, t h e f a m i l y owing t o i t s p o s i t i n n i n o c i e t y a n d t h e m e c h a n i c s o f i t s i n t ~ r n a ls t r u c t u r e , i s i k e l y t o bp c o n f r o n t e d w i t h a number o f s t r e s s o r s t h a t h a v e l o v probability o f s u c c e s s f u l r e s o l u t i o n s c a h e n c e s h i g h Some o f t h ? more o t e n t L a l fcr g e n e r a t i n g frustrat:on. ommon " i n s o l u b l e n demands f a m i l i e s o f t e n f a c e i n c l u d e t h e

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family V i o l e n c e

t h e s ~ ~ ~ e s s fr euglu l a t i o n o f t h e c o n f l i c t s t h a t s o c c u r among i n t i m a t e s , +nd t h e s u p e r v i s ' o n of t h e a c t o f a l l t a a i l y members i r t h e e x t e r n a l world. Thus, t h e f a m i l y seems t o e n g e n d s r f r u s t r a t i o r b o t h q u a n t i t a t i v e l y and q u a l i ? a t i v e l y , it f a c e s problems i n t r y i n g t o c o u n t e r s t r e s s o r s t i a u l i . G e l l e s and S t r a u s probably do n o t o v e r s t a t e t h s a y i n g t h a t " t h e f a m i l y , by v i r t u e o f i t s s t r u c f u n c t i o n s , c a n be viewed a s a n i n h e r e n t l y f r u i n s t i t u t i o n f o r i t s members* (1978:28). Response C a p a b i l i t i e s o f F a m i l i e s However, t h e l a r g e number a n d v i d e v a r i e t y of d stress e x p e r i e n c e s a I e o n l y p a r t of t h e r e a s 9 frustration i s typical of families. Enothor s s t o f InCIEaSeS t h e l i k e l i h o o d of frustration w i t h l n - h e These t a c t o r s d e r i v e from t h e a b i l i t y of f a m i l i e s t o t h E s t r e s ~ e st h e y do f a c e . A l t h o u g h t h e f a m i l y may b e r e l a t i v e l y " s t r e s s - p does not n e c e s s a r i l y f o l l o w t h a t t h e fam w e l l - e q u i p p e d t o c o p e w i t h t h e s e s t r e s s o r s and t h e a t h a t t h e y impose. on t h e c o n t r a r y , apparently t h e u r b a n f a m i l y i s "a l e s s t h a n s u c c e s s f u l g r o u p d e a l i n s t r e s s e s a n d p r o b l e m s " ( G e l l e s a n d S t r a u s . 1978). it

T h e r e a r e many r e a s o n s f o r t h i s i n a d e q u a c y example, t h e s t a t u s p o s i t i o n s represented within t h e generate diverse, often conflicting, interests, and c o n f l i c t s nay i n t e r f e r e v i t h o p t i m a l decision-making. b e c a u s e t h e t y p i c a l moderr f a a l l y i s r e l a t i v a l y s m a l l i m i t e d rumber o f p e o p l e can be used a s r e s o u r a t t e m p t i n g t o cope v i t h a d i f f i c u l t s i t u a t i o n . I n add t h e i n t i m a t e and i n t e n s e n a t u r e o f f a m i l y r e l a t i c o f t e n means t h a t d e c i s i o n s a r e made e m o t i o n a l l y r a t h e r rationally. T h e s e and o t h e r s t r u c t u r a l c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s a r e 1 t o render t h e family a r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f i c i e n t s c c i a l w i t h r e g a r d t o both t h e decision-waking and t h e p e r f , o f t a s k s b a s e d upon t h e s e d e c i s i o n s . Thls i n e f f i c o f t e n makes i t d i f f i c u l t t o mest t h e demands o f s u c h f a m i l y r a s p o n s i b i l i t i a s a s s o c i a l i z a t i o n o f t h e youo f u l f i l l a e n ? o f t h e e m o t i o r a l n e e d s o f a l l f a m i l y aembez s a y n o t h i n g of t h e more d r a m a t i c c r i s e s t h a t f r s q u b e f a l l inaividoal families.

t r e s s and Family Violsnce posed

stress

hy t h e s e s t i m u l i . model, the result

Page 1 1 1 Bnd, according t o t h e of t h i s unfortunate

f o r t h e g e n e r a t i o n of f r u s t r a t i o n . a s a R e a c t i o n t o F r u s t r a t i o n and T e n s i o n n i f we agree t h a t t h e likelihood of frustration g i n t h e f a m i l y 1 s h i g h , t h e e r u p t i o n o f xip&pgce i s aiced. R c a u s a l l i n k a g e is n e c e s s a r y t o d e t z r n i n e how frustration i n t h e fam'ly translates into i v e behavior. OaUSE t h e general stress model equatfs the it i s u s e f u l t o no?s o f t e n s i o n a n d f r u s t r a t i o n , t o S c o t t and Howard's treatment ~f tension 272-273) i n attoepticg t o detersice t t a relatiocship .n f r u s t r a t i o n a n d v i o l e n c e . These a u f h o r s a r g u e t h a t . a n i c d i v i d u a l i s f a c e d w i t h t h e " s e c o n d - o r d s r problem" - t e m p t i n g t o r e s o l v e t h e t e n s i o n c r e a t e d by a f a i l u r e a t y, t h e o n l y r p a l c o u r s e of a c t i o n s v a i l a b l e i s t o a t e t h i s a c c u m u l a t e d t e n s i o n t h r o u g h some mechanism o f e. Tha; s u c h a l i n e o f r e a s o n i n g is a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e n a l s t a t e o f f r u s t r ~ t i o c i s s h o r n by what EEndura :31-39) has r e f e r r e d t o a s t h e "aggressive d r i v e l e s n of v i o l e n t behavior, most n o t a b l e o f which i s d gt alL's " f r u s t r a t i o n - a g g r e s s i o n h y p o t h e s i s ' ' 11939). h e t h e r one p r e f e r s t o a t t r i b u t e t h i s behavior t o ses o f s o c i a l l e a r n i n g (Bandura a n d F a l t e r s . 1963; ,a, 1973; S t e i c m e t z and S t r a u s , 197U) o r t o i n n a t e gical potertial ( D o l l a z d p i gL.. 1939; a r d r e y , 1966: z. 1 9 6 6 ) . t h e r e c a n be l i t t l e d e n y i n g t h a t V i o l e n c E is i n l y o n e o f t h e more p o p u l a r means o f " b l o w i c g o f f i n our society. ffcr o n l y is v i o l e n c e a fig_ousg: nism o f t e r s i o n r e l e a s e , but, a t l e a s t i n emerica. r e s s i o n i s d e f i n e d a s a Erg&r e s p o n s e t o f r u s t r i t i o n " inmetz and Straus. 1974:9). Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t family h a s an R i n h e r e n t l y f r u s t r a t i n g " chanctsr, r e s s i v e violence should be expected t o occur often within family s e t t i n g . It s h o u l d be e m p h a s i z e d t h a t a d i s t i n c t , qualitative r e n c e e x i s t s b i t w s e n v i o l e n c e t h a t ts a n a s s e r : i v e . umental reponse t o a s t r e s s o r s i t u a t i o n , and v i 3 l e n c e is a n e x p r e s s i v e r e a c t i o E t o f r u s t r a t i o r and t e r s i o n . d i f f e r e n c e h o l d s even though t h e same stressor a t i o n c a n b e t h e s o u r c e o f v i o l e n c e i n b s t h o a s e s . and thouqh t h e s e two t y p e s o f v i o l e n c e can be outwardly istinguishahle.

.

The r e a s o n f c r making t h i s d i s t i n c t i o n i s t h a t v e r y f e r e c t c o g n i t i v e p r o c e s s e s a p p e a r t o be i n v o l v e d i n t h e s e t y p e s of v i o l e n t a c t . on t h c o n e hand, strass-induced,

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family V i o l e r c e

Page 112

instrumental violence is problem-oriented goal-directed--an a t t e m p t t o d i r e c t l y meet a n d r e s o l v e demands p o s e d by a s t r e s s o r s t i m u l u s .

and the

On t h e o t h e r hand, frustration-produced, expressive It v i o l e n c e l a c k s t h i s r a ? i o r a l , problem-solving dimension. is n o t an a s s e r t i v e r e s p o n s e , a n d it i s n o t r e a l l y d i r s c t e a t o w a r d t h e s o l u t i o n o f a problem. l l t h o u g h t h i s k i n d of v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r i s g o v e r r e d , a t l e a s t t o some e x t e n t , by i n t e r n a l i z e d norms t h a t s p e c i f y s p p r o p r i l t s t y p e s o f c o r d u c t i n g i v e n s i t u a t i o c s ( G e l l e s and S t r a u s , 1978:21)--+nn thus i s n o t r e a l l y " u n c o n s c i c u s " o r "beyond t h e c o n t r o l " o f t h e actor--the f a c t remains t h a t e x p r e s s i v s violence doss not represent the rational, c a r e f u l l y chosrn rssponss t o a S t r 4 s s o r S l t u a t i o L t h a t i n s t r u m e n t a l v i o l e n c e doss. E x p r e s s i v e Vlolence and C c t h a r s x The g e n e r a l stress m o d e l ' s t r e a t m e n t of . e x p r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e d o e s n o t i m p l y a d h e r e n c e t o v h s t S t e i n m e t z and S t r a n s h a v e t e r m e d t.h ~ e " c a. thars%s ~ v t h n IlqlU!lu-~K. ~ Straus. 1974). P r o p o n e n t s of t ( D o l l a r d ey G . . 1939: B e t t 1968) h a v e a r g u e , ~ ~ violence tends t o ..,- - - - - . f e e l i n g s t o t h e p o i n t w h e r e more s e r i o u s a g g r e s s i o n r e s u l t s ; hence. t h e y r e g a r d t h e l i m i t e d Expression o f a g g r e s s i o n a s d e s i r a b l e and b e n e f i c i a l . Acwersr. t h e a e n e r a l s t~r e s s model does not consider frustration-produced violence i n such functionalist terns: r a t h e r . it e x p r e s s e s an e m p i r i c a l f a c t regarding intrafamily violence--that it is often a c o n s e q u e n c e o f u n r e s o l v e d stress s i t u a t i o n s , a n 8 t h a t t h e "intervening* process is frustration. ~

~~~

-.

~

~~

P o s s i b l y , e x p r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e d o a s improve a s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n temporarily. Even S t r a u s , a s e v e r e c r i t i c o f t h e c a t h a r s i s v i e w p o i r t , c o n c e d e s , ' T h e r e c a n be l i t t l e d t h a t an o u t b u r s t of a g g r e s s i v e a c t i v i t y i s o f t e n f o l l o v e a s h a r p r e d u c t i o n i n t e n s i o n , a n e m o t i o n a l r e l e a s e , and a f e e l i n g of quiescence. Thus, t h e r e is o f t e n a r =meed3 c a t h a r t i c e f f e c t " (1979a:25). However. even i f v i o l d o e s d i s s i p a t e accumulated f r u s t r a t i o n and t e n s i o n , t outcomes a r e probably o n l y temporary and s u p e r f i c i a l . P a long-term rievpoirt, it is doubtful t trustration-caused v i o l e n c e w i l l have acy mfaningf p o s l t i v e a f f e c t o n a problem: Expressive violenze r a r e 1 d i r e c t e d a t t h e g e r i u i n e c a u s e s o f a problem. Therefore. is u n l i k e l y t o change t h e c o c d i t i o n s t h a t caused t h e t e n s and r r u s t r a t l o n i n t h e first place. I n f a c t , because o f p o t e n t i a l f o r r e i n f o r c i n g f u t u r e v i o l e n t b e h s v i o r (Feshb 1970; Bandura. 1973:31-39: Steinmet2 and Str 1974:14-1.5)- e x p r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e n o t o n l y f a i l s t o impro p r e s e n t troablesome family s i t u a t i o n , but a l s o can c u n i n t e n d e d and u n d e s i r a b l e long-term consequences.

ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family V i o l e r c a

v w e r l o a d " v e r s u s "Underload"

Page 1 1 3

Stress Situations

E S O U T C ~ o f Some d i f f i c u l t y i r t h e scheme p r o p o s e d h e r e whether any q u a l i t a t i v e d i f f e r e n c e s e x i s t between e r l o a d " and "underlOzd*- s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n s i c their t r n t i a l f o r g e n e r a t i n g e x p r e s s i v e violent;. Rs d i s c u s s e d a r l l s r . t h e g e n e r a l stress model d e f l n e s s t r e s s a s sgp ~ g n i f i c a n t discrepancy between demand and r e s p o r . s e a p a b i l i t i e s , w h e t h e r demand e x c e e d s r e s p o n s e c a p e b i l i t i ~ s r v i c e versa. The c o n n e c t i o r s between s t r e s s , f r u s t r a t i c n , r d v i o l e n c e may be f a i r l y c l e a r i n t h e c a s e o f " o v e r l o a d " t r e s s situations: what a b o u t t h e c o r n e c t i o c s between x p r e s s i v e v i o l e n c e and " u n d e r l o a d " s t r e s s s i f u a t i o n s marked y excessive rootine, l a c k of challenge. and e g e n e r a l bsence o f s t i m u l a t i o n ?

g s g a r d i n g t h e c o m p a r a t i v e effects af ' * o v n r l n s d * r s r s u s n d s r l c a d " s t r e s s s i t u a t i o n s a s c a u s e s c f v i o l e n c e and g r e s s i o n , t h e p r e s e c t i n c l i n a t i o n o f t h e g e n e r a l stress d e l is t o a s s u m e t h a t t h e y a r e . i n e f f e c t . t h e same. This c o n s i s t e n t w i t h t h e "Clockwork Orange" t h e o r y o f f a m i l y l e n c e (GElles and Straus. 1978:30-32). vhich suggests t a g g r e s s i v e b e h a v i o r o f t e n o c c u r s i n s i t u a t i o n s where e g l o v e f i t s t o o s m o o t h l y a n d f a m i l y members t r y t o . ' s t i r n g s upv j u s r t o maks t h i n g s i n t e r e s t i n g . " On t h e s t r e n g t h t h i s +hecry, then, o n e would e x p s c t p s r s n n r t o s t t a c k t h e r s VhEn t h e i r l i v e s a r e marked by boredom and l a c k o f citcment. j u s t as t h ~ y do when f a c e d by u n s o l v a b l e oblems. Aovever, t h e r e a r e t h o s e who would p r o b a b l y u e s t i c n t h i s a s s u m p t i o n ( P a l m e r , 1970; 1972: G e l l e s a n d traus, 1978:31), sugges5icg t h a t t h i s a s p e c t of the elationship between stress a c d v i o l e n c e n e e d s much n v e s t i g a l i a n b e f o r e t h i s q u e s t i o n c a n be r e s o l v e d .

Ch.7.

S t r e s s and Family B i o l e c c e

I f Sound, t h e g e c e r a l s t r e s s mods1 would seam t o a s t r o n g p o s i t i o n t o c o n t r i b u t e s o b s t e n t i a l l y tow It allows f o integrated theory of family violatce. incorporation of elements fron several imp social-psychological approaches t o family violenca example. frustration-aqgression t h e o r y and s o c i a l l e theory. Et t h e same time, t h e g e n e r a l s t r e s s model i n t o a c c o u n t t h e v a r i o u s s t r u c t u r a l f a c t o r s t h a t de?s which f a m i l i e s w i l l b e most l i k e l y t o E x p e r i e n c e s what r 3 ~ o u r c e st h e y w i l l h a v e a t t h e 3 d i s p o s a l i o a e s t r e s s , a n d , most i m p o r t a n t o f a l l , t h e l i k e l i h o o s t r e s s H i l l r e s u l t i n v i o l e n c e ( F z r r i n q t o n , 1975:37-45

NOTE * P o r t i o n s of s e c t i o n s o f t h i s p a p e r a p p e i r i n nTow G e n e r a l T h e o r y o f S t r e s s a n d F a m i l y v i o l r n c s . * by F a r r i n g t o n , a p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1975 a n n u a l r e e t i t h e R a t i o n a l C o u n c i l on F a m i l y R s l a t i o o s .

Chapter 8

The Paradoxical Nature of Family Relationships and Family Conflict Joyce E. Foss

Not a l l v i o l e n c e b e t v e e n f a m i l y members i s the result of a conflict. Ind c o t a l l c o n f l i c t s end i n v i o l e n c e . whether o r n o t t h e i n e v i t a b l e c o n f l l c t s of family l i f e eventuate i n viclence d e p e n d s p a r t l y on v h e t h e r t h e r e a r e a l t e r n a t i v e methods f o r r e s o l v i n g t h e c o r f l i c t . Bowever, i n C h a p t e r 7 P a r r i n g t o n p r o p o s e d t h a t f a m i l i e s may be s t r u c t u r e d i n a v a y t h a t a d v e r s e l y a f f e c t s t h e i r capabilities f o r resolving confllcts. In t h i s chapter. Poss examines t h i s c o n t e n t i o n i n more d e t a i l and a l s o c o n c l u d e s t h a t i n i n t i m a t e groups l i k e t h e family, s t r u c t u r a l c o n s t r a i n t s work a g a i n s t e f f e c t i v e c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n . rmong + h e f a c t o r s w o r k i n g a g a i x s t f a m i l i e s ' u s i n g c o n f l i c t ~ e s c l u t i o nt e c h n i q u e s t h a t h a v e a low p r o b a b i l i t y o f p r o d u c i n g v i o l e n c e a r e t h e high emotional investment betveer family members. t h e i r t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y i n v o l v e m e n t . and t h e k n o w l e d g s t h a t members c a n n o t s i m p l y p i c k up a n d l e a v e when a c o n f l i c t d e v e l o p s . S i m p l e a v o i d a n c e is a w i d e l y u s e d t e c h n i q u e t o p r e v e n t an e s c a l a t i o n i n t o v i o l e n t encour.ters. but it is a very d i f f i c u l t s t r a t e g p i n groups t h a t a r e s t r u c t u r e d t o g e n e r a t s high l e v a l s of i n t e r a c t i o ~ , ecoromic interdependence. and s m o t i o n a l commitment. Besides. a s Poss notes. t h e avoidance o f c o n f l i c t i n in+imate groups u i l l l e a d o n l y t o more c o n f l i c t .

Ch.8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family R e l a t i o n s h i p s

Page

i n t e r p e r s o n a l violence and aggression. The i s s u e c f t h l r e l a t i o n s h i p b e t w e e n f a m i l y s t r u c t u r a and c o n f l i c t a n r v i o l e n c e 1s i m p o r t a n t f o r s e v e r a l r e a s o n s . Firs?, neithel f a m i l y s o c i o l o g i s t s n o r c o n f l i c t t h e o r i s t s g D n e r a l l y ha.,! t a k e n f u l l a d v a n t a g e o r t h e f a m i l y a r e n a a s one i n which c o n f l i c t approach might be u s e f u l l y a p p l i e d ( P a r r i n g t o n an( POss. 1977: Skolnick, 1973: Spre?, 1 9 6 9 ) . Second. more s p e c i f i c a l l y , c o n f l i c t t h e o r y h a s bear i a e n t i f i s a a s r p o t e n t i a l l y f r u i t f u l a p p r o e c h t o t h e s t u d y o f v i o l e c c e ir f a m i l i e s ( G e l l e s and S t r a u s , 1 9 7 4 ; S t e i r m e t z snd Strams, 1974:5-6). F u r t h e r , s e v e r a l o t h e r frameworks i 3 s n t i f i e a a a valuable i n t h e area, such a s resource, structura, exchange, and f r u s t r a t i c n - a g g r e s s i o n t h e o r i s s ( G e l l p s an[ S t r a u s , 1374). a l s o i n c l u d e c o n f l 2 c t a s a c + n t r a l coccept. Yet, thoogh c o n f l i c t o f t t n is p r e s e l t e d a s c e l t r a l t c , o r a p r e c o n d i t i o n for, v i o l e n c e . a s p e c i f i c t h e o r y of hor c o n f l i c t p r o c e s s e s a n d v i o l e n c e a r e r e l a t e d h a s n o t been adequately delineated. Lewis C o s e r ' s work o r c o c f l i c : p r o v i d e s a found for t h i s analysis: h i s extensive attention t o i n t i g r o u p s makes h i s work r e a d i l y a p p l i c a b l e t o t h e fsm T h i s c h a p t e r p r e s m t s a number o f p r o p o s i t i o n s c o n c e f a m i l y C o n f l i c t and v i o l e n c s and summarizes t h e formul In d i a g r a m m a t i c form. A major emphasis i n t h e chapt c a r e f n l s p e c i f i c a t i o n of k e y c o n c e p t s i n t h e a r e a .

TKX F91ILY PS A STRUCTURAL P E R A D O X COSerls a n a l y s i s of c o n f l i c t i n i n t i m a t e groups h i on a r e c o g n i t i o n o f t h e p a r a d o x i c a l n a t u r e of t Structure. I n t i m a t e groups a r e paradoxical i n t h a t t h s S t r n c t u r a l e l e m e n t s t h a t make h o s t i l i t y l i k e l y a l s o c r e a The h i g h probability t h a t h o s t i l i t y w i l l be s u p p r e s s e d . key characteristics of i n t i m a t e groups a r a t h e freguency of i n t e r a c t i o n and the total persona i n v o l v e m e n t among g r o u p membsrs. The f o l l o w i n g p r o p o s i t i i l l u s t r a t e t h e p a r a d o x i c a l r e l a t i o n s h i p of t h e s e s t r u c t f e a t u r e s with h o s t i l i t y and t h e s u p p r e s s i o n o f h o s t i l i t y T W O f o c a l variables 1 r t h l s p a r t of t h e analysis a r e c o n f l l c t of I n t e r e s t a s d h o s t l l l t y . wblch a r e d e f l r e d a s rollo~s:

Conflict s f lpterest: hr. n o b j s c t r v € a s z t u a t l s r . In which two or more partles hold contradictory s a l o e s a n d c l a l m s o v e r scarce s t a t u s . power, a n d r e s o u r c e s .

8.

Paradoxical Paaily Relationships

Pags 117

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n of c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t c o n c u r s v i t h er's use of phrases l i k e "conflict situation" o r c a s i o n s f o r c o n f l i c t ' t o r e f e r t o a s i t u a t i o n i n which i n t e r e s t s o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a r e o b j e c t i v e l y a t odds. r s h a r p l y d i s t i n g u i s h e s between such a s i t u a t i o n and l l c t i t s e l f , which r e f e r s t o a p a r t i c u l a r k i n d o f 5 g f 6 ~ ~ ehavioral strategy. T h i s d i s t i x c t i o n w i l l be f u ? t h e r Ros'ility a l s o o r e d when c o c f l i c t i t s E l f is d i s c u s s e d . no? a b e h a v i o r o r a c t i o n , b u t i s a ~ c Q j ~ ~ f fi eve l3i n g o f ositioc, t h a t may o r may s o ? o c c u r when p e o p l = h a v s flicting interests. i l y S t r u c t u r e and H o s x l l i t p I n t i m a t e groups

are

by

d e f i n i t i o n c h a r a c t e r i z e d by p e r s o n a l i t y i n v o l v a m e n t 2nd bp i g h f r e q u s n c y o f i n t e r a c t i o n ( C o s e r , 1956:611). Following work o f Simmel a n d F r e u d , C o s e r a r g u e s t h a t h a b i t u s l o r tense i n t e r a c t i o r "furnishes frequent occasions for nflict' (1956:62)--or f r e q u e n t c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t , i n rms of t h e p r e s e n t a r g u m e n t . I n r e l a t i o n s h i p s with 3 high equnncy o f i n t e r a c t i o n , c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t w i l l b e e d and numerous. I n c t h e r words. f r e q u e c t i n t e r a c t i o n u c e s b o t h a h i g h number o r E S Z ~ B ~ Pof c o n f l i c t i n g rests and a h i g h f r e q u e n c y w i t h which t h o s e c o n f l i c t s o f .rest w i l l arise. a l , r a t h e r t h a r segmented.

The r e l a t i o n s h i p be?ween degren 9f personality Olvement and c o n f l i c t o f i n t e r e s t i s s i m i l a r . "The more r e l a t i o n s h i p i s b a s n d on t h e p a r t i c i p a t i o n of t h e t o t a l ocality--as distinct from s e g m e n t a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n " e r . 1956:62), o r t h e more b a s e s on which p e r s o n s a r e r a c t i n g v i t h Ens a r o t h s r , t h e g r e a t e r t h e v a r : D k Y a n d nency of t h e c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t t h a t a r i s e . Two o s i t i o n s can t h e n be s t a t e d : P , o ~ ~ b r & o1.p The more frequent :he i n t e r a c t i o n , t h e more f r e g u e n t a n d v a r i e d a r e C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t . P r o ~ o g z % g 2. -involvement frequent interest.

The more t o t a l t h e p e r s o n a l i t y i n a relationship. t h e more and variea are conflicts of

c o s e r f u r t h e r a s s e r t s (1956:62): P r o g % i r ; i m 3. C o n f l i c t s --prcduca h o s t i l i t y .

of i n t e r e s t t e n d t o

T h i s proposition s t a t e s t h a t when p e o p l e a r e f a c e 3 w i t h o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t , s n b j e c t i v e f e e l i n g s o f ill w i l l o r position a r e likely t o arise. Bowever, t h i s r u l e i s n o t thout rxcepticn. F o r e x a m p l e , s u b j e c t i v e h o s t i l i t y map

n o t o c c u r when --Aobjectivelyn

'he participants define a s legitimate an u n e q u a l d i s t r i b u t i o n of r e s o u r c e s . Yet e v e n t h o u g h c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t do n o t a l w a y s laed to hostility, z t is a p p r o p r i a t e t o s t a t a p r z p o s i t i o n 3 a s a g e n e r a l tendency.

P ro e o s l t l o n 4. --

Preqosnt create hostxllty.

lnteractror

P r o p o s - ? l o % 5. Total prrsonallty tezds tc creat- hostlllty.

t a d s

to

involvement

To t u r t h e r s n m n a r i z e t h e a r g u m e n t t h u s f a r . if l r t r m a t e g r o u p s a r e t h o s e c h a r a c t e r i z e d by f r e q u e n t l n t e r a c t r o n a n d t o t a l personality I n v o l v e m e n t . t h e n :

a=~s&&?; 5. I n t z m a t e

relatlonshlps

tend

t>

create hostlllty.

P a m l l r S t r u c t u r e a n d Suppression o f A o s t z l i t y I n t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s tend not only to hostility, but a l s o t o cause a high a f f e c t i v e o r expre i n v e s t m e n t i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p t h a t i n t u r n gene efforts to suppress hostility (Coser, 1956:EO-6 a f f e c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t seems t o i n v o l v s t v 3 e l e m e n t s : p o s i t i v e l i k i n g o r a t t r a c t i o n t o t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . ana r e p l a c e a b i l i t y of t h e members o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p * l . Th two concepts a r e roughly e q u i v a l e n t t o t h e concepts C o n p a r i s o n L e v e l a n d Comparison L e v e l o f R l t e r n a t i v s s T h i b a u t and K e l l e y ' s exchange t h e o r y (1959). I n a c c o r d a n c e v l + h Aomans' hypcthssis t h a t i o c r ~ a s e i r t e r a c t i o n 1s r e l a t e d t o '*mutual s e n t l m e n t s o f l l k l n g , " C o s e r s u g g e s t s (1956:62) : ~ ~ = p o s l t l o1.n The more frequent the interactlon. the greater the posltlve affect among g r o u p members. The s p e c i f i c e f f e c t s o f p e r s o c a l i t y i n v o l v e m e n t a r e entirely clear in Caser's discussion, but it s . . reasonabls t o p o s i t t h a t t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y involvemeni a 0 n o t h a v e a n i m p o r t a n t d i r e c t e f f e c t on p o s i t i v e a f f e c t , b i n f l u e n c e s t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f t h e r e p l a c e a b i l i t y of g r E r e l a t i o n s h i p c h a r a c t e r i z e d by t o t a l p e r s o n a members. involvement is l a r g e l y b u i l t on t h e unique c m t r i b u t i o n s B s Simmel p o i n t s o u t , t h i s i s e s p e c i a each personality. t r u e i n d y a d i c r e l a t i o n s h i p s l i k e m a r r i a g e (1950:122-1 when t h i s o c c u r s . t h e r e p l a c e m e n t o f o n e g r o u p member a t t h e v e r y l e a s t s e r i o u s l y a l t e r t h e q u a l i t y of g relationships. Thus:

8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family F e l a t i o n s h i p s P --

? a g e 119

.

r o The more t o t a l t h e p e r s o n a l i t y i n v o l v e l e r t i r a relationship, t h e lower t h e r e p l a c e i b i l i t y o f g r o u p members.

Ps suggested above, positive affect and low l a c e a b i l i t y o f g r o u p m e a b s r s c l n be f u r t h e r r e l a t e a i n a necting proposition. Proeg&r&ip 9 . ---

The g r e a t e r t h e p o s i t i v s a f f e c t a r d t h e l o w e r :he r e p l a c - a b i l i t y of g r o u p members, t h e g r e a t e r the c f f ~ c t i v e or e x p r e s s i v e inv=?:mert 1 n t h e group.

c o s e r f u r t h e r s u g g e s r s (1956, 1962, 1 9 6 8 ) : P r o E o s l f i o n 10. --investment i n

The g r e a t e r the affectivs a relationship, t h e greater the f e a r of d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p .

p=oEosi;t_Zor 11.

The g r e a t e r the fear if d i s s o l u t i o n or a r e l a t i o n s h i p , t h e g r e a t m r t h e tecdency t o suppress h o s t i l i t y .

Rnd f i n a l l y , t o summarize. we c a n s t a t e : P r o p o s i t i o ~12. I r t i m a t e r e l a t i o n s h i p s t e n d produce s u p p r e s s i o x o f h o s t i l i t y .

t3

r u m e n t a l DEpe2dency a r d S u p p r e s s i o n o f E a s t i l i t y The p r e c e d i n g d i s c u s s i o r t r e a t s o n l y t h e h i g h a f l g E f i E p s t m e n t i n i n t i m a t e g r o u p s a c d i t s s u b s e q u e n t e f f e c t on r e s s i o n of h o s t i l i t y . There a r e a l s o significant rueectal icvestmects i n relationships. C o s 3 r v s Dsphasis n t i R a t E g ~ o u p st h a t a r e b a s e d o n v o l u n t a r y a s s o c i a t i o n havs influfnced his l a c k of a t t e n t i o n t3 t h e rumental a s p e c t s of i r t i m a t e r e l a t i o r s h i p s . This i s not a r t h a t v o l u r t a r y r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r e n e v e r b a s e d a: l e a s t i a l l y on i r s t r u m a n t a l concezcs. R a t h e r , we s u g g e s t t h a t relationships a r e r o c v o l u n t a r y t h e i r i n s t r u n e n t a l b a s e s me more i m p o r t a r t a n d n o r e a p p z r e n t . T h i s seems ? a b e c + s e w i t h t h e family. rs s p r e y p o i n t s o u t , " p a r t i c i p a t i o n i r t h e f s m i l y i s a t r o l y voluntary matter" (1969:702). I n the first e. c h i l d r e n h a v e n o c h o i c e i n p a r t i c i p a t i n g i n f a m i l y tionships. Secard, f o r a d u l t s , marriags is e s s e r t i a l l y the o l u n t a r y i n t h a t t h e r e i s "no r e a l a l t e r n a t i r e . . . 3 Sprey i e d s t a t e as a l i f - c a r e e r " ( S p r e y , 1969:702). €5 t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s h a v e l i t t l e o r n o cho:ce as t o her t o e n t e r family r e l e t i o n s h i p s i n general. Yet, + h e m m e r t a l dependencies i r family relatiorships ere -recognized ( s s e S c a c z o n i . 1970; 1972:62-66): hsving 2 e n t e r s d a p a r t i c u l a r f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p . I? i s a t b e s t

d i f f i c u l t t o 1 9 a v e it. T h u s , f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s a r r e l a t i v e l y nonvaluctary o r c o s x i v e a t t h i s l e v s l . d i f f i c u l t y i n l e a v i n g f a m i l y r e l a t i o n s h i p s s a y b4 d u e t o t h e a f f e c t i v e i n s e s t m e r t i n i n t i m a t e groups d i s c u s s C o s e r , b u t it i 5 a l s o d u e '0 t h e i n s t r u m e n t a l i n v e r f n e a e p e n d e n c i e s o f f a a i l y members. That t h e high inaLrumenta1 investmsct t n f a s u p p r e s s e s h o s t i l i t y may a c C u a l l y h e c o r t r a d i c t o r y . z f f s c t i r e investment, high i n s t r u m e n t a l l n v e s m e n t i relationship may i n c r e a s e f e a r of t h e r e l a t i o n s h dissolving, and i r t o m p r o d a c e a t t e m p t s t o supp hostility. Thus. wa s t e t e a p t r a l l e l t o P r o p c s i t i v n 10:

13. Th? h l g h e r Lhe m s : r u m e n t a l l r v e s t n s n * IP a r e l a t l o n s h z p , t h e h l g h e r + h e p e a r if d l s s o l u t l o n o f t b s r e l a t l o n s h i p .

Propsa:loy

S ~ C SP r o p o s ~ t l o n1 1 f u r L h e r a s s a r t s t h a * f e a r I d l s s o l u t l o n p r o d u c e s suppression of h o s t l l l t y , we can t h , s!lggest t h a t t h s g r e a t e r + h e l n s t r u m e n t a l l n v e s t m e n t i n relatlonshlp, the greater t h e snpprasslon of bostilzty. o n t h e o t h e r hand, a f a m i l y member may be a w a r e of t t i r s t r u o e n t a l d e p e r a m c e of t h e o_t_hsy o n t h e r e l a t i o n s h Z p a, t h u s may r e c o g n i z e t h e l a w p r o b a b i l i t y o f t h e o t h e r ' leaving. The p e r s o n may t h e n h a v e l e s s f a a r o f t l relationship's terminating ( p e r h a p s r i g h t l y s ~ ) a c d mc t h e r e f o r e b e &== l i k e l y t o s u p p r e s s h o s t i l i t y . Thr6 factors mitigate against this possibility. First i n s t r u m e n t a l i n v e s t m e n t may i n c r e a s e t h e f e a r o f d i s s o l u t r r i n d i r e c t l y , by i n c r e a s i r g a f f e c t i v e investmen'. This j Suggested i!! Scanzoni's exchange modol o f m a r r i a : (1970:16-25). Second, f a m i l y members may n o t r e z o g n i z e t t instrumental bhses ot thEir relationships. f hi n o n r e c o g n i t i o n may ever be the norm for aarite r e l a t i o n s h i p s i n which c u l t u r a l E m p h a s i s on r o m a n t i c l s v a e t h e b a s l s f o r t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p may o b s c u r e t h e i c s t r u m e n t z aspects. Third, e v a n when t h e p e r s o n d o e s r e c o g n i z e t E i p s t r u m e n t a l b a s e s of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p , a p e r t n z r voul p r o b a b l y r e c o g n i z e h i s o r h e r own d e p e n d e n c i e s b e f o r ? t h o e o f t h e o t h e r , i f o a l y b e c a u s e o n e i s more s e n s i t i v e t o a s i a m i l l a r w i t h o n e ' s own p r e d i c a m e n t . Consider t h e p o s i t i c of a young woman u i r h s e v e r a l y o u r g c h i l d r e n and feu s k i l l relevant to employment outside t h e home. Eer or i n s t r u m e n t a l d e p e n d e n c i e s on t h e m a r i t a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s e e s o o b v i o ~ s and e x t r e m e t h a t s h e may n o t r e a l i z e t h 3 c h e h u s b a n d ' s d e p e n d e n c y nay be e q u a l t o h e r s . PErceirFn h e r s e l f a s h a v i c g t h e most t o l o s e s h o u l d t h ? m a r r i a g e b r e a up, s h e w i l l f e a r i t s d i s s o l u t i o n a n d t h s r s f o r e a t t e m p t t suppress hostllity.rZ

Page 1 2 1

Thus, t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t b o t h ( o r ~ 1 1 ) msmbers o f group have an i n s t r u m e n t a l investment, each h a s something t 1 0 5 ~ i f t h e g r o u p d i s s o l v e s a n d s o e a c h may b e f e a r f u l c expressing hostility. For the above rPasons P r o p o s i t i o n 13, t h a t ins:rumental i c r a s t m e n t i n c r s a s P s fez of dzssolution, stands--at l e a s t f o r t h e PreSsPt. 01 f u r t h e r commecf i s i n o r d e r . P r o p o s i t i o n s 10 a n 8 13 s u g g e r that both a t f s c t i v e a r d i n s t r u e p n t a l i n r r s t m e n t s i n r e l a t i o n s h i p l e a d g r o u p members t o f e e r t t e d i s s o l u t i o n c the relationship. Yet, o b j e c t i v e l y speaking, it i s p o s s i b l t c argue t h a t those very l r s o s t m e c t s t h a t lead grrup s l s b e r t o f e a r d i s s o l u t i o n o f t h e grGup a r e z l d r s d t t s strpn_gEQs c t h a t relationship--8 curious c o n t r a d i c t i o r i n t h e l i f e c i n t i m a t e groups. F i g u r e 1 s u m m a r i z s s i c d i e g r a m m a t i c form t h e mai o u t l i n e s o f t h e model p r e s e n t e d t h u s f a r . I n t i m a t e groups characterizes by f r e q u e n t i n t e r a c t i o n a n d t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t involvesent, a r e paradoxical i n structure, i r that the promote b o t h s u b j e c t i v e h c s t i l i t y and a t t e m p t s t o s u p p r e s hostility. The i n s t r u m e n t a l i n v e s t m e o t s which C h a r a c t E r i z f a m l y relationships a l s o contriDute t o the suppressioc o hostility.

The p r o c e s s e s 1%i r t i m a t e g r c u p s c o n s i d e r e d t h u s f a p l a c e t h e a c t o x i n a s t a t e of a ~ b i v a l e n c e . O n t h € one h z n a h e o r s h e is t a c e d v l t h a namber o f c o n f l i c t s of i n t s r e s and f e e l s r e s u l t i n g h o s t i l i t y toward another. Dn t h e o t h e hand, h a f e a r s t h c r e l a t i o n s h i p ' s d i s s o l u t i o n a n d a t t e m p t t o suppress hostility. The i r . t i m a t a g r o u p r e p r e s - n t s paradoxlcsl structure likely to produce subjectiv ambivalence o r tension. a.+- t h i s p o i n t i t is a p p r o p r i a t e t o s h i f t 3 u r f o c u s f r o . c a u s a l c h a i n s t o t h e o p t i o n s o r c h o i c e s a v a i l a b l e s c d th c o n d i t i o n s ~ n f l u e n c i n gt h e s e c h o l c e s . The t h r e e b s h i v i o r a options examined are avoidance and s x p r e s s i v s an instrumental conflict. Coser does n o t a s c l e a r l y p r s s e n t h i s s t a g e i n t h e c o c f l i c t p r o c e s s a s z d a c i s i o n poln: a whzch a number of o p t i o n s ere open t o g r o u p membsrs Rather, his analysis lnplies an alnas: icevitabl' progressLoK toward e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t i n i n t i m a t e g r o u p s , Pur'her, Ccser does r o t e x p l i c i t l y i n c l u d e avoidacce a s i p o s ~ ~ b cl he o i c e . a l t h o u g h h e a c e s s u g g s s t some p o s s i h l l consequences of avoidance s t r a t e g i e s .

8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family F s l a t i c n s h i p s

p3gc 1 2 3

ms of c o n f l i c t EefOrE e x a m i n i r g t h e c o n d l t i o n s i n f l u e n c i n g t h e c h o i c e strategy, w e n e e d t o c c n s i d e r t h s meaning o f som= k e y ~ e p t s . C o n f l i c t s of i n f e r s s : u s r e d s f i c e d e a r l i e r i s a n ective situa?ion ir which t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s hold t r a d i c t o r y v a l u e s and c l a i m s , a i d uc not-3 t h i i Coser * f u l l y d i S t i C g U l S h J S b e t w e e n s u c h an C h j F c t i v f s i t u a t i o n b e h a v i o r a l s t r a f s g i e s l i k ~c0r.f l i c t . ThLs d i s t i n c t i o n maintained here. C o-n f l i c t : -holding

A c t i v e o p p o s i t r o n betweao p a r t i ? s c o n t r a d i c t o r y v a l u e s and c l l i a s over s c a r c e s t a t u s , power, a n d r e s o u r c e s .

T h i s d e f i n i t i o n u n d e r s c o r e s t h e very r e a l p o s s i b i l i t y t persons with o b j e c t i v e l y a r t a g o n i s 3 c i n t e r e s t s l o r o t e s s a r i l y engage i n a c t e g o c i s t i c behavior. It must hO r e s s e d t h a t t h e term c o n f l i c t r e f e r s t o t h e a c t u a l h a p i p r o r g r o u p .embers. No m a t t e r how E e r i o n s t h s n f l i c t s o f i c t e r e s t amorg g r o u p members a p p e a r t o be. n f l i c t i t s e l f has not occurred unless t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s t u a l l y e n g a g e i n some t o r n o f a n t a g o n i s t i c b s h a v i o r . T h i s d e f i n i t i o n o t c o n f l i c t i s e q u i v a l e n t t o t h s t of ser. a s a " s t r u g g l ~ o v e r v a l u e s and c l a i m s t o s c a r c e .us, power. a n d ~ E S C U ~ C F S " (1956:8). H3wever. we 5 i n g u i s h between two f o r m s o f c o n f l i c t . Instrument21 conflict:

Task-orianted c s n f l i c t .

he d i s t i n c t i o n between ~ x p r e s s i v e and i n s ? r u m e n + a l o n f l i c t i s based cn Coser's m o d i f i c a t i o n d u r i n g t h e c o u r s e f his analysis c t key c o n c e p t s and d e f i n i t i o n s . nost nportant is his discussion of " r ~ a l i l t i ~ ' and con-reallsiic" conflict:

C o n f l i c t s which a r i s e from frustretion of s p e c i f i c demands w i t h i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p and from e s t i m a t e s o f g a i r s o f t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s , acd which a I E d i r e c t F d a t t h e presumed f r u s t r a t i r g confgcts o b j e c t , c a n be c a l l e d ze_aMs:ig i n s c f a r a s t h e y a r e means t o w a r d a s p e c i f i c result. 4p-realistic g~~flZ:=--. are a 3 t o c c a s i o n e d by t h e r i v a l e n d s o f t h e a h t a g o r i s t s , but by ? h e n e e d f o r t e r s i o n r e l e a s e of a t Least o n e o t them (1956:49). C35er g o e s OE t o s t a t e that " h e n c e f o r t h , w i l l a p p l y t o r e a l i s t i c c o n f l i c t only"

'conflict'

t h s term (1956:60).

&qzfs&c&: A spscrflc stra-egy with the i n t s r t o r goal of l n j u r l n g t h e other.

"Afc~:

S p e c l f x a l l y physrcal aggresslon.

C o n s i s t e n t wl?h + h e t h e o r i e s a t S t e i n n e t z an< S t r a r a n d C o s e r (1956:SO-51). a g g r e s s r o n c a n be s u n s t r a t e g y of e i t h e r i n s t r o m e n t a l c r e x p r e s s r v S c c n f l i c t I n o L h e r ~ o r d s , aggression i + s e l f c a n be c h a r a c t - r i z e d a l ~ s t r u m e n t a lo r e x p r e s s l r e . (1974:U)

D l s t r r g u l s h l n g I r s t r u m e n t a l and Expressrve C s n f l i c t I n s t r u m e n t a l a n d e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t a;? pors ty,pe that, i n r e a l i t y , o f l e n a r e mixed i c t h e same a c t ( C o s e r 1956:53-54). S t i l l , c r i f e r i a b y which we s h o u l d d i s t i c g u i s t h e s e two f o r m s of c o n f l i c t n e e d e x a m i n i n g . C o s e r i s co a l t o g e t h e r c o n s i s r e n t ox t h i s m a t t e r . On t h e s n e hand, h a r g u e s Chat e x p r s s s i v e and i n s t r u m e n t a l c o n f l i c t c s n h d l s t i r g u i s h e d i r terms cf t h - i r consegusPces: "wherea [ i n s t r u a e n t z l ] c o n f l i c t n e c e s s a r i l y changes t h e prsv' tsms of t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p o f t h e participants, hostility [ n x p r e s 5 i v e c o n f l i c t ] h a s no s u c h n e c z s s e f f e c t s a n d may l e a v e t h e t e r m s o f t h e ;Elation u n c h a n g e d n (1956:QO). ,

The f l a w i n t h i s a n a l y s i s i s t h a t i n s t r u n P n t a l c o r f i s e s s e n t i a l l y * f i g s a s t h a c kind of b e h a v i o r a l expzes a t h o s t i l i t y t h a t r e s u l t s i c change o r is instrument

8.

P e r a a o x i c a l Pamily B e l a t i o r s h i p s

Page 125

ccessful. One d i f f i c u l t y i s t h a t w h e t h e r a s t r a t e g y was eed i n s t r u m 4 n t a l O r expressive c o ~ f l l ~ : must be i r i c a l l y assessed 2 2 ~ 2 facts a s t c w h e t t s r i l was c e s s f u l ( f o r a d i s c u s s i o n c f p r o h l e a s w i t h PZ ~ 2 % ; f a g o ~ Y S B S 12 a r e l a t e d c c n n e c t i o n , s e e S k i n n e r , 1953:31-35: erwood, 1957: 195-233). Second, t h e a n e l y s i s i m p l i e s t h a t ever a n i n s t r u a e n t a l s t r a t e g y i s ussd, a 5 u c c E s ~ f u l This c o n t r a d i c t s Caser's own o n e is i n e v i t a b l e . p i t i o n t h a t e v e n w b e r e c i c s t r u n s n t a l ccnfl:cL sta'egy s e a , t h e s p e c i f i c m?zns a d o p t p a 3 r a n o t n r c i s s a r i l y u a t e f o r r e a c h i n g t h e i n t e n d e d g o a l (1956:54). Third, a p p r o a c h i m p l i e s t h a t f-xgresgr_ve c o n f l i c : is h q e s s f u l i n f o s t e r i c g t h e a t t a i n n a n t of i r s t r u m e n t a l 5. P i n a l l y , confounding t h e p o t e n t i a l consequences o f a v i o r a l s t r a t e g y v i t h t h e v e r y d e f i n f t i o n of t h e s t r a t e g y ludes empirically examicing relationships between ous s t r a t e g i e s a n d outcomes. A second possibility for distinguishing between s t r u m e n t a l and e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t is t o examine t h e a l i t y of t h e a c t s performed. The m a j o r d i f f i c u l t y v i t h s possibility has already been s u g g s s t e a : that r t i c u l a r s t r a t e g i ~ sc a n o f t e n be used i n b o t h i c s t r u m ? n t a l expressive Conflict. For example, a g g r e s s i o n i s p r c b a b l y t o f t e n i n d i c a t i v e of p u r e l y e x p r e s s i v e behavior, but can a r a t i a n a l c h c i c e of b e h a v i o r i n p u r s u i t of s o n 2 trumental goal. Ttus, t h e a g g r e s s i v e q u a l i t y o f so a c t o a t sufficient e v l d e n o e t h a t t h e a c t n e c e s s a r i l y f a l l s o one o r t h e o t h e r t y p e s of c o n f l i c t .

The t h i r d a p p r o a c h , "sad here, is t o differestiate t r u m e n t a l and E x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t a c c o r d i n g t o t h e i c t e n t g o a l s of t k e p a r t i c i p a n t s . T h i s approach is c o c s i s t e n r t h t h e p o r t i o n s of C o s E r ' s a n a l y s i s t h a t do n o t b a s e t h e s t i n c t i o n CL s u c c e s s o r outcome. a s i n : n...conflicl is ewed by t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s a s a means t o w a r d t h e a c h i e v e m e n t r e a 1 1 s t i c e n d s , a means which n i g h t be a h s o d o n a d i f o t h e r a n s a p p e a r t o be more e f f e c t i v e f o r r a a c h i n g t h e s s e a end" 956:54). I n c o n t r a s t , expressive c o n f l i c t has a s its goal h e mere e x p r e ~ s i o rot d i f f u s e h o s t i l i t i e s " (1956:51). Th? me e p p r o a c h i s a l s o used h e r e i n d e f i n i n g a g g r e s s i o n i n rms o f o n e p a r t y ' s g o a l o f i n f l i c t i n g some i n j u r y on t h e her. T h i s g o a l c a n i r + u r n b e a means t o w a r d a c h i e v i n g a r e g e n e r a l i n s t r u m e o t a l o r e x p r e s s i v e goal. The u s e of g o a l s i s i t s e l f a r a t h e r s h a k y b a s i s f o r ese importart distinc+ions. S t i l l . it i s c o n s i s t e r t w i t h e of C o s e r ' s a p p r o a c h e s and a v o i d s t h e p r o b l e m s of his her, outcome-based. approach. Pinally, using,gosls i n f i n i n g aggression i s i n t e r n a l l y consisten: vlth our proach t o i n s t r u m e n t a l a r d e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t , s c d i s m p a t i b l e v i t h c u r r e n t l i t e r a t o r e on f a m i l y v i o l e n c e . * 3

~

~

d i s c u s s i o n , and it s e s a s 1egi:iaate t o include t h e o r e t i c a l l i n k i n t h e c o n f l i c t process. state:

thi Thu

x.

If the tendency tow+ b o s t i l i t ~ d o e s n o t outweigh t h e tendsn toward s u p p r e s s i o n of h o s t i l i t y , a v o i d a r c e i t h e most l i k e l y outcome.

prQgEsltQr

P v o l d a r c e s a y be d e f l n e d as: voidance: Any -a -nonongagenent

tactic oriented tovar o r dis=ngagament, i n C l u K physical, emotional, and intsllEctu nonecgagement o r w i t h d r a w a l (adapted f r o Rctaling i n Chapter 9 ) .

Coser s u g g e s t s t h a t i n i n t i m a t e grnups 2 s t r a t 2 of i n t e r e s t is dEsticed i a v o i d a n c e il c o r : f l i c t s (1956:62). I n r h s f i r s t p l a c s , i f no a t t s m p t is ma 6911 w i t h c o n t r a d i c t o r y i n t e r e s t s , the original co w i l l remain uzresclved. E t t h e same t i m e , new c e c f l i c wlll arise out of the structure c interest relationship. Thus. When a n avoidance P r o ~ o s l i b o5. ~ used. Conflicts o f I n t e r n s t W l l

l

s t r a t s g y is aCCUmU1aAF.

Porther, slncF Proposition 3 suggested t h a t conflict ct interest create hostility, us c a n s t s t e t h a t t 1 ! accumulation of c o n f l i c t s of intsrest indicate8 P r o p o s i t i o n 15 w i l l c a u s e f u r t h e r h a s t i l i t y . Combining t i t w o p r o p o s i t i o n s , vs c a n s t a t e i n summary:

".

P,!os1t~o3 When a r a v c l d a n c s used, h o s t = l r + y I n c r e a s e s .

strategy

1s

P s this s t r a t e g y of a v o x d c n c e continues, s n d h o s t l l i t r n c r a a s e s , subjective h o s t r l l t y w r l l e v e n t u a l l y b e t o o g r e a + o b e s u p p r e s s e d , and a mor9 a c t l v e c o n f l l c t s t r a t e g y n i l

~

12: ~ T& t e g~ r s a~ t e r + h z h0st;:;ty. L.hs llkely is b o s t ~ l l t y t o outweigh suppression o f h o s t l l i t y .

p

3

~

more

End, t h e c o r o l l a r y of P r o p o s i t i o n 14, which s t a t e d t h a t if h o s t i l i t y d o e s n o t o u t w e i g h s u p p r e s s i o r o f k o s t i l % t y * h e n a v o i d a n c e i s t h e outcome, f o l l o w s : P r o p o s i t i o r 38. I f h o c t i l i t y outweighs tbs suppresslor. of h o s t i l i t y , conflict--eithsr expressive o r instrumsntal--is the most l i k e l y outcome. The l o g i c of C o s e r ' s a n a l y s i s s u g g s s ~ st h a t a n y k i n d o f avoidance i n an i n t i m a t e = e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l e v e n t u a l l y f a i l i n t h i s manner. eovevsr. i n c o n t r a s t t o Caser, some k i r d s of a v o i d a n c e n a y a c t u a l l y p r o v i d e a f a i r l y s t a b l a r e s o l u t i o n o f c o n f l x c t s of i n t e r e s r , under c e r t a i n circumstancFs. Avoidance car. s l n p l y mean a v o i d i n g r e c o g n i t i o n o r d i s c u s s i o n of t h e s p e c i f i c c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s t h a t h a s € c r e a t e d 0: a v o i d a n c e c a n i n v o l v e m 3 1 f g e n e r a l s t r s t e g i a s hostility. of r e d u c i n g t h e a a o n n t of L n t e r a c t i o n o r personality involvement i n t h e r e l a t i o n s h i p . R e s o l v i c g C o n f l i c t s o f I r + e r e s t Through Avoidance R e d u c i n g t h e amount o f p e r r 0 r ; a l i t y i c v o l v e m e n t a n d / o r icteraction i n a r e l a t i o n s h i p may r e s o l v z a s p e c i f i c c o z f l i c t of i x t e r e s t ; p e r h a p s more i m p o r t a n t , i f we a c c e p * P r O p O s i t i o n ~ 1 a n d 2 t h a t f r e q u e n t i n t e r 3 c t i o n and t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y i n v o l v e m e n t s n g e n d e r c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t , t h e n r e d u c i n g t h e l e v e l t h e s e two e l e m e n t s s h o u l d l o w e r The p o s s i b i l i t y t h a t new c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r a s t w i l l d e v e l a p . Even

though

the

family

terds

to

be

3

cssrcive

institution i n t h a t it is r e l a t i v ? l y d i f f i c u l t t o " l e s v e t h e

f i e l d , " r e g u l a r family p a t t e r n s do provide f o r a c a r t a i n amount o f i n t e r p e r s o n a l w i t h d r a w a l . For e x a m p l e , one s p o u s e may become i m a e r s e d i n work o r i n c h i l d c a r e , thereby 1 e s s e C i n g i n t e r a c t i o n a%d i n v o l v E m e n t w i t h :he o t h e r . Such accoanodatiors involving personal withdrawal a r e represented i n Cuber a n d H a r e f f ' s (1965) t y p o l o g y of m a r r i a g e s . Ic ths "devitalized m a r r i a g e " c o u p l e s g r a d u a l l y d r i f t away f r o m t h ~ i r i n l f i a l clcseness, a n d ir t h e " p s s s i 7 e - c o n g e n i a l m rrieae' t h e c o u o l s views t h e i r m a r r i a s e a s 3 " c s c v e r i e r t - a-~ a n d c o m f o r t a b l e way t o l i v s w h i l e d i r e c t L n g ens's t r u e i n t e r e s t s and c r e a t i v e e n e r g i e s elsewhere" (Skolnick, 1973:239). I n g s n e r a l , m a r r i a g e s t h a t h a r s an o p e n l y r e c o g n i z e d i n s t r u m s n t a l r a t h e r t h a n e x p r e s s i v E e m p h a s i s show l e s s i n t e n s e p a t t e r n s of i n v o l v e m e n t .

.~

~

-.-

Ch.8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family R e l a t i o r s h i p s

Whether s u c h m a r r i a g e s a l w a y s r e s u l t f r o m an a S t r a t e g y i n c o n f l i c t s o f i n t = r e s t is n o c :he p o i n t . B we s i m p l y w i s h t o n o t e t h a t f a m i l y p a t r e r n s comaonl t h a t allow f o r reducing t h e i n t e n s i t y of i c t e r a t h e r e f o r e l o w e r i n g c o n f l i c t s o f i r t e r e r t a n d ho S t i l l , C - r t a i n c o n d i t i o r s n e e d t o 5 1 n e t i f in a s t r a t e g y i s t o a c t u a l l y reduce, o r a t l s a s t n o t exa c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t a r d h o s t i l i t y . First:

of i r t e r e s t . "4 This proposition is r e l e v a n t both t o t h e s t r a t e g i e s o f w i t h d r a w a l j u s t d i s c u s s e d and t o S p e c i f i c a v o i d a n c e o f particular i s s u e s t h a t d i n v o l v e g e n e r a l i n + s r p e r s o n a l withdrawal. When con l e g i t l m a t a , t h i s s p e c i f i c k i n d o f a v o i d a n c e may t a f o r m of " a g r e e i n g t o d i s a g r e € . v As Sprey p c i n t " f a m i l i e s may l i v e t o g e t h e r i n m o t u a l r s s p e c t i n t h e g r e a t dlffErenCes i n b e l i e f s o r v a l u e s ' (1969:704).

P r o p o s i t i o r 20. I£ a n -c o n s i d e r e d 1eg:timate

avoidance s t r a t e g y is a n d if i t a c t u a l l y r e d u c e s i n v o l v e m e n t i n a r e a s where c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t t e n d t o d e v e l o p , t h e n t h e number of c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t w i l l decrease.

The b a s i c a r g u m e n t i s t h a t a l t h o u g h f a m i l i e s i n ge may be i n t i m a t e E r v i r o n a e r t s , some f a o i l i e s a r e i n t i n a t e than others. moreover, i n s o n s p a t t e r n s o f f l i f e l e g i t i m a c y i s c o r f e r r e a on l e s s i n t i m a t e o r i n i n v o l v e m e n t , s u c h 25 t h e American m a r r i a g e s i d s n t i f i e C u b e r and E a r o f i , a n d many o f t h e E n g l i s h v o r k i a m i d d l e - c l a s s c o u p l e s B o t t s t m a i e d (1957).*5 TJ the e t h a t a n i n t l m z t e r e l a t i o n s h i p becomes l a g i t i m a t e l g iCtimate, t h e n t h e p r e s s u r e s toward h o s t i l i t y inheren i n t i m a t e r e l a t i o E s h i p s a r e lessened.

8.


P'iqe 129

BOYeVer. ve r e e a p h a s i z e d t h i t , as ? z o p = s i r l 3 n s 14 15 s u g g e s t , an a v o i d a n c e s t r a t e g y i n i n t i m a ' ? f a a i l y ationships i n general v i l l not resolve existing c o r f l i c t s iCtereSt, and c o n f l i c t s o f i n t c z r s ? and h o s t i l i t y w i l l mulate. I n a d d i t i o n , avoidance s?rateg;ss, Even u n d e r d i t i o n e o f l e g i t i m a c y a n d s p e c i f y c i t y , may have o n l y m i t e d u s e f u l n e s s i n r e s o l v i n g c o n f l i c t s cf i n t e r = + a-a y e x a c e r b a t e problems o v e r t h e long ruz. In t h * f i r s ? c e , a v o i d a n c e uspd r e p e a t e d l y and i n d i s c r i m i n e t e l y may d t o t h e " c o r r o s i o n " o f r e l a l i o n s h i p s d e s c r i b e d by Blood w o l f e (1960:87-88). Second. a v o i d a n c E u s e d f r e q u e n t l y become t h e c h a r a c t e r i s + i c s t y l e f o r a s a l i c g w i t h ggy f l i c t of i n t e r e s t . Thus, when i n p a r t a n t i s s u a s c o n ? o p which o n e o r more p a r t i e s c o n s i d e r a r o i d a n c s a n e g i t i e a t e straLegy, c o r t i n u e d avoidance w i l l l e a d t o t h o e r a 1 + c c u m u l a t i o n o f h o s t i l i t y d e s c r i b e d above. Perhaps . m p o r t m t , t h e l a c k o f p r e v i o u s p r a c t i c e i n working o u t r i s s u e s w i l l make a t t e m p t s t o d s a l d i r e c t l y w i t h t h e -.ect o n e s more d i f f i c u l t . ACTIVE ANTAGOAISE:

EXPBESSIVF ANTAGONISE IND COBPLIC?

TO t h e e x t e n ? t h a t p e r s o r a l i t y involvement i n a a t i o n s h i p is t o t a l , e x p r e s s i v e antagonism i s l i k e l y t o ur, p a r t l y b e c a u s e g r e a t e r knowledge o f t h e o t h e r makes r g personal attack possible. Bs E o t a l i n g p o i a t s d o u t . ..intimates know how t o s u p p o r t t h e i d e r t i t i e s o f e a c h t h e r b e c a n s e e a c h knovs a b o u t t h e t h i n g s t h e t m a t t e r c r a r e mportart t o t h e other. While t h i s e x t s n s i v e k l o v l e d ~ ? c a n E u s e d t o S u p p o r t a n d e n h a n c e i d e n t i t i e s . s t t h e 59Be t i m 8 t c a n b e u s e d t o damage t h e i d e n t i t y . (see Chapter 9).

..."

11~0, where t i e s a r e " d i f f u s e

and

affec?.ivem

IC3ser.

u s e a common example, o n e c a n n o t e a s i l y d i s t i n g u i s h between a n a c t i o n b e i n g " a mear t h i n g t o do" a n d t h e a c t o r b e i r g "a mean person,. v h e r t h e r e i s t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y i c v o l ~ e m e n t . In a n o t h e r s e n s e , + h e e x p r e s s i v e a n d i c s t r u e e n t a l a s p ~ c t so f

Ch.8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family F l l a t i o ? s h i p s

t h e relationship a r s s o i r t o r t v i r e d t h a t they a r e t o SEparate. Thus. f o r example, r a i s i n g t h e . r e a s s i q o i n g i n s ? r U a e n t a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s may be i n t by r h e O t h e r a s a n a c c u s a t i o n o f l a z i n ~ s s - 9 a s e d considerations: 'be greater the persorals p r o e o s i t i o f 21. i n v o l v e m e n t , t h e more l t k e l y i s c c ~ f l i c t t a k l t h e f o r m of e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t . SECODB, if much h o s t i l i t y h a s a c c u m u l a t e d . c o n f nore l l X e l y t o be e x p r e s s i v e . Proposition 16 d i s c u s s i o n of avoidance s u g g e s t s t h a t h o s t i l i t y 1 accumulate i n i s t i m a t e groups. Increased hostili' g r e a t p e r s o n a l i t y Lnvalvement, may make it d i f f i c examine i s s u e s oh t h e i r m e r i t s . Thus, ProEc&r&on 22. The g r e a t e r t h e --hostility. t h e more. l i k e l y

accusulation is c m f l i c t f

t a k e t h e e x p r e s s i v e form. E f f e c t s or E x p r e s s ~ v ea?d I o s t r u s m t a l C o n f l l c t C e r t a i n e f f e c t s o f a n a v o i d a n c e outcome h 3 v e a been considered. To sum.marize, u n l e s s a n a v o i d a n c e s i s used i n a c t u a l a r e a s o f c o n f l i c t i n g i n t e r e s t s viexed a s legitimate. it v i l l f a i l t o resolve the C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t : t h i s f a i l u r e o f r s s o l u t i o n . con w i t h t h e a d d i t i o r o f t h e a v o i d a n c e i t s e l f a s an i s w i t h t h e i h e v i t a b l e o c c u r r e n c e of rew i s s u e s , v i l l c a aCcumUlatiOr: 0 5 c o n f l i c t s o f i n t e r e s t acd an i n c r hostility. The i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r s u c c s s s of e x p r e s s i i s s i b u m e n t a l c o n f l i c t need s i m i l a r c o n s i d e r a t i o n .

conflict. Unfortunately, a s &ser argues, t h e u e x p r D S s i r e C O n f l i c L 1 P S s e c s 'he l i k e l i h o o d t h s t t h e or' C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t w i l l he resolved. First, suggests t h a t exprassivs cooflict terds t o increase in'ensity of t h e encounter. although Coser does F X p l i C i t l y d f f i n s " i n t e n s i t p . " it seems r o u g h l y e q u i v a l e t o a g g r e s s i o n and/or vtolesce (l956:69). BggresrFcn he been d e f i n e d h e r a a s 'a s p e c i f i c s t r a t e g y w i t h t h e i n t e n t o g o a l of i n j u r i c g t h e other," and v i o l e o c e i s a s a b t y p s aggressior. I n l i n e w i t h c o s e r ' s d i s c u s s i o n of e x p r e s s C o n f l i c t and i n t e n s i t y , i t i s suggesied t h a t :

PEPEOS~L-IOL23.

Expressive

lncreasP aggress~on.*6

Confllct

tends

ts

a r a d o x i c a l Pamlly R e l a t i o n s h i p s

P a g e 131

e r f u r t h e r s ~ g g s s t s?I!+:vhCn a g g r e s s i o n i s s s e d , ellhood decreases t b a t c o c f l i c t s of i c t e r e s t w i l l he f u l l y resolved. Ths " z g g r e s s 5 V e o v e r t o n a s " 3? a n er i n t e r f e r e with t h e participaots' a b i l i t y to e r t h e original cl+ias of conflicting interest P r o E s-i t i o r : 2. A g g r s s s l o n -likelihood of

tends t o rsduc?

S U C C E ~ S ~ U ~r e s o l u t i o n

ths of

c ~ r ~ f l i c ot fs i n t s r e s t . y c o m b i n i n g P r c p o s i t i o c s 2 3 a n d 24, i t c 3 n b e f u r t h e r that expressive c o n f l i c t t e n d s t o r e d u c e the ood t h a t c o n f l i c t s w i l l b e r e s o l v e 6 s u c c e s s f u l l y . c o n v e r s e s h c u l d a l s o be n o t e d , t h a t instrumental ~ c t te n d s t o i n c r e a s e t h e l i k e l i h o o d o f successful lict lesolution. L e q i t i m a c n =qa s&&sz -Chat i f a s t r a t e g y is

Besau+apg.

Proposition 19 considered i l l e g i t i m a i s . t h e a t e g y w l l l becoms e n e v i s s u e , thereby iocreasing f l l c t s of i s t e r e s t a n d h o s t i l i t y . T h i s p r o p c s i t i s r was anced i n r e f e r e c c s t o avoidance, but it seams = q u a l l y licable '0 i C S t r ~ m e n t a 1 and expr2ssive conflict ategies. E x p ~ e ~ s i vc eo n f l i c t s e a m s more l i k e l y t o b e i d e r e d i l l e g i t i m a t e t h a n i n s t r u m e c t e l c o c f l i c t , and t h u s l i k e l y t o increase conflicts of interest. Bowever. as u s p o l n t s O U T ( 1 9 7 4 a : 4 4 2 ) , t h e p a r t i c i p a n t s Ray v i e w a s tlmate expressive c o ~ f l i c t t h a t milltatss against e a s i n g C o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t , o r may s e e i n s t r u m e n t a l f l l c t a s illfg5tima+E, i n which case instromental . f l i c t wonla i n c r e a s e c c n f l i c t s o f i n t s r e s t .

rts

is considsred Yet e v e n i f expressive conflict i t i m a t e and d o e r n o t add t o f u t u r e c o s f l i c F ; o f i c t z r e s t , may s t i l l b e r e l a t i v e l y i n e f f e c t i v e i n r e s o l v i r g P r e s e n t c o n f l i c t s o t in?eres?. 8 5 P r o p o s i t i o n s 2 3 Bad 2 9 s u g g e s t . expTessive c o z f l i c x introduces elements i n t o an encountsr that interfere v i t h r a c i n g t h e i n i t i a l c o n f l i c t s of interest. P u t a n o t h e r way, e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t i n t e r f e r e s w l t h tte p o s s i b i l i t y a t t a s k - o r i e n t e d c o n f l i c t Occurring.

Under m o s t c i r c u m s t a n c e s , i n s t r u m e n t a l c o n f l i c t is m a s t l i k e l y t o resolve c o n t l i c t s of interest, r h r l e expressive cOnf11ct and avoidance a r e g e n e r a l l y less ~ffoctive. EOV~VET.any o f t h e t h r e e s t r a t e g i e s c o u l d b e e f f s c t i v e under c e r t a l n conditions. The f i c a l p r o p 3 s i C i u n a s s e r t s that r e g a r d l e s s c f t h e s t r a t e g y ussd, i f conflict is r e s o l v e d s u c c e s s f u l l y , t h e n t h s s t r a t e g y employed w i X l h e reinforced. gpr3s&pTcg 25. Successful rssolution of i n i t i a l c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t r e i n f o r c e s t h s s t r a t e g y used.

Ch.8.

Paradoxical Family Relationships

ch.8.


? a g e 133

P i g n r e 2 s u n m a r i z e s i n d i a g r a m m a t i c form t h e o v e r a l l model.*7 I n * - i n a t e g r o u p s , l i k e t h e f a m i l y . c h a r s c t a r i z e d by f r e q u e n t i n t e r a c t i o n and t o t a l p e r s o n a l i t y i n v o l v e m e c t a r e p a r a d o x i c a l i n s t r u c t u r e i n t h a t t h e y p r o n o t e bozh h o s t i l i t y If t h e t e n d e n c y t o w a r d a n d t h e s n p p r € s s i o n of h o s t i l i t y . hostility d o e s PO? c u + w ~ i g h t h 2 tender.cy t o s u p p r e s s In h o s t i l i t y . t h a n t h e most p r o b r t l e outcome i s a v o i d a c c r . general, a v o i d a n c e i s c o t a n e f f e c ' i v e means o f c o n f l i c t r e s o l u t i o n and is l i k e l y t e i n c r e a s e hostility. If h o s t i l i t y c ~ t n e i g h st h e t e n d e e c y t o s u p p r e s s h o s t i l i t y , t h e outcone w i l l b e one o f two forms of c o n f l i c t . Of t h e s e , i s more l i k e l y t h a n i n s t r u m s n t a l expressive conflict conflict. However, e x p r e s s i v e c o n f l i c t i s more l i k ? l y t o p r o d u c e a 9 9 r e s s i o n and a s a r e s u l t i s l e s s l i k e l y t o i 2 8 3 1 v e l n i t i a l c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r e s t t h a r i s i n s < r u n e n t s l m n f l r c t . F i n a l l y , r e g a r d l e s s o f t h e s t r s t e g y u s e d , if t h e s t r a ' s g p i s considered i l l e g i t i m a t e . ir w i l l increasp c o n f l i c t s of , w i l l be ilterest, a n d i f ?he s t r a t e g y is ~ u c c e ~ s f u lit reinforced. COACLOSIOBS I n + h i s c h a p t e r we havE examined how c?rtain c h a r a c t o r i s t i c s of i n t i m a t e g r o u p s a f f e c t ~ t r a t ~ g i ef cs r It sfems w o r t h w h i l e i n dealing with c o n f l i c t s of interest. c l o s l r g t o b r i e f l y d i s c u s s o t h s r e l e m e r t s and approac'ms i m p o r t a n t t o s u c h p r o c e s s e s , a s w e l l a s same i m p l i c a t i n n s o f t h e model o f f e r e d h e r e . Pdditional f e a t u r e s of i c t i m a t e g r o u p s s h o u l d be i n c l u d e d : f o r example, t h e e f f e c t of a t h i r d p a r t y o r mediator on c o n f l i c t proc3sses. a n i m p 3 r t a r t elemex? i n C o s e r e s a n e l y s i s (1956:59-60) a n d i n r ~ c P r 5 work on f a m i l y v i o l e n c e ( A o + a l i n g i n C h a p t e r 9; whitehnrst, 1 9 7 4 ) . F u r t h e r . e x c h a n g e p r o c e s s e s , power r e l a t i o n s . and ~TCCESS?S usrtlrq !c: 2:d 2931.5: ~LPB>~U*:X of r"12?i3r50:~5 a l l sro :rca:rrc?blp llnkid r a * h ? s:r=.'%gics here ~ 2 ccr:r:bu:e a +o a tulle: u~3?rs?3r3:~.7 of cczs:der%d c o n f l i c t and violence i n t h e family. Relevant t o t h e p r e s c n t d i s c u s s i o n is t h e o f t e r c i t e d b a s i c t e c e t and c o n t r i b u t i o n of c o n f l i c t t h e o r y : that c o n f l i c t is a n i n t e g r a l . i n e v i t a b l e p a r t o f a l l s o c i a l l i f e . E x a m i n a t i o n o f t h i s e s s e r t i o n r e q u i r e s r s t u r n i n g ts t h e d i s t i n c t i o n between c o n f l i c t s of i n t e r D s t and c o n f l i c t . 1% s e e m s q o i e e r e a s o c a b l e t o a s s e r t t h a t c_2~f&igtz af ir_+pzgst., ir t h e s e n s e o f o c c a s i o r 2 s g e r e r a t i r g c o n t r a d i c t o r y c l a i m s . are irevitableYet cpzf&zc_i, e s p e c i a l l y t a s k - c r i s n ' . e d o r instrumental conflicl, is c e r t a i n l y n o t i n e v i t a b l r . In fact, t h e t h r u s t cf t h i s c h a p t e r i s t h a t i n i n t i n a t e g r o u p s l i k e t h e family, c o n f l i c t i n t h i s s p e c i f i c senss is very d i f f i c n l t t o c a r r y o u t and i s t h u s h i g h l y l i k e l y t o b s absent.

Ch.8.

P a r a d o x i c a l Family E e l a t i o n s h i p s

Pag

P l n a l l y , we t r u s t t h e a t t e n t i o n t o t e r m i n o l s g y helped keep c o n f l z c t a r d v i o l e r c e concep5unlly d i s P o p u l e r c o n c e p t i o n s o f t e n sesm t o e q n a t a c a n f l z c t and v l o l e ~ c c , c z ?c v:ew

c c n f l l c t a s prcducLnq

In c o n t r a s t t o s o c h a view, ws a r g u e t h violerce. i s t h e absence of s p e c i f i c a l l y i n s t r o m e r t a l c o n f l i f a m i l i e s t h a t l e a d s t o a high l e v e l of i n t e r p c r violence and aggression.

NOTES

*I would l i k e t o e s p s c i a l l y t h a n k D e n n i s P o s s G S r a l d B o t a l i n g f o r t h e i r cornmeit on e a r l i e r d r a f t s of chapter. 1. P e r s o n a l i t y i c o o l v e n e n t and a f f e c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t b~ related (see P r o p o s i t i o n s 8 and 9 ) . b u t 5h.y coxeptoally distinct. The i m p o r t a n t f e a t u r e o f p e r s o n a involvement i s i t s t o t e l i t y . A f f e c t i v e i n v e s t m e n t iaoo both t h e s t r e n g t h of at:raction or liking and r e p l a c e a b i l i t y of menbers.

2. T h i s i s n o t a n e n t i r e l y s a t i s f a c t o r y r e s c l u t i o coctradiction, p a r t i c u l a r l y s i n c e i t i g n o r e s un exchange. Yet t o r e s c l o e t h i s q u e s t i o n f u l l y v o u l d r e q ar intricate series of p r o p o s i t i o n s a b o u t cxch p r o ~ ~ s s e swhich , would t a k e u s f a r a f i e l d and would bs beyond t h e s c o p e a r d f o c u s of t h i s c h a p t e r . the

3. R o t a l i n g d e f i n e s a g g r e s s i o n a s "a physical psychclogical a c t o r acts, occurring i n an interper situation, which are judged to be intentio harm-producirg" (Chapter 9). Since he focus5s t h e emp a t t r j b u t i o ~cf a g g r e s s i v e i n t F r t i n f a m i l i e s , ---I n d s t i a i t i o r i s o n t h a p e r c e p t i o n by g s e ~ sof t h e p e r 5 intest. While t h e f o c u s h e r e i s n o t on p e r c a p t i o r s re s u g g e s t t h c t t h e s e a p p r o a c h e s t o d ~ f i n others, a g g r e s s i o n a r e s i m i l a r i n e m p h a s i z i n g i n t e r ~ to r q o a l s o f actors. The p o s s i b i l i t y o f u s i n g i n t e n t o r g o a l s a definitional b a s i s is a l s c r e c o g n i z e d i n t h e s u g g e s t i o n "...to t h e e x t e r t t h a t a c t o r s d e f i n e such behavior n o r e a l ana n o t inrended t o i r j u r e . they a r e c o t aggrss a c t s . ..* ( s t r a u s , 1974.3: 9 4 2 ) . 4. T h i s p r o p o s i t i o n i s s t a t e d i n g e n e r a l tarns, ni i t a p p l i e s n o t o n l y t o avoidance, b u t a l s o t o e x p r e s s i v e i n s t r U m E n t a 1 c o n f l i c t , which w i l l b e d i s c u s s e d l a t e r .

Chapter 9

Attribution Processes in Husband-Wife Violence Gerald T. Hotaling

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . B c ? n t ~ a lt e n e t of t h i s c h a p t e r i s "intent" is imputed r a t h e r t h a n obse T h e r e f o r e , a n a c t i o n is i n t e n t i o n a l l y a g q r s Or v i o l e n t o n l y when t h e i m p u t a t i o n i s R t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y a l e r t s ns t o t h e imp3 Of u n d s r s t a n d i n q why. a n d u n d e r what c o n d i on? p e r c e i v e s a n a c t i o n a s a g g r e s s i v e r a thaP a s onintentioral o r accidental.

The c h a p t e r a t t e m p t s t o s h o v t h a t c e r t S t r u c t u r a l c b a r a c t e r i s t i c s o f t h e f a m i l y prod conditions that ircrease t h e probability t h a t f a m i l y membsr w i l l a t t r i b u t e m a l e v o l e n t i n t e t o t h e a c t s o f a n o t h e r f a a i l y member. The a c t w e refer t o a r e t h o s e t h a t v i o l a t e f a m i l y r u l e H o t a l i n g p c i l t r t o what h e f e e l s i s a c e c t r irony in fanily life: ths factors th C o n t r i b u t e t o t h e warmth and i n t i m a c y of f a m i l reletionship5. s u c h a s t h e s h a r i n g of s e c r e t and p e r s o n a l information. also flcilitat perceiving rule violations a s int?ntion+ll malevolent. A fir!al s e c t i o n o f t h e c h a p t e r examines t h e Yay i n which a t t r i b u t i o n of a g g r e s s i o n o r violence serves t o s t a b i l i z e violence a s a regular feature o r family l i f e .

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . V i o l e n t b e h a v i o r r e s u l t s from a p r o c e s s t h a t participants construct within a situation. Struct theories of violence have tended to nPglec? i n t e r p e r s o n a l d e v e l o p n e n t o f v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r acd f 136

I

I

The r r e z e t 0 r n e : l o r c f ":rrr:al' '2-7 "s=rr?urqS n l r - o r s r ? l ~ + . i o : s C 1 p ~ . 1:ke tt.e farn:ly, is ssen is t e i - q t a c = l : t a t = d by c e r t a i ? 0 r c a r . l z a C i c r a l o r ~ t r u c : u z a l l = n ' u r c s :ne aar::al Scrd. :":mate

l o g i c a l s t a r t l n g p o i n t i n t h i s kind of s o c i a l o g i c a l a n a l y s i s is t h e e x a m i n a t i o n of t h e c o n t s n t i o r he "meaning' of a g g r e s s i o n * l and viclance is atic. The p e r c e p t i o n o f a n a c t a s i n t e n t i o n a l i o n o r a s a c c i d e n t a l herm-doins i s an t a p a r t a n t , = t i o n i n a n a l y z i n g v i o l e n c e ( e - g . , T e d e s c h i , $2 +i., I n many i n s t a n c e s , t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f a g g r e s s i v e a c t i o n s onproblematic. C u l t u r a l v a l u e s and b e l i e f s g r e a t l y t the identification of aggressive acts. ictensity, offensive, and pain-producing a c t i o n s a r e l y t a k e n f o r g r a n t e d a s s i g n s of +ggrEssion or ace. But haaan a g g r e s s i o n need n o t t a k e t h e form of t p h y s i c a l damage; a g g r e s s i o n c a n be n a n i f s s t i n a l , i n d i r e c t , p a s s i v e , and s u b t l e f o r m s of p s y c h o l o g i c a l It i s E s p e c i a l l y when harm-doing a c t i o n s t a k e t h e s e s t h a t judgmental c o n t r o v e r s i e s a r e l i k e l y t o a r i s e . human a g g r e s s i o n i s o f t h i s t y p e and t h e r e a r e good A s B a n d u r a (1973:Y) s t a t e s : o n s why t h i s i s so.

.

P e o p l e o r d r n a r i l y r e f r a i n from d i r e c t persons1 a s s a u l t s because such obvious a c t i o n s c a r r y hiqh ris1s o f r e t a l i a t i o n . Rather, t h e y favor a i s g u i s ~ a modes of agqression that, being d i f f i c u l t t o interpret or t o consider blameworthy, afford p r o t ~ c t i o na g a i ~ s tc o u n t e r a t t a c k . =-.-.----

r.-'-~

---

-~

.---~~

~

~

:ive and n o c a g g r e s s i v e a c t i o n s . To this end, - w i f e v i o l e n c e w i l l be examined w i t h i n t h e c o ~ t s x to f t i o r theory.

Ch.9.

l t t r i b u t i o n Processes LTTXIBUTION THEOBY

I n i*s s i m p l e s t f o r e , a t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y d e s c r i b e p r o c e s s by which p e o p l e a t t e m p t t o e x p l a i n a n d p r p d i c t behavior. I n o t h e r words, it i n u s s t i g a t e s p e o p l e ' s f o r t h e nearing o r behavior. LS K e l l e y and T h i b a u c

(1969) h a v e d e f i n e d i t :

Attribution r e f e r s t o t h e process of i n f e r r o r perceiving t h e dispositiocal properties 3 ePtitieS....Bttributicn theory describes th PrOCESS by which t h e i n d i v i a u a l s e e k s an a t t a i r s C c n c e p L i o r s of t h e s t a b l e d i s p o s i t i o n o r a t t r i b u t e s (p.7). While t h e r e a r e a t l e a s t t h r e e d i s t i r c t a t t r i b u t i o approaches ( s e e A e i d e r . 1958: J o n e s and Davis. 1965: an 8. H. K e l l e p , 1967, 1 9 7 1 ) . a l l t h r e e p e r s p e c t i v e s hav common e l e m e n t s . s h a v e r (1975) h a s i d e n t i f i e d some o f t h c o m m o n a l i t i e s of t h e a b o v e t h e o r i s t s i n t e r m s o f t h r e s t a g e s i n t h e a t t r i b u t i o n process. The f i r s t s t a g e i n v o l v e t h e o b s e r v a t i o n of a n a c t l o n , e i t h e r d i r e c t l y o r i n d i r s o t l t h r o u g h t h e r e p o r t s of o t h e r s . The s e c o n a s t s g e . and t h , one t h a t is t m p o r t a z t t o t h e theme of t h i s c h a p t e r , i n v o l v e ; t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of inrention. Ona a t t a m p t s t o i n t e r p r p t t h , a c t i o n s Of o t h e r s a s i n + e n t i o c a l a r d g o a l - d i r e c t s d o r a s +b, r e s u l t of a c c i d e n t . reflex, o r habit. The f i n a l s t a g c o n c e r n s t h e i m p u t a t i c 1 a " c e u s e m a n d s e a r c h e s f o r thl a n s v e r t o "why t h e p e r s o n a c t e d a s h e / s h e d i d . " The 3nswe: USna1ly t a k e s o n e o f two f o r m s : t h e action is attributed t i C a u s e s i n t h e e n v i r o n m e n t o r t h e s i t u a t i o n ("Re's u n d e r i l o t of p r e s s u r e l a t e l y n ) O r t o t h s undef1y:ng a i s p o s l t i o n o: the person ("He's j u s t i n aggreSSIve person"). This s e q u s n c e of e v e n t s n a y r e q u i r e o n l y s e c o n d s t o c o m p l e t e 01 I n some c a s e s , s u c h a s j u r y d e l i b e r a t i o n s , s e v e r a l d a y s o! weeksThe c o n c e r n w i t h a t t r i b u t i o n a l p r o c e s s e s , e s p e c i a l l ) t h e a t t r i b u t i o n o f i n t e n t i o n . h a s bDen e v i d r - n t i n t h ? work o r p s y c h o l o g i s t s i n work an a g g r e s s i o n and v i o l e n c e . 0ve1 t h e years, r e s e a r c h e r s h a v e a r g u e d a h o u t how t h e y wouli d e c i d e when t o l a b e l a r e s p o n s e o r s e t o f r e s p o n s e s a: a g g r e s s i v e o r v i o l e n t (Bass, 1971; Eandura, 1973: ant Tedeschi, 1974). The e m p h a s i s i s t h e s e v r i t i n g s i: on the expsrimenter-subject relationship. 1 . . what c r i t e r i a a r E x p e r i m E n t e r would u s e t o c h a r a - t e r i z e subject r e s p o n s e s a s aggressive. U n f o r t u n a t e l y . t h e q u e s t i o n of hor a person imputes i n t e n t i o n a l a g g r e s s i v e n e s s i n a v a r i e t y of r e l a t i o n a l c o n t e x t s h a s r o t been f u l l y i n v e s t i g a t e d .

a.,

I n t h i s c h a p t ~ r ,t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of a g g r e s s i o n a r d i t s r o l e i n t h e p r o d u c t i o n c f f a m i l y v i o l s c c e w i l l b e examined v i a t h e r u l e s y s t e m a n d s t r u c t u r e of t h o h u s b a c a - w i f e

tribution Proce~ses

Page 139

ship. A n a j Q r q u e s t i o n w i l l be: are there tional rfaturss pecalier to the hushand-wife s h i p t h a * f a c i l i t a t e t h a t f r i b u t i c n of melev?lent

THE NATUEF OF BELATIOIRL RULES

g r o u p s h a v e r u l e s and r e g u l a t i o n s , v ~ r i a t i o n i n t h e e x t e c t t o which 1s c o n ' r o l l e d h *r r-u- l-e s . I n o r h e-r words.. o,~ rou~s '.heir r u l e s : (1) t h e i r s u b s t e n t i s e behavior they control: and (2) ange. t h a t i s . where a3d when t h s y axamole. w o r k e r s i n a s t e e l p l a n t err- m l e s f o r wte? t o show UD f . v i o l a t o r by h i s w i f e a c c o r i i n g t o h i s d i s t a n c e from t h e woman, t h e e x p r n s s i c r o n h i s f a c e , and t h e c o n t e r t o f t h s C O n ~ P r s a t i C n . T h i s s a y be s o e v e n t h o u g h t h e h u s b a c d n e v e r Intended a v i o l a t i o n of r e l a t i o n a l rules. The p o i n t i s t h a t t h e ambiguous, u n d e f i n e d and i m p l i c i t n a t u r e o f r e l a t i o n a l rules raises the probability t h a t rule violatiors w i l l occur. S i n c e r u l e v i o l a t i o n s may b e e i t h e r i n t e n t i o n a l o r accidental, t h e n e a r i n g o f . t h e v i o l a t i o n t h a t t h o~ t h e r a t t r i b o t e s t o t h e v i o l a t i n g a c t o r i s s i g n i f i c e n t ( S c o t t and Lyman, 1970). The v i o l a t i o n o f r e l a t i o n a l r u l e s l e a d s i n t i m a t e s t c f e e l embarrassment, i r r i t a t i o n , annoyance, and, a t t h e e x t r e m e , s e l f - t h r e a t and p u b l i c l y d e s i g n a t e d d s v i a n c e (Denzin. 1 9 7 0 ) .

T ~ Em a n n f r i n which a v i o l a t i c n 1s p e r c e i v e 3 h s s i m p o r t f o r t h e conseguences. A perscn w i l l g i v e t h e r e r p o r s e appropropriate t o a viclation, according tc his/her p e r c e p t i o f of t h e v i o l a t i o n a s " a c c i d e n t a l " harm-doing o r a s aggression. Most i n t e r a c t i o n between f a m i l y membsrs i s harmOniouS a n d c o o p e r a t t v e . I n d e e d , most r u l e v i o l 3 t i o n s but r a t h e r a s accidents, as a r e sf s e e n a s a g g r e s s i v e . t c s i t u a t i o n a l demands, o r a s r e s p s n s e s t o responses e x t r a n e o u s i n f l u e n c e s , such a s a l c o h o l o r drugs. Actually. r e l a t i v e t o t h e r a t e of r e l a t i o n a l r u l e v i o l i t i o n s p f r c e i v e a a s a g g r e s s i v e , most r u l e v i o 1 a t i o r . s a r e d e n i e d o r d i s m i s s e d . I f t h i s w e r e n o t so. n t i m a ' e r e l a t i o n s h i p s would be v e r y d i f f i c u l t t o maintain.

THE R E L A T I O N BETWEEN TEE BTTPIBUTION OF RULE VIOLATIONS AS AGGRESSIVE BND INTERPERSONAL VIOLENCE B s mer.tLor.Ed p r e v i o u s l y , t h e a t t r i b u t i o n of rule viola?ions a s i n t e r t i o n a l l y a g g r e s s i v e is an important s t e p i n t h e occurrence of i n t e r p e r s o n a l violence. R s Turner (1968) p u t s i t :

when e g o p e r c e i v e s t h a t a l t e r i s a t t e m p t i n g f o cegatively a f f e c t h i s interests.. .the chazact=r o f t h e i n t e r a c t i o n i s p e r v a s i v e l y a l t e r e d by heightened preoccupation with sslf-images. i n c r e s s e d use o f ~ m p h a t i c and diagnostic interpretatlocs ot g e s t u r e s . ..and constant e f f o r t s t o a s s i g n c r e d i t and r e s p o n s i b i l i t y (p. 1 0 6 ) . A t t e m p t s t o l o c a t e t h e " i n t e n t ' of t h e r u l e v i o l a t i o n w i l l determine t h e subsequent a c t i o n taken t o reduce t h e harm-doing o f t h e r u l e v i o l a t i o n . I f malevolent i n t a c t i s attributed t o the r u l e violator, t h e pr3bzbility of vi3lence is increased. l a n y e x p e r i m e n t a l s t u d i e s have found t h a t t h e p e r c e p t i o n o f o p p c n e n t ' s i n t e n t i s a more i m p o r t a n t v a r i a b l e i n t h e i n s t i g a t i o r of a g g r e s s i o n t h a n a c t u a l p h y s i c a l attack. If a given a c t is seen a s aggressive, it d r a m a t i c a l l y e s c a l a t e s t h e p r o b a b i l i t y of c o u n t e r a g g r e s s i o n (Bandura, 1973: E p s t e i n and T a y l o r . 1967: E a s e l l i and a l t r o c h i , 1969).

RESPONSE TO RULE VIFLFTIONS 9 ? T Q I B U T F D

YO 9 G S R I S S I 3 R

The a t t r i b u t i o n o f a g g r e s s i o n a l o n s is n o t s u f f i c i e n t t o r t h e i r l t i a t i c n o t i n t e r p e r s o c a l violsnce. PJllowicg t h s i m p u t a a o n , t h e e t t r i b u t o r w i l l e v a l u a t e t h e s i t u a t i o c and t h e p o s s i b l e a l t . e r r + t i v e r e s p o n s e s h e / s h e c a n make. 8spburn (1973) h a s s u g g f s t e d t h r e e p o s s i b l e t a c t i c s t h e a t l e i b u t o r c a n c h o o s e t o r e d u c e t h e harm-dolng c a u s e d by t h ? r u l e violation (see Elcuchart)

.

&pp&ggd!c=. o r e t a c t i c t h a t c a n be u s e d t o d e a l u L t h is avoidalce. The tactic of a v o i d a n c e violatiors ~ 8 c e s s i t a t ~e s p h y s L c a l w i t h d r a w a l from t h e l o c a t i o n o r a n e i e o t l o n a l d i s e n g a g e m e n t t r c m t h e~n c o u n t e r . The L a c t i c of a v o F d a n c e 1s d i f f i c u l t i n r n t i m a t e r e l a x i o n s h i p s v h - r s t h e r e a r e e x t o r r a l c a r s t r a i n t s on t h e p a r t i c i p a r t s tc r s m s i n i n t h e s l t u a t i o r (SSP F o s s , C h a p t e r 8 ) . Rcc??g$lQ~~. Another t a c t i c is a c c e p t a n c e of t h e r u l e vio1a:ioc. Acceptance of r u l e v i o k t i o n is a l s o d i f f i c u l t Z P l n + i m a t e r e l a t i o n s t l p s , where 'ha rnles serve t o protecr t h e l a e n t i t l e s o t the participants. A c c ~ p t i r . g tb.e r u l e v i o l a t i o n 2s a p p r o p x i a t ~ b e h a v i o r r ? c ? s s a r i l y a l t e r s t h e e ~ p ~ c t ~ t l eoa cnh ~ h a s t o w a r d t h e o t h e r . DisruptLng t h e s e s t a b l e and o r d e r l y i r t e r a c t i o r p a t t e r n s makss v u l n e r a b l e OPE'S identity. I f e i t h e r accept?.nce o r a v o i d a n c ~ is s s l s c t s d i s a t a c t i c by which t o r e s p o n d t o a g g r e s s i v e r u l e v i o l s ' i o n s , t h e likelihood t h a t t h e e n c o u n t e r v i l l end i n v i o l f r c s i s g r c i t l y dialnlshed. It i s t h e t a c t i c of r e t a l i a t i o r that is l ~ a d t c interpezsonal violenca. Whnr a g o cf r e t a l i a t i o n h e l s h e r i s k s r e t a l i a t i o n by other. Initially, ego v i l l l a b e l t h e r u l ? v i o l a t i o n a s aggressi're, t h a t is, t r a c s m i t t c t h e v i o l a t o r tha' hP/she a t t r i b u t e s i n r s c + i a n a l harm-doing t o him/her. Once t h e r u l e v i o l a t i o n i s l a b e l e d , ego can l e g i t i m a t s l y seek r e + r i b u t i o n f r c ~the r u l e violator. If t h e r u l e v i o l a t o r c a n n o t aaequately negotiate t h e aggressive label, he/sh? may counterre'aliate rc a n a t t = s p t t o r i d h i a / h ? r s e l t of c h s aggressive labnl. This process accords with SpEey's contertion (1971) + h a t s u c c e s s f u l management of c o n f l i c t i~ t a m l i e s rEqUirfS t h e a b i l i t y t o negotia+e, bargain, acd cooperate--to manipulate a range of b a h a v i a r a l s k i l l s . If t h e p r o c e s s o f r ~ t a l i a ~ i o ~ - ~ ~ ~ n f e ~ r e ?c oa nI t i nautais o, ~t h e p ~ o b a b l l i t yof Y F O ~ E i ~s Ci n~c r e a s e d . TC snmmarlze t h e

precsdlng

sectim

i n

propositional

tom: 2 rule P r o ~ o s i 2. t ~ ~ ~i f ZtTrlhuted as agqressivs,

violation t h e t is,

is as

Ch.9.

R t t r i b u t i o x PTOC~ESES

Page 144

i n t e n t i o n a l harm-dorng, rhe probability interpersonal vialerce is ircreased.

of

If 'he a t t r i b u t i o n of a g g r n s s i v e n e s s is e a d e , ar e v a l u a t i O P o f t h e s i t u a t i o n w i l l determine a n a p p r o p r i a t e r e s p o r s e by w h i c h t o r e d u c e t h e h a r m - d o i n g of t h e r u l s It is p o s i t e d t h a t : violation.

P r o p o s i t i o i i 2. --relationship,

The mare intinete 'hi 'he l e s s l i k s l y w i l l e c c e p t a c c e D r aVOld2nCE b e u s e d a s a t a c t i c t? r e d u c s t h e harm-doing cf r u l e v i o l a t i o n s .

S i n c e acceptance o r zvoldance is d i f f i c u i t iPvolPed i n enaurlcg i n t Z a a t e relationships:

for

thosc

P r o p o s P ~ o r2. -relatiorship,

Th9 Bore intimate .b? ?he more likely w i l l r e t a l i a t i o n be used a s a t a c t i c t o ?educe t h ? harm-doirg of r u l e viola?ions.

If t h e r a c t i c o f r e L a l i a t i o n i s ch?sen, chances i n c r e a s e t h a t v i o l e n c e v l l l e n s u e ; t h p norm of r e c i p r o c i t y will l e g i t i m i z e r ~ t a l l a t i c n .

Prlp.oslti0n --

u.

I f t h e attribution of aggression communicated t o t h e r u l e v i o l a t o r , t h r probability of c o u r t e r r e t a l l a t i c n iccreases. 1s

P r o p o s i t i o z 5. --a b i l i t i e s of

lover the negoiiatiol the a c t o r s involved, t h e higher t h e prcbabiliry 3f c o m t e r r e t a l l a t i o n . The

The P r o p o s i t i o n 6. -counterretaliation,

the

mOZE

:ha

ZDt3112tiOP-

hTgher

ih8

probability o f v i o l f r x e .

CE2BRCTEPISTICS OF BOLES E N D R O L F VIDLBTIONS TBIT ENERBCE AGGPESSIVE ATTPISOTIOA Whether a r u l e v i o l a t i o n i s a g g r e s s i v e i s t y p i c a l l y i c f e r r e d from, amocg o t h e r t h i n g s , c h a r a c t s r i s t i c s s f t h e r u l e v l o l a t o r (e.g., p o w e r 3 r d s t a t u s ) , c h a r a c t s r i s t i c s 3f the s i t u a t i o n (prEssrce cf alcohol o r csarcioc), and cheracteristics o r tho r u l s violation i t s c l f . This lz'rsr Certail charscteristics of c a t e g o r y i s of I n t e r e s t h a r e . r u l e s a n d t y p e s o f r u l s v i o l a t i o n s do s e s m t o l e a d L 3 t h e v ~ o l a i o r ' s b e i n g S E E P as e g g r e s s i ~ e . The c h 3 r 3 c t e r i s t i c s o f r u l e s t o be c a h r l d s r e d i n t h i s c o r n e c r i o n are t h l s e t h a t : (1) c o n t r o l or restrict. behavior, (2) thzeite?. s i t u a t e d i d o n a t i e s , ( 3 ) a r c h l g h l y c c h n e c i e d 'a o t h e r r u l e s . ica (9) d i s r u p t p s t a b l i s h e d claims. I n the d i s c u s s i o n of each of t h e s e C h a r a c t f r i s t l c s ~e w i l l a t t e m p t t o d e m o n s t r a t ? how

ch.9.

Rttrlbutlon Pracessrs

Pao= 7115

ccr'air s t r u c t u r a l f e a t u r e s of t h s husbind-uif? r e l a t i o n s h i p aggression for rule may e c h a n c s t h e a t t r i b u t i o r o r v101ations.

E x p e r l m e ~ t e l s t n d i e s have found t h a t a c t i o n s t h s ? c o n t r o l t h ~b e h a v t o r of another, or corstrair anath?rrs b e h a ~ i o r a la l ? s m a t i V F S O r OUtCOmeS, 2r? m O r C l i k e l y '3 be a t % r i b u t e d a s a g g r ~ s s i v e (Brown a n d T e d s s c h i , 1 9 7 4 ; Cimezon e n d J a n k y , 1 9 7 2 : T e d e s c h i . c t a&., 197Y). Wh?n an i c t i o a f o r c e s a p e r s o n ~ n t oa p o s i t i o n i n w h i c h a l t e r n a t i v e c s u z s e s of a c t i o n a r e s e v s r e l y l t m i t e d , t h e a c t o r probably w i l l eualoate t h e ac+ion a s gaal-dirscted. Ere r u l l r i a l i t i c n s t h a t o c c u r b e t w e e n I n t i m a t e s more l i k e l y t o b e p a r c e i v e a a s ont trolling thaP rule viola+ions ic other scctal r d a t i o r s h l p s ? S t h a s a l r e a d y been n e n t i o n f d t h a t a v i a o variety o f r u l e s b e t v e e l i n t i n a i e s a r e undofinsd and a x S i g i i o n ~ . Eu?, i r a d d i t i o n , a c a r g a n ~ z e t i o c a l E e a t u r e o f t h e husband-wife r e l ~ t i o n s h i p s a y i l c r e a s c t h e dsqree t o w h i c h z z u l e n i c l a t i n n of o n e s p o u s e i m p i n g e s o c t h e paTt7~FT.

I n n a r y i n s * i < u t i o n a l spheres. t h e viola'ion of rules is u s u a l l y e x a m i n e d by some f c r m o f c i v r l a u t h o r i t y w h o s e f u r c t l o n i s 56 r e l d e r zc o b j e c t i v e judgment. For e x s a p l e . i f l a b o r a c c u s e s D a n a g e m e r t o f v i o l a t i n g c ~ r t a i nc o n t r a c t u a l arrangemen*s a b o u t o v f r t i m s pay and b o t h s i d e s r e m a i r r e s o l u t e ?bout t h e i r " r i g h t n e s s , " o b j e c t i v e r2gotiatc;s w i l l b e c a l l e d 12 t o n e d i a t s t h e d i s p u t ' . T h e r e s o l u t i o n of it* dLspute by recourse t o t h i r d party a r b i t r a t i o r w i l l ' s r n p o r a r i l y h a l t r a c h side's f e e l i n g p ' c c n t r o l l e d * b y t h e other. I n more i l t i a a f s s o c i a l r e l a t i o n s h i p s , as m a r r r a g ? , arbitration t h 4 z e 1 5 10 i n s t i t u t i o n i l i z e d t h i r d p a r t y d f s i q ~ e d t o h e n d l e r u l e vio1a:ioEs. For example, i f a h u s b a r d r l o l a t e s a r n l s t i o r . a l r u l e by havirg sexual r e l a t i o ~ s with s r o t h e r ~ o m m ,t h e w i f e h a s x c a u r s a o n l y 5 9 t t 4 husband. Zc e f f e c t , t h e v i f e i s u n d e r t h e c o n t r c l of t h e r u l e violator. O t t e r a l t e r P a t i r e s a:e t o b a v c s o m e o n e b u t ro t a l x + o t h e husband, o r +c d l s s o l r e t h e n a r r i a g e , d i r e c t e u t h o r i t y c e n m a n d a t e an s r d t o r h s v i o l a t i o r . A s s p r e y (19711 r s n a r k s : " C o r j u g a l l o v e , t h e bond o f m a r = i a g ~ , i s t h e m o s t ~ X C ~ U S o f~ Ya 1~1 in O U T s o c i s t ~ " (p. 723). The c l o s 9 r t h a p a r t i c i p a n t s i n 2 s o c i i l r?latLo!ixhip, th? more e x c l u s i v e o r s t r a n g e r s i t becomes. P3r our ?UzposeS. a n d t o s u a n a r i z e t h i s set-ior:

P r ~ P C s i t i o L 8. The -institntlccalized

l o v e r

~

P a g e 166

~-~

~

- --

-.

~

c a l i & t h e n s o u r c e t h e o r y o f pouer. his t h e o r y a r g u e s t h a t t h e a l l o c a t i o n o f t a s k s a n d power i s b a s e d (or should be basod. it y o u ' r e u s i n g it a s a maxim w h i c h J o e was) o r t h e c o m p a r a t i v e r e s o u r c e s o f t h e members o f a s o c i e t y a n d by t h e l i f e c i r c u w s t a n c s s w-i t h i n w h i c h t h e v l i v e . I n more s z n p l e terms, what t h i ; means f o r t h e ' m i c r o society. marriage, is that the d i v i s i o n o f work m a , most i m p o r t a n t l y . power i s d e e s r m i n e d n o t by i d e o l o g y b u t by who b r i n g s i n more r e s o u r c e s . R r e s o u r c e is d e f i c s d as a n y t h i r g t h a t o n e p a r t n e r may make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o t h a n , helping t h e l a t t e r s a t i s f y h i s o r h e r n e e d s o r a t t a i n h l s :r h e r g o a l s ( B l o o d a n d Xalfe. 1960:12). Boney a n d e x p e r t i s e . for example, might q u a l i f y a s r e s o u r e s . ~~~

R i t h i n t h e r e s o u r c e t h e o r y system. J o e ' s c l a i m t o pouer w o u l d b e s t r u c t u r a l l y b a s e d o n t h e a s s s r t i c n t h a t h f was b r i n g i n g i n w h a t some c c u p l e s c o n s i d e r t h c m o s t i a p s r t a n t resource--money. Perhaps Jennifer t r i e d t o use t h i s justification t o d o m i l a t e J o e a u r i n g t h e f i r s t t h r e e a c d a h a l f y e a r s of t h e i r m a r r i a g e . S h e was t h e n t h % b r e a d w i n s e r . Rod p e r h a p s J o e , t h o u g h h e ( l i t e r a l l y ) f o u g h t h e r a t t e m p t s d u r l n g t h e e a r l y y e a r s o f t h e i r m a r r i a g e t o make s u c h a claim, e v e n t u a l l y was c o n v i n c e d of h ? r d e f i c i t i o n o f t h e situation. would t h i s e x p l a i n h i s l o s s o f self-confidence t h a t g e t t i n g a job (resources?) h e l p e d him t o r e g a i l ? F h e r h e r o r n o t J o e was m a k i n g a c l a i m b a s e a on r u l e s w h i c h h a d e x i s t e d a l l a l o r g , i t was o b v i o u s h e a n t i c i p a i , e d u s i n g u h a t h e s a w as h i s c a e p e r a t i v e l y g r e a t e r r e s o u r c e s t o s u p p o r t h i s domination. Wi*h t h e t r a n s i t i o x t o p a r e n t h o o d he would become t h e b r e a d w i n n e r , h e would h a v e t h e r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , a n d h e would b e i a c h a r g e . . . c r s a he hoped. Joe: I ' m s o r t of p r o u d a n d happy now t h a t my wife's p r e g n a r t a n d w e ' r e going t o have a c h i l d . a n d it was t h e m o t i v a t i n g f a r c e i n terms of me thinking about being the She's breadwinner, assuming a s p e c i f i c r o l e . g o i n g t o b e s t a y i n g home. B e f o r e , I was j u s t a n o t h e r p e r s o n g o i n g o u t a n d WorKing a n d n a v I ' m g o i n g t o b e t h e breadwinner... Icfervisver: JOF:

Do y c u l i t e t h a t ?

I t h l n k it's n i c e t o f e e l t h a t you'rp V h ~ n you raking charge. have r e S p O n E i b i l ~ t i e s , you e n d u p b e i n g i n c h a r g e .

..

O P C S a g a l n , t o J o s ' s f r u s ~ r a t i o n . J e n n i f e r v o u l d n ' t buy h i s t h e o r y o n who d o m i n a t e s whom. S h e mads i t c l e a r a number o f t i m e s d u r i n g t h e i n t e r v i e w s t h a t s h e had n o i n t e n t i o n o f e n d o r s i n g J o e * s claim. The s e q u e n c e w h i c h

ch.10.

H a v e n ' t Bad Any P r o b l e m s S i n c e

P a g e 167

f o l l o w s i l l u s t r a t e s J o e ' s moves a n d J e n n i f e r " i n t h e l r n e g o t i a t i o n o f power. Intervlever: I n t h e organization m a r r i a g e , a r e you t h e b o s s ?

counntzroves of

your

Joe: I n t h e circumstances here, i n t h e uay w e ' r e d i v i d i n g t h e a u t h o r i t y , now s h e ' s g o f n g t o b e t h e h o u s e w i f e a n d I'n g o i n g t o b € t h 2 p r i n c i p a l breadwinner. T h a t m o r e s me u p 2 n o t c h i n terms o f b a i n g t h e b r e a d w i n n e r a n a having t h e say i n f i n a n c i a l matters. Sh3's going t o be i n c o n t r o l of the house e x ~ l o s i v e l y . S h e ' s g o i n g t o h a v e more s a y i n w h a t g o e s o n v i t h i t , e v e n mare s o v i t h t h e f u r n i s h i n g s o f t h e house. Jenclter: I don't t h i c k he's t h e boss, b?canse I n e v e r t h o u g h t of ~ ~ y s e la fs b e i n g t h e b o s s either. Interviewer: What d o you t h i n k o f 5 0 2 ' 5 n o t i o n t h a t if h e ' s making t h e a o n e y , h e ' s a n o t c h u p o n you? Jennifer:

Oh, t h a t ' s h i s i d e a .

Joe: Well. I think when. ..anybcdy does something t o assume r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n a s p e c i f i c a r e a , t h e r e i s s o r t of a r a i s i n g o f him t h e r e i n e u t h o r i t y i n t h a t a r e a . ?ha:'s 2 1 1 I'm t r y i n g t o g e t a t . B e c a u s e I w i l l be t h e s o l e b r e a d v i n n e r , my a u t h o r i t y w i l l g o u p slightly.

Irterviever: So y o u r a u t h o r i t y i s going up h s r e and Jenrifer's i s g o i n g dovn h e r e . [I m o t i o n e d v i t h my h a n d s t o i n d i c a t e two a i t t e r e n t levels. 3 Jecnifsr: I ' d s t i l l work o n t h a t one... It's s t i l l g o i n g t o work t h + t m i n e v i l l g o u p there. [Translation: I "ill s t i l l h a v e 3s much a u t h o r z t y a s h e h a s . ] Re t h i n k s t h a t r a y [ b u r I know b e t t e r ] . InfErvLevar: Do you b e l i e v e h e ' s b 4 C 2 ~ 5 9h e r s t h e b r e a d v r r r e r ? Jennifer:

boss

60 c a n t s l i s u e i t i f h e w a n t s .

Interviever:

What d o y o u t h i n k h e b e l i e v e s ?

I t h l n k h e ' s more o f T h a z ' s a b e t t e r word.

Jennifer:

the

a

hsusehclder.

Ch.10.

Havec't

Bad Any P r o b l e m s S i n c e

p a g e 168

Joe: Yeah. I get stepped upon! [Laughter].. . f o r e x a m p l e , i t t h e r e s h o u l a be a p r o w l e r i n t h e h o u s e and t h e y had a gun, I would p r o b a b l y a s s u m e r e s p o n s i b i l i t y i n t h a t circumstance because I ' m i n c h a r g e sf t h e weapons. a n d I'm t h e more p h y s i c a l , v i o l e c t p e r s o n a l i t y ? [ L a u g h z e r ] So I would t a k e m a r s r f s p o n s i b i l i ~ y1 n t h a t c i r c u m s t a n c e b s c a u s e I am more k n o v l e d g e a b l e . Now i f s h e was gung-ho on guns, I'd say. "Here, y o u go downstairs..." [Laughter] That s o r t of thing. I n times o f e m e r g e n c y I t a k e over... We e a c h a s s u m e o u r own r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s i C o u r o u r area. Intervlever: household. Joe: Yeah. that!

But y o u ' r e g o i n g t o be head o f t h e [ L a u g h t e r ] I l i k e t h e way you

I n t e r ~ i e w e r : w h a t d o e s i t mean t o t h e household? Jennifer:

It n e e n s n o t h i c g .

be

head

said of

[Laughter]

Joe: T h i s is what i t means. It means n s t h i r g , b u t when a j o b i s b o t c h e d u p , t h e buck s t o p s here. T h a t ' s w h a t i t means! [Laughter] What I'm saying is if I the sole breadwinner. I t h i n k o v e r a p e r i o d o f time I'll b e f e e l i n g more a u t h o r i t y i n s p e c i f i c a r e a s doe to t h e Circumstance t h a t I'm f a m i l i a r with. I f s h e s h o u l d g e t a j o b , my responsibility a s s o l e b r e a d w i n n e r woold h a v e t o g o down. And h e r s w i l l s t a r t t 3 r i s e . S h e ' s t h e o n 9 w h o ' s g o i n g t o be i n c o n t a c t w i t h t h e k i d more t i m e t h a n I a n , s o 1'8 g o i n g t o have t c l e a n o v e r and say. "OK, s h e ' s t h e b o s s when i t comes TO t a k i n g c a r e o f and making d e c i s i o n s a b o u t t h i s l i t t l e kid." S e e w h a t I'm g s t t i n g a t ? B e c a u s e t h i s t u r n s t h e a r e a of r e s p o n s i b i l i t y , bscause s h e ' s more i n t o u c h w i t h it. a n d s3 Jn a n d s3 forth. So what happens is t h a t t h e r e a r e many a r e a s o f r e s p o n s i b i l i t y . So a t a n y g i v e n p c l n t i n t i m e , y o u a s s u s e " b o s s if t h e caz.'> " b o s s o f t h e ueapons," " b o s s f o r hone defense." "boss f o r b e i r g breadwinner.' 'boss t o r h e a v y manna1 l a b o r , " " b o s s f o r r e p a i r s tool^.^ and rep1aceaents.n "boss over t h e Her--"boss f o r childbearing, childcariny, food, shopping, household decisions*...I was j u s t t r y i n g t o e x p l a i n t h a t b e c a u s e I an e a r n i n g t h e money s o l s l y t h a t I p r o b a b l y w i l l

...

ch.10.

A a v e n ' t Bad Any P r o b l e m s S i n c e

PagE 169

e n d up h a v i n g n o r e d e c i s i o n m a k i n g p o u e r i n t h a t area. Jennlter: more.

Yeah.

b u t I know

hov

to

handle

it

T h e r E 2re a n u m b e r o f t h i n g s w o r t h n o t i n g i n t h e a b o v e sequence. P l r s t of a l l , J o e ' s c l a i m i s bound t o r u n i r t o t r o u b l e from t h e s t a r t . Ee i s a t t e a p t i n g t o a r g u e t h a t he i s t o h a r e " t h e say" i n s i n c e he i s t h e b r e a d w i n n e r , financial Batters. Given t h e i r s e n s i t i v i t y to money handling. Jennifer's f i c a l r e p l y , "Yeah, b u t I know how t o h a n d l e it [ m o n e y ] more [ b e c a u s e I ' m a b o o k k e e p e r a n d y o u ' r e an abstract accountant]," is p r e d i c t a b l e . SBcordly, a l t h o u g h J o e e l a b o r a t e s on h i s c l a i m by a r g u i n g t h a t responsibility Implies authority, and t h a t J e n n i f e r w i l l , b e c a u s e of h e r r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s , b e " b o s s " of Some a r e a s too, t h e t a c t i s s o a e a r e a s h a v e more v e i g h t t h a n o t h e r s . The a r e a i n t h i s h o u s e h o l d which c a r r i e s t h e most v e i g h t i s t h e f l n a n c i a l area. J o e knovs t h i s , but tben so does J ~ r n l f e r . S h e r e t u s f s t o g i v e J o e ' s c l a i m v a l i d i t y by d e r y i n g rt a c c e s s t o t C E i r w o r l d of c o n s e o s u l l r u l e s ("Oh. t h a t ' s h i s idea..." "Re c e n b e l i e v e i t i f h e wants..." "It means n o t h i n g " )

.

Toward t h e e n d o f t h e p r e g n a n c y , i t a p p e a r e d C h a t J o e had n o t g i v e n up on a n i d e o l o g i c a l c l a i m t o power, t h a t h e i n f a c t uould r e s o r t t o both ideology and resources t o s u p p o r t h i s p o ~ e rp l a y . By t h e f o u r t h i n t s r v i e u , J e n n i f e r had q u i t work a n d was t r y i n g t o a d a p t t o b e i n g a h o u s e w i f e . It was d i f f i c u l t f o r h e r . She t o o k a g r e a t d e a l o f p r i d e i n t h 9 work s h e h a d d o n s , t h e b o o k s s h e h a d s e t up, the d e p a r t m e n t s h e s u p p o s e d l y had s t r a i g h t e n e d out. when s h e l e f t , everything i n t h e department s t a r t e d t o " f s l l apart." T h e p e r s o n who t o o k J e n n i f E r q s p l a c e d i d n ' t w a n t t o l e a r n w h a t t o do, so t h e y c l a i m e d , a n d a s a c o n s e q u e n c e J e n n i f e r h a d b e e n c a l l e d a number o f times t o g i v e s s s i s t a r c e o v e r t h e phone. The whole a f f a i r provokfd a c o n f l i c t betveen J o e and J s n n i f e r . I n s p i t e of J e n n i f e r ' s attachment t o her p r e v i o u s j o b , J o e wanzed h e r t o " l e t go." He was a c t u a l l y q u i t e vehemen; a b o u t it. H i s t h r e a t o f r h a t h e u o u l d d o " i f t h e y [ J e n n i f e z ' s f o r m e r c o - u o r k s r s ] c a l l up" i s i n t s r e s t i n g . A9 s a y s h e i s g o i 3 g t c " a c t l i k e a f a t h e r " when h e t e l l s Is i t h i s f a t h e r h e i s g o i n g t o a c t :hem t3 s t o p call:,g. like. h i s E i t h e r t h e p a t r i a r c h who maae a l l t h e d e c i s i o n s f o r J c e ? Erd f o r v h o n i s h e a c t i n g - - J e n c i f e r V s f o r m e r co-workers o r J e n r ~ i f e r , h e r s e l f ?

...

Joe: If t h e y c a l l up h e r e , I ' m g o i n g t o g e t o n t h e phone a n d a c t l l k e a f a t h e r . Bnd 1 ' s g o l n g 70 t e l l them, "Hey, y o u ' d b e t t e r hold u p now, a n d i f you c a l l o n c e a c r e , I ' m g o i n g t o p u n c h you l r t h e mouth." a n d I'n g o i r g t o End I know t h e y a r e g o i n g h a n g up a n them. t o b o t h e r her. I d o n ' t want t h a t t o happen.

Ch.10.

H a v e n ' t Had I n y P r c b l e m s S i n c e

P a g s 170

J o e o n c e s a i d t h a t h e f e l t t h e p r e g n a n c y made him more o f a man a n d J e r n i f s r more of a mornan. P e r h a p s what h e n e a t by t h i s i s t h a t f i r : a l l y h e c a n draw t h a t l i n e a s h i s f a t h e r drew t h e l i n e . w h e t h e r J e n n i f e r w i l l be a b l e t o continue t o r e s i s t remains t o be seen. CONJUGAL VIOLENCE A N D T H E POLITICS OF N A R R I A G E

J o e a n d J e n E i f e r ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p a p p e a r s t o b e b u l l t on rntarpersonal conflict--"an i n c o n p a r i b l e 8 i f f e r s c c E of objective a d e s i r e cn t h e p a r t of b o t h C o n t e s t a n t s t o a t t a i n Ghat i s a v a i l a b l e o n l y t o one, o r o n l y i n p a r t w ( D a h r e n d o r i , 1959:135). The c o n f l i c t between them may b e v i e w e d i n e s s e n t i a l l y o c e o f two ways-as a s i g n of a " d i s t u r b e d " o r '#sick" r e l a t i o n s h i p , or as a normal COnSEquenCe cf t h e m a r i t a l bond. The f i r s t c o n c e p t i o n , t h e c o n s e n s u s approach. assumes t h a t t h e husband-wlfe union i s a r ; l a t i o n s h i p b a s e d an a g r e e m e n t a n d h o m e o s t a s i s . Thf s e c o n d concepticn, t h e c o n f l i c t approach, assumes t h a t d i s s e n s u s and s t r u g g l e s f o r power a r e i n h e r e n t q u a l i t i e s o f a marriage. The f i r s t c o n c e p t i o n i s t h e popular one. m u e v e r , t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h i s c o n c e p t i o n h a s been q u e s t i o n e d i n many of t h e c h a p t e r s o f t h i s book and b y s o c i o l o g i s t s such a s sprey. s p r e y ( 1 9 6 9 ) . f o r example, a r g u e s t h a t t h e ~ o ~ s e n s ua ps p r o a c h i s b a s e d o n two f a l l a c i e s : (1) the bellEf t h a t p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n t h e family is a voluntary m a t t e r . and (2) t h e n o t i o r t h a t t h e f a m i l y i s a b u f f e r berween t h e i n d i v i d u a l a n d s o c i e t y .

...

TO d i s p n t e t h e s e c l a i m s , Sprep n o t e s f i r s t that membership i n o n e ' s r a t s 1 f a m i l y i s o b v i o u s l y n o t by c h o i c e , and t h a t t h e r e i s no r e a l n o r m a t i v e a l t e r n a r i v e t~ t h e m a r h i e d s t a t e a s a l i f e c a r e e r i n o u r s o c i e t y , and s e c o n d l y t h a t conceiving t h e f a m i l y a s a w o r l d i n t o v h i c h one may withdraw from t h e c o n f l i c t s of everyday l i f e e r r o n s o u s l y a s s u m e s t h a t i n d i v i d u a l s a r e somehow a p a r t f r o a r a t h s r t h a n involved i n socisty. A c o n f l i c t approach i s o f course n o t new t o s o c i a l s c i e r c e ( c f . , R o b b e s . n a r x , Simmel). F o r some reason, however, i t h a s t r a d i t i o n a l l y been r e s e z v e d f o r e x p l a i n m a macro l e v e l r e l a t i o n s ( f o r example t h e c l a s s s t r u g g l e ) end n o r f a m i l l a 1 o i c r o e n c o u n t e r s ( t h e p r e s e c t e t i o n of s e l f i n everyday l i f e ) . The a p p r o a c h i s just b ? g i n n i n g t o g a i n s l g n i f i c a r t s u p p c r t among f a m i l y r e s e a r c h e r s . P r e s e n r e d h e r e a s a n i s o l a t e d c a s e , J o s and J e n n i f e r ' s may cams a c r o s s a s a d o c o a s n t of a " d i s L u r b s d " relationship. C o n s t d e r e d ic c o n j u n c t i o n w i t h t h e o t h e r c o n p l e ~ i= t h e l a r g a r s t u d y f r o a which t h i s c a s e s t u d y was t a k e n , however, J o e and J e n n i f e r s ' s m a r i t a l e x p e r i e n c e d o e s n o t seem t h a t o r u s n z l . The f a c t i s a l l t h e s a n p l e c o u p l e s , i n o n e way o r a n o t h e r and i n v a r y i n g d e g r e e s , were i n v o l v e d i n an o n g o i n g i n t e r p e r s o n a l c o n f r o n t a t i o n . What a b o u t J o e ' s v i o l e n c e t o w a r d J e n n l f e r d n r i r g t h e f i r s t two y e a r s o f t h e i r story

ch.10.

Raven't

Bad hny P r o b l e m s S i n c e

P a g e 171

,,,arriago? Is t h i s " u s u a l ? " I t i s t r u e t h a t o f t h e s i x t e e n c o u p l e s i n my s a m p l e o n l y two d i s c l c s e d a V i o l e n t ~ n c o u n t e r ( t h e o t h e r couple a l s o s a i d t h e v i f e uas t h e victim; s s e s e d t o be a p r e c i p i t a t o r ) . Not t 3 be o v e r l ~ o k e d boxever i s t h e f a c t t h a t r e c e n t m q u i r i e s i n t o t h e i n c i d e n c e ~f t a a i l y v i o l e n c e s u g g e s t t h a t c o n j u g a l v i o l e n c e may i r d e e a b e a u s u a l o c c u r r e z c e ( s e e C h z p t s r s 1 a n d 2 ) . The r e s e a r c h i n d i c a t e s t h a t J o e a r d J s n n i f e r r s m a r r i a g e may b e s o r e t y p t c a l t h a n we r e a l i z e , o r would l i k e t o b e l i e v a . Recen? a t t s a p t s t o E x p l a i n f a m i l y v i o l e n c e have. in fact. resulted i n t h e dsvelopment o f t h e o r i e s uhich coapleaenf t h e c o n f l i c t approach. The c o n c e p t u a l i z a t i o n s p r o p o s e d by A l l s r . a n d s t z a u s ( C h a p t e r 1 % ) a n d by Brown (Chaprer 11) a r e c a s e s i n point. Each of t h e s e t h e o r i e s s e e s h u s b a n d - w i f e v i o l e n c e a s a c o n s e q u e n c e o f an i n t s r p l a p bBtYeen c u l t u r a l a n d s o c i a l s t r u c t u r a l v a r i a b l e s r a t h e r t h a n psychopathological factors. Implicit in eich i s the assertion that social conflict is t9$2 the o r g a n i z a t i o n o f t h e c o r j u g a l system and of t h e l a r g e r s o c i e t y v i t h uhich t h a t system t r a n s a c t s . Drawing from t h e work of Goode ( l Y 7 l ) , Rodman (19721. and R O ~ E T S ( 1 3 7 9 ) . B l l e o a r d S t r a u s ' c h a p t e r p r o p o s e s t h 4 nUlt5rnate Resource" theory of conjugal violsnce. Esse~tially the theory suggests that in an individUallsticallp oriented urban-industrial society (for e x a m p l e t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s ) where m a l e s u p e r i o r i t y norms a r e weak and somewhat ambiguous and where t h e p r ? s u m p t i o n of male s a p e r i o r i t y must b e v a l i d a t e d by s u p ? r i a r i : y ic " r e s o u r c e s " ( s u c h a s m a t e r i a l g o o d s and v a l u e d p e r s o n 5 1 t r a i t s ) . v i o l e n c e w i l l b e i n v o k e d by a n i n d i v i a u a l who l a c k s o t h e r r e s o u r c e s t o s e r v e a s a b a s i s f o r power. In other words, 9 i o l e n c e may b e u n d e r s t o o d a s t h s " u l t i m a t e r e s s u r c e " f o r s u s t a i n i n g a power c l a i m . E l l e n arc7 S t r a u s ' t h e o r y o f f s r s a c o g e n t e x p l a n a t i o n o f why J o e r e s o r t e d t o v i o l e n c o &: t o s t o p what h e saw a s " t h e bad p r o g r e s s i o n o f e v e n t s . " t h e time o f t h e encounter, Joe lacked t h e resources t o ground h i s p a t r i a r c h a l i d e o l o g y ( " I ' m a p u r e male c h a u v i n i s t pig, and 1 1 1 1 a d m i t i t " ] . E c o n o m i c a l l y s u p p o r t e d by J e n n i f e r , h e c o u l d n o t r e l y on any " e x t r i n s i c " ressurces (sccnomic acd p r e s t i g e c o n f f r r i c g c h a r a c t e r i s t i c s ) i s a b a s i s f o r power. Purthezmore, J e n n i f e r i m p l i e s t h a t J o e ' s . . - a n s i c " r e s o u r c e s ( v a l u e d p e r s o n a l t r a i t s ) m r e a l s o low d u r i n g t h l i t i m e when s h e r e m a r k s l a t e r on t h a t J o e seemed t o b e " g e t t i n g more i n d ~ p e n d e n t . . . s o r e s e l f - c o n f i d e n t * a s a r e s u l t o f h i s (now) b e i n g w i t h " b u s i n e s s p e o p l e " r a t h 4 r t h a n "sf~fi4nls."fU G ~ Y E ~t t i s iebalance--husband d0minar.t (st i d e o l o g y v % r s u s v i f e dominant r e s o u r c p structure m b a l a n c e t h a t A l l s n and S t r a u s s e e a s c h a r a c t e r i s t i c of t h ~ w o r k l n g c l a s s ) - - o p e would e x p e c t ( a s s u m i n g t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e " U l t i m a t e R e s o u r c e n t h e o r y ) t h a t J o e weald r e s o r t t o 3 S l a p in t h e f a c e " t h r e e o r f o u r t i m e s " t o show J e n n i f e r t h a t d e s p l t e h i s l a c k o f " e x t r i n s i c ' and " i r t r i r s i c " r e s o u r c e s , h r i s " n o t t h e k i n d of p e r s o n t h a t ' s [ s i c ] going t o be

Ch.10.

H a v e n ' t Aad h n y P r o b l e m s S i n c e

P a g e 172

dominated." J o e ' s t h r e a t o f v i o l e n c e d u r i n g t h e f i n a l r e e k s of t h e p r e g n a n c y may p e r h a p s a l s o b e i n t e r p r e t e d w i t h i n t h e R l l e s and S t r a o s framework. Was J o e t h r e a t e n i n g Jenniferqs co-workers ("If y o u c a l l o n c e more, I ' m g o i n g t o p u n c h you i n t h e mouth") 31. was h e i n f a c t i n d i r e c t l y t h r e a t e n i n g Jennifer? A s l o n g a s J e n n i f e r held on t o h e r job, J o e c o u l d n o t b a s e a c l a i m f o r power on h i s g r e a t e r e c o n o m i c p o s i t i o n . T h e E d u c a t i o n v e r s u s e x p e r i e n c e d e b a t s makas i t c l e a r t h a t J e n n i f e r d i d n o t see h e r o c c u p a t i o n a l s t a t u s a s b e l o w J o e ' s . Was h e c o m m u L i c a t i n g t o J e n n i f e r t h a t if h e r c a r e e r was g o i r g t o c o n t i l u e t o i n t e r f e r e h e would h a v e n 2 c h o i c e b u t t o f a l l b a c k o n t h e " u l t i m a t e r e s o u r c e " t o show h e r h e i n t E n d e d t o be "boss?" Joe

and J e n n i f e r a l s o illustrate the processes i n Brown's c h a p t e r on " 8 i f e Bnplopmant, f l a r i t a l Brov~ E q u a l i t y , a n d Rusband-Wife Violence" (Chapter 11). n o t e s t h e i n c r e a s e i n t h e number o f w o r k i n g w i v e s i n A o ~ r i c a a n d t h e c o r r e s p o n d i n g d e c r e a s e i n husband pou%r t h a t this c h a n g e i m p l i e s ( " S i n c e money i s a r e s o u r c e i n m a r r i a g e , v e may a s s u m e t h a t a s more w i v e s c o n t r i b u t e d ts t h e f a m i l y i n c o m e t h e p a v e r o f t h e h u s b a n d was a f f e c t e d i n v e r s a l y " ) . Brown devsl o D s a- t h e a r v t h a t " t r a c e s o u- t t h e known a n dt h e o r s t i c a l c o n s e q u e n c e s o f v i f e employment and s e e k s t o a n s w e r t h e q u e s t i o n o r w h e t h e r o n e of t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s o f u i f e ~ m p l o p m e n t is a n i n c r e a s e d l e v e l a f h u s b a n d - w i f e c o n f l i c t and violence." describes

~

.

~

-

~

~

~

-

-

L

~

~~~

T h e a r g u m e n t i s made t h a t o n e c o n s e q u e n c e o f t h e i n c r e a s e d economic i l d s p a n d e n c s o f t h e u i f e is a change i n h e r a u t h o r i t y e x p e c t a t i o n s from husband dominant to equalitarian. Since t h e male h a s t r a a i t i o n a l l y been ascribed superior s t a t a s i n our society, t h i s a t t i t u d e s h i f t leads to a c o n f l i c t between t h e w i f e ' s e q u a l i t a r i a n a u t h o r i t y e x p e c t a t i o c s and t h e husband's male s u p e r i o r i t y norms. The c r i t i c a l q u e s t i o n from B r o u n l s p o i n t o f view is "Does t h e h u s b a n d a c c e p t the equalitarian authority strocture?' If t h e answer t o t h i s q u e s t i o n is n2, t h e c o n f l i c t w l l l b e s e e n a s i l l e g i t i m a t e and t h e husband v i l l r e v e r t t o t r z d i t i o ~ a ld o m i c a t i n g t e c h n i q u e s i n c r e a s i n g t h e likelihood o f v i o l e n t c o n f l i c t . I f t h e answer t o t h e q u e s t i o n is y e s , t h e i n t i m a c y i n t h e c o u p l e ' s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i l l i n c r e a s n (owing t o s h a r e d a s p e c t s o f l i f e ) a2d t h i s i n c r e a s e w i l l i n t u r n i s c r e a s e t h e c o n f l i c t i n t h e marriage. ( " I n c r e a s i n g i n t i m a c y b r i n g s w i t h it a n i n c r e a s i n g a w a r e n e s s cf, a n d c o n f r o n t a % o n urth, t h e uniqueness of t h e othsr." s p r e y , 1 9 7 1 r 7 2 9 . ) 5 9 v e v a r . t h e c o n f l i c t b r o u g h t o n by t h e I n c r e a s e d i r t i m a c y w i l l be s e e r a s l e g i t i m a t e - t h a t is, C o n s t r u c t i v e and h i g h l y desirable--decreasing t h s l i k s l i h o o d of violent conflict. Whether Jennifer's economic independence prompted a change i n h e r a u t h o r i t y e x p e c t a t i o n s is not clear. S h e may h a v e h e l d e q u a l i t a r i a n o r v i f e d o m i n a n t e x p e c t a t i o n s E p y e s h e became a b s o k k e e p e r . Be

ch.10.

H a v e n ' t Had I n y P r o b l e m s S i n c e

Page 173

t h a t a s it may. t h ~ r ei s n o d o u b t t h a t J e n n i f e r ' s i d e a s o n who s h o u l d b e i n c h a r g e c o n f l i c t e d w i t h J o e ' s t r a d i t i o n a l t h o u g h t s on t h e s u b j e c t . C o n f r o n t e d w i t h the c o r f l i c t b e t w e e n J e n n i f e r ' s a u t h o r i t y e x p e c t a t i o n s , a n d h i s own m a l e s u p e r i o r i t y norms, how d o e s J o e r e a c t ? 9e c o n t i n u a l l y r e f u s e s t o a c c e p t t h e a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e which J e n n i f e r It c o u l d b e s a i d (assuming t h e v a l i d i t y o f proposes. nraun's t h e a~r v l t h a t J~~o e ' s s l a o was o n e m a n i-f e s t a t i o n o~f h -~ is -r e s o r t i n g t o t r a d i t i o n a l d o m i n a t i n g t e c h n i q u e s vhen h i s s u p e r i o r i t y was t h r e a t e n e d . ~

~

..

~

~

.

~

~~

P a r r i c u l a r l y s i g n i f i c a n t i s t h e n e a n i n g w h i c h Joz a n d Jennifer impute t o t h e violent incident. Both s e e t h e e n c o u n t e r a s a n a c t t h a t was a p p r o p r i a t e , given the situation (Joe: "1 h a d t o do s o m e t h i n g p h y s i c a l Jencifer: "It was my f a u l t . " ) Their responses provide an example ot what Gelles (1974:59) calls "normal ~io1encE"--violence t h a t is accepted, approved, and even mandated i n f a m i l y i n t e r a c t i o n . The e x i s t e n c e o f t h i s t y p e o f v i o l e n c e i s y e t a n o t h e r d e m o n s t r a t i o n of how s o c i a l c o n f l i c t c a n be b u i l t i n t o t h e o r g a c i z a t i o x o f a B a r r i s g e .

..."

It i s L o t e v o r t h y t h a t m a r i t a l v i o l e n c e is being c o n c e p t u a l i z e d by t h e s e r e s e a r c h e r s a s a n a c t t h a t h a s b o t h i d e o l o g i c a l and s o c i a l s t r u c t u r a l a n t e c e d e n t s . Their dual ~ C C U S 1s i r a c c o r d v l t h s y c o n c l u s i o n s ao t h e c o n f l i c t approach. S p e c i f i c a l l y , t h e c o n f l i c t a p p r o a c h s u g g e s t e d by t h e i n t e z v i e u s d o e s n o t i m p l y s i m p l y a n exchange framework. R a t h e r , t h e c o n f l i c r p r o c e s s emerges as a system*5 i n which t h e m a r i t a l symbol s t r u c t u r e ( c o n v e r t i o n a l s i g n s t r u c t u r e ) a5 w e l l a s t h e m a r i t a l e x c h a n g e structure (rssource structure) influence. ar.d a r e i n f l u e n c e d by, t h e m a r i t a l p o v e r s r r u c r u r e ( t h e a b i l i t y of t h e husband t o a f f e c t m a r i t a l l i f e versus t h e z b i l i t y of t h e wife t o a f f e c t marltal life). I n o t h e r words, marital politics (the d i s t r i b u t i o n +nd e x e r c i s e o f power) i s n o t b a s e d s i m p l y o n i d e o l o g y ( f o r example. t h s husband i s i n c h a r g e b ~ c a u s e that's " t h e v a y i t ' s s u p p o s e d t o be") o r o n e x c h a n g e ( t h e h u s b a n d i s ir c h a r g e b e c a u s e h e i s b r i n g i n g t o t h e m a r r i a g e rewards--money. status--that s a t i s f y h i s v i f a ) , but on a s y t h e s i s o f t h e tuo.*6

Ch.10.

i l a v e n ' t Had Rny P r o b l e m s S i n c e

Page 174

NOTES *I am i n d e b t e d t o B a u r e e n LaRossa and Howard 8 . S h a p i r o f o r t h e i r h e l p f u l comments o r a n e a r l i e r d r a f t o f t h i s chapter. T h i s e x c e r p t i s r e p r i n t e d from C o n f l i c t and pQvEr La e a r r r a a e : a s c $ L r g f& p=rz$ BLLP by R a l p h Laxossa. Sage L i b r a r y o f S o c i a l Research, Vol. 50. (c) 1977, pp. 69-82 by p f r m i s s i o n o f t h e P u b l i s h e r . S a g e P u b l r c a t i o n s . Inc. (Beverly Eills/London)

.

1. The r e s e a r c h i s e s s e n t i a l l y two s t u d i p s il one. manifestly, i t i s a s t u d y of haw m a r r i e d c o u p l a s r e s p o n d t o t h e f i r s t pregnancy--to t h e t r a n s i t i o n t o parenthood. nore important, and a t a h i g h e r l e v e l o f a b s t r a c t i o n , i t i s a s t u d y o f t h e s t r u c t u r e a n d pheoomenologp of t h e h u s b a n d - w i f e relationship. Sixteen married couples vere interviewed during the twelfth, trentieth, tvecty-eighth, ttirty-sixth weeks o t t h e i r r e s p e c t i v e f i r s t p r e g n a n c i e s . The i n t e r v i e w s v e r e c o n j o l n t ( h u s b a n d and w i f e t o g e t h e r ) and u n s t r u c t u r e d They were c o n d u c t e d i n t h e c o u p l e s ' (nonstacdardized) homes, w e r e t a p e d a n d l a t e r t r a n s c r i b e d . Analysis of t h e interne" transcipts was q u a l i t a t i v e (the conceptual c o m p o n e n t s o t e x p l a n a t i o n v e r e d e v e l o p e d . f o r t h e most p a r t . from t h e d a t a ) .

.

2. S p r e y (1969) cites research that he feels "chronicles" o r " i l l u s t r a t e s " t h e c o n f l i c t framework (Bach a n d Q y d s c , 1968; Brim a&.. 1961; x a u k i n s , 1968: L e v i s , 1967; Scanzonl. 1968). To t h e s e o n e c o u l d add L a r s o n (1974) a n d Rausch g (1974). Each of these investigators d o e s o f f e r some f i n d i n g ( s ) t h a t may b e i n t e r p r e t E d a s s u p p o r t f o r t h e c o n f l i c t approach. None o f t h e s e s t u d i e s . however. c o n f r o n t s t h e m a j o r a s s u m p t i o n s o f the c o n f l i c t approach. I n o t h e r words, n o n e a d d r e s s e s t h e q u e s t i o n o f how c o n f l i c t i s i n t r i n s i c t o f a m i l y l i f e , o r how f a m i l i e s manage r a t h e r t h a n r e s o l v e c o n f l i c t s . l o n e of t h e s e s t u d i e s f o c u s e s on t h e p o l i t i c a l d i m e n s i o n , the n u c l e u s . ir. my o p i n i o n , of t h e f a m i l y a s a c o n f l i c t s y s t e m . of t h e s t u d i e s c i t e d , Bach a n d uyden (1968) p e r h a p s comes t h e closest t o addressing these issues. T h e i r r s s e a r c h is, howevEr, b a s e d o r c l i n l c a l i m p r e s s i o n s .

.

3. J o e ' s r e f e r e n c e t o " t h e people i n t h i s area" is irteresting. Bosn and r a i s e d i n r u r a l N e w E n g l a n d . J o e seems t o b e c l a i m i n g t h a t t h e r e e x i s t s a g e a g r a p h i c a l l y b a s e d s u b c u l t u r e and t h a t h e i s p a r t o f it.

4. The i d s n t i t i c a t i o ~o f ' e x t r i n s i c ' r s s o u r c e s i s from B l a u (1964:20-22).

ar~a "intrinsic'

5 . The d e f i n i t i o n o f a system s u b s c r i b e d t3 is Buckley's (1968:493). "Re d e f i n e a s y s t e m i n g e n e r a l a s a complex o f e l e m e n t s o r c o m p o n e n t s d i r e c t l y o r i r a i r e c t l y r e l a t e d i n a c a u s a l n e t w o r k , s u c h t h a t a t l e a s t soma 3 f t h e c o m p o n e n t s a r e r e l a t e d t o some o t h e r s i n a n o r e o r 155s

Ch.70.

Xaven't

Had Any P r o b l e m s s i n c e

Page 175

s t a b l e way at af.p 2 3 GE, The i n t e r r e l a t i o n s may b e matual or unidirectional, linear, non-linear O r in?-rrniAtent. a- n d~ ~varvixo , i n d 6 4 r e e s of c a u s a l e f f i c a c y o r prisrizy. The p a r t i c u l a r k i n d s - o f more o r l e s s s t a b l e i n t e r r e l a t i o n s h i p s o r c o m p o n e n t s t h a t become e s r a b l L s h e d a t any time c o n s t i t u t e t h e p a r t i c u l a r s=us;s"f the systel a t t h a t time."

.

6. S p r e y (1972:237) makes t h e p o i n t that a conflic? a p p r o a c h " i m p l i e s a framework o f exchange." He d o e s n o t e x p l a i n r h a t h e meaxs by t h i s . I f however he i s s a y i n g t h a t c o g n i t i v e s o c i o l o g y (symbolic i n t e r a c t i o n , phanoaanslogy) h a s no p l a c e w i t h i n a c o n f l i c t approach, t h e n I must disagree. I n my o p i n i o n (and I b e l i e v e f a m i l y v i o l e n c e r ~ s e a r c h e r s would c o n c u r w i t h me on this), a more a p p r o p r i a t e way o ? s t a t i n g t h e c a s s i s t h a t a c o n f l i c t approach i m p l i e s p o l i t i c s ( t h e d i s t r i b u t i o n and a r e r c i s e of p o w e r ) , a n d p o l i t ~ c se n t a i l s n o t o n l y t h e a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t r e i l f o s c e n e n t c o n t i n g e n c i e s (exchange) b u t a l s o t h e a b i l i t y t o a f f e c t t h e d e f i r l t i o 7 . of t h e s i t u a t i o n (symbols). For a d i s c u s s i o n of t h i s i s s u e a s it a p p l i e s t o t h e s t u a y o f m a r i t a l power, s e e S a f i l i a s - R o t h s c h i l d ( 1 9 7 1 ) .

ife-Employment, Marital Equality, and Husband-Wife Violence Bruce W.Brown

A theme i n t h e p r e v i o u s c h a p t e r that p e r v a d e d t h e d i a l o g u e between J o e a n d J e c n i f e r In this was t h e i s s u e c f w i f e employment. chapter. Frown s u g g e s t s t h a t o n 2 c o n s e q u e n c e o f V~IES VOrkiPq i s an increased level of husband-wife cofflic? and violence. The i n c r e a s e d econDmic i n d e p e n d e n c e o f t h e m a r r i e d woman c h a n g e s h e r a u C h o r i t y e x p e c t a t i o n s from h u s b 3 n d d o m i n a n t t o e q u a l i t a r i a n , ana l e a d s t o s conrllct betUEPn t h e wife's FEY authori'y e x p e c t a t i o n s m d *he h u s b a n d ' s male s u p e r i l r i r y norms. A crucial cocticgency in Brown's f o r m u l a t i o n is whether t h e husband a c c e p t s t h e If not, e q u a l i t a r i a c authority sTructure. a t t e m p t s t o d i s r u p t h i s power c l a i m s may b e mst with violent rssistzncs, especially i f h e is lacking i n other resources. Ic t h e c a s e of J o e +nd J e n n i f e r , J s n n l f e r ' s a c t e m p t t o a l t e r t h e z u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e o f t b = i r marTiZgE c a u s ~ dJ?E t o use violecce.

1 f o r t h e r c o n + r i b u t i o n of Brcun's c h a p t s r his i r v e s t i g a t l o n o f t h e f a c t z r s ?haL ~ n f l u e n c et h e h u s b a n d ' s a c c e p t a n c e o r r e j e c t i o b o f e q u e l i t a r i a n 2uAh3r5'y pafzerns. l a ?b.= r e a d e r w i l l a o t s . many of t h s f a c t o r s he l i s t 5 a r e bourd up i n a a i s s e x r o l e E x p e c t a r i o n s t h a t le3Ve men unprepared far dovelopin3 r e l a t i o c s t i p s t h e ? c a l l f o r s h a r e d pnvEr a n 3 e q u a l t a s k a l l o c a t i o n w i L h women. 15

R e s e a r c h o n f a m i l y p o v e r h a s emphasized :he hscsficial e f f e c t s o f t h e e q u a l i t a r i a ? marriage style. It h a s been h e r a l d e d i n t h e p o p a l a r c u l t u r e as a c u r e - a l l f o r *h3 a i l m e n t s of c o n t e m p o r a r y s a r r i a g e s . Aovever, o t h e r s s u c h as s t r a u s i n C h a p t e r 6. K o l b a n d S t r a u s ( 1 9 7 4 ) . a n d w h i t s h u r s t ( 1 9 7 4 ) who h a v e s t u d i e d t h e E m e r g i n g e q u a l i t 3 r i z n s a r r i a g s t y l e concluded t h a t , vhcterer t h e u l t i m a t e benefits. Suricg t h e t r a n s i t i o n p e r i o d , t h e move t o w a r d e q u a l i t y b e t v e e n t h s s e x e s may c a u s e many p r o b l m s . Such a c h a n a e t o w a r d "re sexual equality i n t h e fcmily, l i k e a n y o t h e r d r a s t i c c h a r g e ir t h ? poses problems, at least soclal structure, duzicg the t r a r s r t i o n periaa. Inaividuals s o c i a l i z e d +o. o p e r a t e i n 028 s y s t s m of f a m i l y o r g a n i z a t i o n m3y h a v e d i f f i c u l t y o p s r s t 5 n g u n d e r new s t a z d ~ r d s( R c l b a n d S t n a u s . 1 9 7 4 : 7 5 6 ) . T h e f o c u s of t h i s c h e p t e r i s e n e x p l a n a t i s n o f c7.e c the f a c t o r s t h a t l e d Whitehurst (197U:76) t o sugger "...that t h e c o c f l i c t bstueen t h e emsrging e q u a l i t a r F e s o c i a l s t r n c t u r e z n d t h e c o r t i n u i n g m a l e - s u p 9 r i c r i t y noro w i l l t e n d tc i n c r e a s e r a t h e r t h a c d c c r e a s s c o n f l i c t a1 v i o l e n c e b e t y e e n h u s b a n d s End wives." T h i s c h s p t - r ?rat€ out the known and theorezical consequences c w i f e - s a p l o y m s n t a n d c c n s i d e r s t h e q u e s t i o n of w h e t h e r o n e c t h e c o n s e q u e n c e s of w i f e - c m p l o y m p c t i s an i n c r e a s e d l e v e l c husband-ulEf c o r f l i c t a r d v i o l e n c e . LEGITIBRTION OF SERITBL POWER Blood a n d W o l f e ( 1 9 6 0 : l l ) t h i n k t h a t n o c h a n g e i c t h e A m e r i c a n f a a i l y i s more s i g n i f i c a n t t h a c t h e s h i f t f r o m ore-sided m a l e a u t h o r i t y t o t h e . s h a r i n g of pover Prd/or a u t h o r i t y by t h e husband a a d u i f e . P ~ Y C Ta n d a o t h o r i t p a r e PS K o l b i ~ v o l v e di n p r z c t i c a l l y ? v e r y a s p e c t o f m e r r i a g e . * l a n d s t r a u r ; (1974:757) s t a t e :

...

t h e d e g r s e of c o n t r o l ~ x e r c i s e d by f a m i l y m e m b ~ r so v e r a c e a r a t h e r i s a n E l e m e n t o f f a m i l y s:=ucture a f f e c t e d by 8 x 6 i r t u r n e f f a c t i n g macy other aspects cf family i n t e g r s t i l n aod ~nterzct~cr. Blood a n d W o l f e ' s (1960:12) a n a l y s i s c9ntras:i tv? s o ~ r c e s of power i r 'ha o a r i t a l r % l 3 + i o n s h i p : " c u l t u r e a n a c o n p e t n n c s . " B r i e f l y . t h e i r c u l t u r a l E x p l a n a t i o n of p a c e r s t e t s s t h a t D o v e r l i e s i n t h e h a - d s o f t h e p a r t n e r "ha t h e c u l t u r e dictit;s should have t h a t pouPr. Io t h i s case, Elood and Uolfe z p p h r e n t l y a r e s p e c k i n g of i u t h o r i t y , t h e r i g h t t o e x e r c i s e power. I n o u r own c u l t u r e , t h e popular vifv has beer t h a t "the men s h o u l a b e t h e h e s 3 of t h ? house."

Ch. 11.

Ulfe-Fmploymert

Psg= 178

FnPLOYnENT B N D POWER

flacy r e s e a r c h e r s t h i n k t h e t n o o t h e r f a c t o r has a f f e c t e d t h e b a l a n c e of p c u e r i n A m s r i c a r m a r r i a g e s m c r c t h a n t h e i n c r e a s e i n ? h e number o f v o r k i c g v i v % s . klaous (1974:232), f o r example. s a y s t h a t :

...

w i t h 65.7 p e r c e n t o f a a r r i n d vomec presecrly e n g a g e d i r g a i n f u l e m p l o y m e n t . i n c l u a i n g 20.6 p e r c e n t of u o w n w i t h c h i l d r e c u n d c r s i x y e a r s o f age, p e o p l e n c l o n g e r a r e w i l l i n g t o a c c a p i and prrscribirq s t h e rorms legitimating segregated conjugal role organizstior.

AcCordiLg t o t h e r e s c u r c e t h ~ o r yof p c v E r ? h e i n c r e a s e d r e s 3 u x e s o f w o r k i n g w i v s s h a v ~i m p o r t a n t i m p l i c a t i o r s f o r m a r i t a l power a n d f o r i d e o l o g y c o n c e r n i n g m a r i t a l a u ' h 3 r i i y . as the wife's S i c c e socey i s a resource i n marriage, r e s o u r c e s i n c r e a s e . h e r pow== p r s s u e a b l y a l s o i n c r e a s e s a n d s h e i s i n a b e t t e r b a r g a i n i n g p o s i t i o n t o s u g g e s t o r demand a more equalitarian + u ? h o r i + y s t r o c t u r e . LS t h e c a s a

o f J o e and J e n n i f e r i l l u s t r a t e s , t h i s t o a more F q U 3 l s h a r i n g o f a n t h o r i t y a p p s 3 r s t o b e p a r t i c u l a r l y d i f f i c u l t f o r husbacds. PC I c u b t , many C O P t ~ m p O r e r y h u s b a n d s a r d w i r e s v i ? v 'he w i f e ' s r r p l c y m e r t e s a n e c e s s a r y income supplement. T h i s , however, d o ? s no? g u a E a r t e e t h e t h u s b e n d s w i l l f i n d some o f t h e l'u:.ictirded Purks c o r s e q u a n c e s " of w ~ f e - e m p l o y m e n t e a s y '3 % & j u s t t o . a n d W21r (1976:28Q). f o r e x a m p l e , t3ur.d t h a t h u s b a n d s of w o r k i n g w i v e s were less s ? t i e f i a d w i t h = h a i r n 3 r r i Z " n s *tr2 husbands of nonworking u i v s s . FurT.hermore, a ? e r p r o f c m i r i s t me? seem t o p r e f e r 3 r f a m i l y woman" t o ' c a r e e r womer." (Stapp and P i n e s , 1976). The r e a s o r f o r husbacds' d i f f i c u l t y wiih a2 e q u a l s h a r i r g of a u t h o r i t y i s e s s e n t i a l l y a c s r f l i c l b e t u e e c +he two b a s e s o f p o v e r j u s t d i s c u s s e d - - c u l t u r a l norms 2nd i n d i v i d u a l r e s o u r c e s . I n t e r n s of i n d i v i d u a l r e s o ~ r c e s , employed Y ~ V E C s h o n l d s h a r e i n t h e au'horitv s t r u c t u r e a t ?h+ m i r r i a g e . ~ o v e v e r ,t h = p o p u l s r c u l t u r e and t h e legal system (veitzman, 1 9 7 5 ) t a l l h u s b a n d s j u s t The transition

K c l b a n d S+raus (197r1:761) c i t e a r e c e n t B a r r i s P o l l t o s u p p o r r t h e i r s t a t e m e n t t h a t " b o t h i n law ?nd i n p o p u l a r o p i l i o c , t h e husbcnd is still e x p a c t s a t o b s t h e t a m r l y 'head' o r leader."

Opposite.

WIPE-EBPLOYBZNT A N D TEE CAELLSAGE TO XSCRIBSD EELE BUTAORITY The r e m a l r d e r o t t h i s c h a p t e r i s c o n c e r n e d v t t h e n ~ x p l a r a t i o r of the hypothesized r e l a t i o n s h i p bsLueen wife-employment a r d husbard-wife n i o l e n c s . "Violent-," a s = s e a i n t h i s c h a p t e r , r e f e r s t o @?ys:cg& v i o l e n c e b g t w e e r h ~ 5 b 2 n d 6a n d w i v e s .

Ue b e g x v i t k t h e p r c p a s i t i a n r h a t smplaymant of t h e wrfe provides her with increased resourc9s. These r a n a u r c e s 12 t u r n l e a d t o i n c r e a s e d power. In the majority of s t n d i e s , power 232% b e e n c o r s t r u e d a s d e c i s i o r - a a k i r g a n d + h e t w o c c n c e p t s h a v e come to bs UP& interchangeably (satilias-Pothschild, 1970). B numbex o f these studFes t o m d t h a t xarklng wives exert nore influence in de~is:o~-rn+kl~g.*2 With = h i s s h i f t toward scre e q u a l pover between h u s b a r d i c d v i f e , t h e w i t ? comes t o e x p e c t a change t o s q u a i i t a r i a n a u t h o r i t y (Blood and Bamblir, 1958). To t h e e x t e n t t h a r t h i s c h a n g e o c c u r s , w i f e - s a p l c y m e n t may l s i d t o a n u r d e r m r n i n g of a s c r i b e d m a l e a u t h o r i t y p l t r e r c s . RF s c z n z o r . i ( 1 9 ' l o : l s s ) s t a t s s , "The w i f e i s more m 0 t i v a t . a ?o 'go along' w i t h him, t o ' g i v e i n * t o h i m , t o l e t ' h i s h a r e h L s way' t o t h e e x t e n t t h a t h e p r o v r a e s maximue z c 3 n o n i c rewards.' If t h e h u s b a n d 1.5 c 3 l a a g e r p r o v i s i n q nzximum e c o n o m i c r e u e r d s , b e c a u s e t h e v i f e is now i n v o l v e d t c %His f u n c t : ~ ~ . s h e 1s c o t i 5 i r c l i n e d " ' 5 go z l o n q w i t h him." Eomans (1961:287) p u t t h i s i d e a more g e r . f r a l l y i n '.he p r o p o ~ i t i o rt h a t " t h e m o s t i m p o r t a n t single 53ctoz i n rn8kir.g a man a l a a d e r r s . . . t h e a b i l i t y t o provide r a r e an8 valued r e w a r d s f o r h i s f o l l o w e r s . " I f a h u s b a n d c0 l c n g e r p ~ 3 0 F d ~ ~ Sectusshe r a r a a n d v a l u e d r e w a r d s for h i s " t o l l o u e r , " h e r s e l f D O V pmv:des %hem. t h e h u s b a n d n o l o n g e r i s i n a p o s i t i o n t c be t h e ucquestionsd l e a d e r . The r e s u l t i s a n attempt to shift from a dominant-subrissive t o an e q u a l i t a r i a c a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r s within t h e marriage.

Ch.11.

w~fe-zmploymepi

P a g e 180

norms. E m p i r i c a l d a t a shcv t h e e x i s t e n c e o f such conflic's. S p e c i f i c a l l y , G i a n o p u l o s a n d a i t c h e l l ( 1 9 5 7 ) . Bye (1958 a n d 1 9 6 3 ) . a c d Glilzer-Balbir (1975:Table 7) found t h z t r n - r i t a l c o n f l i c t i s more f r e q u e n t e m c r g c o u p l e s i n u h i c h t h e v l f e i s employed. A s s t a t e d e ~ r l i f r , Whitehurst t h i n k s ' h s t t h s c o n f l i c t betweex t h e emerging equalitarian authority strncture and male superiority norms u i L l i n z r e a s a husband-wife violence. he r e m a i n d e r o f t h i s c h a p t ~ r a e a l s w i t h t h e c o n d i t i o n s u n d e r u h i c h U h i t e h u r s t ' s a s s e r f i ? n may be correct. FACTORS INFLUENCING EUSBAND ACCEPTANCE OF THE EQUALITPRIAN AUTHORITY STRUCTURE The h u s b a n d ' s acceptaxce or rejection of 'he e q u a l l t a r - a n a u t h c r l t y s t r u c t u r e i s c l n t i n g e c t upon a c u m b e r of variables. T h e PX&SFP? t h e c r y d e a l s w i t h f ~ u r o f t h o s e variables: 1. d e g r e e c f c o m p u l s i v e m a s c u l i n i t y d e g r e e of a n t i c i p a f o r y s o c i a l i z a t i o c 3. d e g r 4 9 o f r o l e c l a r i t y 4. d e g r e e + C w h i c h t h e t r a n s i t i o n f a c i l i t 3 t e s g 3 a l attainment. 2.

C&"E~&~XB nasculinit~. Pars3ns (1947) sees a s t h e r e s u l t o f t h e e f f o r t 2n t h e " ~ O ~ p u l s i ' rmasculinity" ~ p e r t of man t o a s s e r t t h e i r m a s c u l i n i t y a n d x ~ p u d i a t e a ~ainr8.l ider:ification w i t h t h e i r mothers. E l e a e n t s sf t h e c c m p u i s i v e m i s c o l i r l t y s y r d r o ~ e h a v e b s e n a n a l y z i d by a number of o t h e r s o c i o l c g i s t s . For example, S e l s u i c k and P e e k ( 1 9 7 1 ) t h i n k t h a t E w e r i c a r msa a r e s c c i 3 l i z e d t o b e t o u g h aPd t o a v o i d s h o v i r g e m o t i o n s . Evidence f3r t h e i d e a l o f t o u g h n e s s T n men i s s u p p l i e d i n a C a n a d i a c s u r v e y conducted by Goldfarb (1970. as c i t e d i n Uhit?hurst, 1974:80). i r w h i c h 6 1 p e r c e n t of t h s r p s p o n d e o t s f e l t men Ross s h o u l d ba t o u g h a n d n c t b a c k away from a f t g h t . (19721, i n a t o p - s s l e c t i o r study, c o l f i r s e d t h e erarmous p r e s s u r e s b y f a m i l y a n d s o c i e t y fo: b o y s t o b e h a v e lr. t h e toy a c c e p t e d m a s c u l i n e way. Uhen bops w e r e g i v e r . s a p p r o p r i a t e f o r t h e opposiCe sex, t h e y shoved a c x i e t y , l~dicatlng that an inappropriate toy u3uld mean e m b a r r a s s m e n t a n d p o s s i b l y pur.ishment. is f c r One a s p e c t c f t h e w a c c ~ p ~ e dm s s c ~ l i ~ ?m y " h n ~ b ~ c d st o b e d o m z n a n t c v e r t h e i r w i v e s . Fsr many h u s b a r d s , aL e q u a l s h a r i r g o f a u t h o r i t y v l t h i n t h e m a r r i a g s We may b e v i e w e d 2s a " l a c k o f m a s c u l i n i t y # * o n t h e i r p a r t . a r e moving t o w a r d a n a g e o: e o u a l i t y b e t w e e n t h e s e x ? = , and c u r d i f f i c u l t y i n a e k l n g t h i s t z a r s i r l o x d e p e l d s i n p a r t on t h e d e g r e s c f c o m p u l s i v e m a s c u l i n i t y e x h i b i t e d by h u s b a n d s i n our society.

Ch.11.

Wlfe-E~ployment

Pagr 181

------

B ? . t i c i E t m so&cii;=gy:op. A n t i c i p a t o r y s 3 c i a l i z z ? i o n i s d e f i n e d a s t h l a d o p t i o n of t h e n o r m s a n d s a l u p s of ? r o l i before being i n a s o c i a l s i t u z t i o n "hers i t i s apprcpriats ( B e r t o n , 1957:265 a n d B u r r , 1973:125). Husbands i r Rm?rican s o c i 9 t y h a v e n o t r e c e i v e d much a n t i c i p a t o r y s 3 c i a l i z 2 t i a n f o r an e q u a l s h e n i n g o f m a z i l a l a u t h 3 r i t y . In fact. just t h e o p p o s i t e s e e m s t o b e t r u s of S m e r i c a n b o y s , who h o l d ~ ~ ~ a1 t t i st u dt e s b y t h ~t01?d.fr a g e o f t w o (Kuhn, 1 9 7 6 ) . E o v e v e r , t c t h e e x t s n t t h a t a r e u a n d more e g u a l L t a r i a n m a r i t a l i d e o l o g y p e r m e a t e s t h e c u l t u r e t h r o u g h t h s mass m e d i a , t h t~e m l n i s t m o v e m ~ n t , a n d f a m i l y a r d s e a a d u c a t i o c i n t h e s c h c c l s , men w i l l f i n d it e a s i e r t o a c c a p t t h i s new m a r i t a l a u t h o r i t y s t r u c t u r e u h e r f a c e d w i t h t h e L s s u 4 il t h F i T 3 % m~a r r i a g e .

- ----

ole C l a r a . C a t t r e l l (1992:6181 d e f i r c s r c l e c l a r i t y -R-a s 'the d e g r e e t o which t h a r a :s a s e t of e x p l i c i t Bs d e f i n l ~ i o n s o f t h ~r e c i p r o c a l b e h a v i 3 r expected." m e n t i o n e d p r e u i o u s l y , t h t~r a r s i t i o n t o e q u a l i t a r i m m a r i t a l authority s t r u c t u r e s i s a d i f f i c u l t one. espscially for husbands. Komarovsky ( 1 9 7 3 ) t o u n d t h a t a l t h o u q h m a l e s a q r e s v e r b a l l y v i t h e q u a l i t y b e t v e e n t h o sexes, *hiy are still a t t a c h e d e m o t i o n a l l y t o t r e d i t i a n a l a t t i t u d e s and p 3 t t e r c s of b e h a v i o r . S i n c e t h e amouct o f r o l e c l a r r t y i n f l u e n c e s t h c E a s E of t r a n s i t i o n i n t o r o l e s ( B u r r , 1 9 7 3 : 1 2 7 ) , o n e o f t h e r e a s o x s h u s b a n d s ere e x p e r i e n c i n g d i f f i c u l t y nay be t h ? l a c k o f c l a r i t y c o n c e r n i n g t h e i r r o l e s es m e r i t e l p a r t n e r s i n an e q u a l i + . a r i a r a u r h a r i t y s t r u c t u r e . R r o l e - m o d e l of a n e q u a l i t a r i a n h u s b a r d is h a r d l y t o b e found i n o u r c u l t u r e and, t h e r e f o r e , no e x p l i c i t s = t o f definitions e x i s t s f o r + k c h u s b a n d t o f o l l o w . nszitsl role p r e s c r i p t i o c s . a l t h o u g h moving i n t h s d i r e c t i o n s f i c c r + a s e a E q U a l i t a T i a n i s m s i n c e 1900, s t i l l t e n d t o r e l e g a t e h u s b a n d s t o t h e p r o v i d e r r o l e and v i n e s t o t h e hoaernak?~ acd child-rearer roles (Brcwn, 1978). The mass a s d i a , in particular, a d v e r t t s i n g d u r i n g s p o r t s evec;s, emphasize t h o " r e a l man" i m a g e (Brovr, 1973). The " r e a l msr" is physically tough, i s d c n i R a n t o v e r wonen, axd has t h e The58 f r e e d o m ? O d o what h e D l e a ~ e s when h s 019a565. C h a r a ~ t e r i s t i c s a r e i n d i r e c t opposition t o c h s r a c t e r i s t i c s n f e d e d t o r e v i e b l s r e l a t i o n s h i p w i t h v t r e s who s u b s c z i b e t o an e q u a l i t a r i a n m a r i t a l a u t h o r i t y stroctor.?.

-

- ---

F-a c i-l l t a --t i o F of Go21 :uric ina Jecsvic. 1967:328; Lupri, 1969:144; ilichel, 1970:159; Oppoxg, 1970:678; Pichmond, 1976:262; Safilios-Rothschild. 1967:346; W e l l e ~ , 1968:439). cortradictory ~ e s u l t swefa B ~ f f e a . f o u n d by C e r t e r s . R a v e n . a n d R a d r i g u e s , 1 9 7 1 : 2 7 6 ; 1960:224; Randfl and l e s s e r , 1972: 1 3 4 ; nildleon and P u - n s y , 1960:608; a n d S t r z u s . 1977.

of this assertion depends an 3. T h e v a l l d l t y dlszmguishing betvesn c o n f l i c t (in the sense of "ccnflic? of l u t e r e s t " a s d e s c r i b e d i n C h a p t e f 8) a n d a g q r e s s i s n (in t h e sense o t a malevolect act). If Each a r d W y a i n ' s

a s s e r t i o n is rcad a s s u g g e s t i n g t h a t vprbal aggresstan h e l p s avcid phyS:Cal aggressron, t h e cvidenCF i s o v e r v h r l s i n g l y t h e o p p a s i t e (Straus, 197ua).

Chapter 12

Resources, Power, and Husband-Wife Violence Craig M. Allen and Murray A. Straus

Both L a R o s s a ' s c a s e s t u d y a n d Brown's t h e o r e t i c a l a n a l y s i s suggest t h a t "resources" l i k e t h e i r c o m s p r c v i d o d by a w i f e ' s emplcymect outside * h e home i n c r e s s e s h e r power, gpg increases t h e l i k e l i h o o d t h a t t h e husband w i l l u s 9 v i o l e n c e t o " s t o p t h e bad p r o g r e s s i o n o f e v e n t s , " a s J o e p u t s i t i n C h a p t e r 10. But neither a case study nor a l o g i c a l dednction a r e s u f f i c i e n t evidence f o r a s c i e n t i f i c conclusioc. Snch a c o a c l u s i o r d e p e n d s on a d d i t i o n a l d a t a . a n d t h a t i s what R l l e n a n d S t r a u s ' s s t u d y of a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 c o u p l e s p r o v i d e s . In addition t o t h e statis'ical fiodicgs. t h i s c h a p t e r t a k e s t h e t h e o r e t i c a l 3 n a l y s i s ~f LaRossa a n d Rrowr o n e s t e p f u r t h e r . It p u t s *5 forward the "ultimaC3 r e s o u r c e t tpory" e x p l a i n t h e relationship b e t w e e n power and v i o l e r c e by t a k i r g i n t o c o n s i d e r ? + i c n c u l t u r a l norms r e g a r d i n g f a m i l y power. Tha t h e o r y h o l e s that i n individualistic, achisvsme~t-oriecttd ~0r.s s u p p o ~ t i ~male g superiority are s0ciet:es. weak o r ambiguous. F o r ?. h a s b z n d t o be ocrg than a census * i l l y i n th? s C a t i s t i c s cc "household heads." he h a s t d v a l i d a t e h i s p o s i t i o n by s u p e r i o r " r e s o u r c e s " s u c h a s oonsy, occupational s t a t u s , o r valued p e r s o r a l t r a i t s . I f t h e h u s b a n d l a c k s s u c h resources, and f e a l s e n t i t l e d t o a p o s i t i o n o f dominance, v i c l P n c ? may b e u s e d a s t h e " u l t i m a C e r e s o u r c e " t o back up r e e l i n g s o f power e n t i t l e m e n t . Data f r c n a p p r o x i m a t e l y 400 c o u p l e s s u p p o r t t h e s e i d e a s . b u t o n l y t o r Workjng c l a s s c o u p l s s .

ch.12.

R e s o u r c e s a n d Power

Page 189

E n m b e r o f s o c l a l o g i c a l t h e o r i s s of family violence. s u c h a s t h o s e by G i l ( 1 9 7 5 ) . Goods ( 1 9 7 1 ) , a r d S t r e u s ( C h a p t e r 6 ) . h o l d ? h a t t h e u s e of p h y s i c a l f o s c e i s t h e u l t i n a t e s a n c t i o r t h a t underlies t h e m a i n t e n a n c ? o f t h e p r e s e c t male-dominan' pattern of family organization. A l t h o u g h t h e a n a l y s e s o f t h e s e a u t h o r s may seem p l a u s i b l e , rest on piecing together scattered, often they impressioni5t:c evidence. W e r e e d s p e c i f i c t e s t s of t h e idea t h a t t h e t h r e a t of physical violence ondarliss the existing family structure. These d a t a , although l i n i t = d i n s e v e r a l ways, a r e a s t e p i n t h a t d i r e c t i o n .

THEORIES OF RESOURCES A N D POWER P o l l o w l n g t h e work of F r e n c h a c d Raven ( 1 9 5 9 ) . Blood a n d V o l f e i n t r o d u c s d t h e " r e s o u r c e t h e o r y " o f f a m i l y power. They d e f i n e d a r e s o u r c e 2s "...anything t h a t o n e p a r t n n r may make a v a i l a b l e t o t h e o t h e r , h e l p i n g t h e l a t t e r s a t i s f y h i s n e e d s o r a t t a i n h i s g o a l s " (1960:lZ). The Blood 2nd WOlfe s t u d y f o u n d t h a t t h e s p o u s e w i t h t h e g r e a t e r cumber o f r e s o u r c e s t e n d s t o h a v e more power o v e r h i s o r her parrner.*l However, Radmin's (1967) s n a l y s i s 3 f d a t a from s e v e r a l c o u n t r i e s fouxd t h e t h e o r y t o be s u p p s r t e d i n t h e W n i t e d S t a t e s and P r a n c e . b u t n o t c o n f i r m e d b y S a f a from Greece and Yugoslavia. Ir t h e l a t t e s two c o u n t r i e s . the c o r r e l a t i o n s o f f a t h e r ' s e d u c a t i o n and o c c u p a t i o n w i t h power w e r e i n t h o~p p o s i t e direction from t h a t p r e d i c t e d by t h e r e s o u r c e theory. Rodmar. c o n c l u d e d t h a t , t o explain the distribution of m a r i t e l p o u e r , t h e c u l t u r e 1 c o r t e x t from which norms d e f i r i n g a p p r o p r i a t e r e s o u r c e s a r e d ? t e r a i n e d 1973). In a m u s t be t a k r r . i n t o a c c o u n t ( s e e a l s o Pox. subsequent comprehensive review o f f i n d i c g s r e l z t e d t o t h e resource theory, Rodman (1972) d e v e l o p e d a t h - o r y of n r s s o u r c e s i n u c u l t u r a l c o n t e x t " i n which h e s u g g e s t s t h a t t h e d y n a m i c s of e x c h a r g e i n t h e marital dyad c a r b e u n d e r s t o o d o n l y i n f h h c o r . t f x t Of t h e c n l t a r e o f ~h:cb t h e dyad i s a p a r t : The b a l a n c e o f m a r l t a l power i s i n f l u e z c 3 d by t h e i n t e r a c f i o n o r (1) t h e c a n p a r a r i v e r e s c u r c % s o f h u s b a n d a n d w i f e a r d (2) t h e c u l t u r a l o r s u b c u l t u r a l expectations about f h e d i s t r i b u t i o n of m a r i t a l p o u e r (1972:60). TRE ULTIMATE RESCWRCE TEEORY Goode ( 1 9 7 1 ) . Podmar ( 1 9 7 2 ) . a n d R o g e r s ( 1 9 7 4 ) s u g g e s t t h a t v i o l e r c e i s a r e s o u r c e i r v o k e d when i n d i v i d u s l s l a c k other legltimz?e resources t o serve a s bases for t h e i r power.*Z B c c o r d i n g t o ~ o o d e( 1 9 7 1 ) . a s p o u s e who l a c k s t h e p r e s t i g e , money, o r s k i l l n e c e s s a r y t o i n d u c e t h e o t h e r

Ch.12.

AeSoUrces a n d Power

P a g e 190

t o p e r f o r m scme b e h a v i o r m i g h t r e s o r t '0 v i o l e n c e a s e v e n t h o u g h t h e e x e r c i s e of v i o l e n c x i s a n i l l e g i t i m a t e c r n e g e t i v e l y s a n c t i o n e d mode o f e x e r c i s i n g paver. Rodman (1972) a s s e r t s . h o w e v e r , t h a t t h i s p a t t e r n w i l l b2 f o u n d o n l y i n a soci€:y i n which (1) t h e n o r m s which l e g i f i m a t i z e t h e c x s r c i s e o f power a r e weak a n d somewhat (2) t h e a c + u e l e x e r c i s e o f l e g i t i m s t ? p s x z r must ambiguous. b e v a l i d a t s d by t h e r e s c u r c G s i n t h e form o f p e r s o n a l qualities acd m a t e r i a l possession. The O n i t e d S t a t e s t p p i f i e s t h i s kind of scclety, b e c a u s e (1) e q u ~ l i t a r i a n n o r m s a r e rep1ac:cg p e t r i a r c h a l ocrms i n t h e m a r i t a l dyad, ( 2 ) a s 2 c O n s 2 q u e ~ c e . t h e r e i s n o r m a 1 i v s ambiguity a b o u t :he d i s < r : b u t i o n o f m a r i t a l p c u e r ; 8r.d ( 3 ) a d d i t i o n s 1 pow?; c a n be o b t a i n e d by i n c r e a s i n g o n e ' s r e s o u r c e s r e l a t i v e t o t h o s e o f h i s spouse. spouse

a f i n a l resource,

T h e s e c o ~ ~ i d e r a t l o nc os n s t i t u t e what c a n be c a l l e d t h e n u l t l m a t e r e s o u r c e ' t h e o r y of v i o l e n c e , s u g g ~ s t i c gt h a t r i o l t n c e w i l l be i n v o k e d by a p e r s o n who l a c k s o t h e r This theory r s s o u r c e s t c s e r v e as a b a s i s f o r pover. I m p l i e s a c o r r e l a t i o n between power a n d v i a l e n c a o n l y u n d e r c e r t a i n c i r c u m s t a n c s s , s l n c ~power c a n b e m a i c t a i n r d by t h e u s e Of r e s o u r c e s o t h e r t h a n v i a l e n c a . I n short., t h e relatlonship be-ween power and marital violecce is c o n t i n g e n t on what r e s o u r c e s o t h e r t h a n v i 3 l e c c e are ararlable. T h e s e c o n s i d ~ r a t i o n sa r e t h e b a s i s f o r t h e main hypotheses t o be t e s t e d . 1. When r e ~ o u r c ? ~ o f i s p o u s e a r e low, t h s greater t h a t s p o u s e ' s power, t h e g r e a t e r h i s o r h e r u s e of v i o l e n c e .

is 2. When TeSOUrCBS 2x4 h i g h , there r e l a t l o n s h i p b e t w e e n p o u s r e n d violen:G.+3

C 3

L i p s ~ t f f 9 r ~ n C e s . P l t h o u g h e l u a l i t a r i s n corms e r e r e p l a c i n g p a t r i a r c h a l n o r m s of a u t h o r i t y i n o u r s o c i e t y , t h e w o r k i n g c l a s s l a g s b e h i n d 'he m i d d l e c l a s s ir. t h i s n 3 r m a t i v e trarisitlon (Kcffmar., 1960: Romarousky, 1962; BcKiclsy, and 1964; Lopita, 1971:108; S c a r z o n i , 1975: Yooog millmott, 1973). Is a c c n s e q u s a c c , h u s b l n d s i n t b ? w r k i n g c l a s s a d h e r e more t o t r a d i t i o r a l o r p a t r i a r c h a l c o r m s o f a u t h o z i t y t h a n do husbands i n t h e middle c l a s s . AdwPver, t h e i r a c t u a l power + e n a s To be l c w e r t h a n t h a t e x e r c i s s d by middle c l a s s husbands. T h i s c o n t r a d i c t i o n a r i s e s c u t 3f one working c l a s s o f t h e c r u e l t r l c k s of t h e s o c i a l s t r u c t o r e : husband5, whose i d e o l o g y e m p h a s i z e s m a l e power, t s r d t o POBSBSS f e w e r r e s o u r c s s t t a t c a n s e r v e a s + b a s i s f o r power t h a n do middle c l a s s husbands. The i n t e r a c t i n g e f f e c t o f f e w % F E S O U T C J S w i t h StrOng'r adh?zPnCe t o p a t r i a r c h a l f i O T m 5 l e a d s o s -.o e x p e c t t h a t 2 s i g y p ~+& g,EUE$f&gn=& sr$:ls ~f G s x ~ e ~ E & ~ P ZQe T mrzc&+tgn bgyxpn z p s _ p ~ $ e s , poYgr, 3n_d X L g l E s ~ f . Lacklng monetary, p r e s t i g e , ald e d u c a t i o n a l r e s o u r c e s o r which t o b a s e power, low s t a ' u s men a r e more l l k e l y t o c o m p e ~ s a t eb y u s i n g a c t u a l o r t h x s t s n e d

c h . 12. R e s o u r c e s end Power p h y s 1 c a l f o r c e as a b a s i s f o r power.

---

saneis. The d a t a t o be r e p o r f e d a r e from a s t u d y o f t h e t a e i l i e s of s t u d e r t s i n i c t r o d u c t o r y s 3 c i o l c g y a n d a n t h r o p o l o g y c l a s s e s a t t k e U n i v ~ r s i t y o f New H a n p s h i r e i n t h e f a l l o f 1972. T h e d a t a w a r € o b t a i n e d by q u ? s t i o r . n a i r e s completed on a v o l u r t a r y b a s i s d u r i n g a c l a s s p e r i o d . Of t h e 583 q u e s t i o n n a i r e s d i s t r i b u t e d . 555 o r 9 2 p e r c l c t w e r e completed. S i n c e t h e a r - a l y s e s t o b e p r e s e n t i d 3+pended on b o t h t h s s t u d e r . t q s and both p a r e n t ' s l i v i n g a t toms l u r i n g t h e student's s e r l o r year i n high school, f u r t h e r cases vere 105t b e c a u s e + p a r e c t o r t h e c h i l d v a s n o t l i v i n g e t home tha' year. I n a d d i t l c n . t h e r e was t h e i r e v i i a b l e l a s s o f some c a s e s b e c a u s e c e z t a i r q u ~ s t i o e sv e r e n o t s n s v e r l d . The 437, r e s u l t i n g f l n a l s a m p l e s i z e r a n g e s f x m 324 3 d e p e n d l n g o r t h e v a r i a b l e s i r c l u d s d i n a g i v e n t 3 b l e - Of t h e s e Cases, 26 p s r c e n t a r e f a m l l i e s i n v h i c b t h e husbacd i s a manual worker. K e g g E Z I ~V i o l e ~ c e . D a t a 03 h u s b a n d - u i f e v i o l e r c ? was -s e c u r z d f r o m on* of t h e c c u p l e ' s c h i l d r e n b e c a u s * o f (1) t h s d l f f l c u l t y Of d i r e c t l y O b s e r v i ~ gt h e o c c u r r e > r e o f v i s l e n t behavior bstveen spouses, p a r t i c u l a r l y t h e more e x t r e m e forms: ( 2 ) t h e e t h i c a l p r o b l e m s e n t a i l e d Lr. d e v i s i ~ g a n e x p e r i n € n t a l s i t u a t i o ~ i n which v i o l e n t b e h a v i o r between h u s b a r d s and w i v e s c o u l d be p r e c i p i t a t e d ; and (3) t h e f e a r t h a t the strong cegatire senctians i n our sociery against t h e u : a c t i c ~ a n d EVSP t h e e d a i s s i o n o f v i o l e n c e would l e a d t o r e f u s a l s a n d / o r U n d e r r e p o r t i P o by h u s b e n d r a 2 3 wive=.

T h e v a l i d i t y o f i n t e r v i e w d a t a on f a m i l y p a t t p r r s is a l w a y s o p e n t o q u e s t i o n ones o n e g o s s b e y o n ? s u c h s n b j s c t s as 'he a g e s a r d s e x o f c h i l d r e n , a n d s o n ; rsseazchlrs f s s l t h a t t h i s p r o c e d u r e i s e v e n more g u s s : i o n a b l e when a c h i l d is t h e source of t h e data. Bowever. C a l o n i c o a n d Thomas ( 1 9 7 3 ) r o u n d t h a t c h i l d r e n caE p r e d i c t t h e i r p a r e n t s ' behavior under certax. cixums'arces slightly BPE~ a c c ~ r a t e l y t h a c t h e l r p e r e n t s c a r of c n e a n o t h e r . They a t t r i b u t e d t h f i~r d i n g t o t h e f a m i l i a r i t y c f t h e c h i l d r e c with the11 p a r e r t s q p a s t behevior. Bahr, 39vcrmar, axd Gecas (1974) f o u r d t h a t a d o l e s c e n t s a c r o s s v a r i o u s a g e categcri9s vere quite consistent i n reporting t h ? i r parents' behavior. T h e y s u g g e s t ' h a t it would be e x t r e m e l y d i f f i c u l t t o r p a r m t s t o hide t h r i r behavior f r o a adolescent children R more comp:ehsnsive o v e r a l o n g p e r i o d of t i m e . e x a w i t b t i o r of t b l s i s s ~ 9 , t o g e t h z r w i t h d a t a 3 2 t h e v a l i d i t y o f t h e v i a l e r c e measure used i n t h i s paper. is g l r e n i n E u l c r a f t and S t r a u s (1975). T h a t e r a l y s i s shows a h i g h d e g r e e o f agreamect between s t u d e n t reports of B d a t 2 p r o v i d o d i n d e p s n d ? n t l y by t h e h u s b a n d - w i f e V ~ O ~ E L C aPd spouses themselren.

Ch.12.

R e s o u r c e s a n d power

Pa3e 192

The s p e c l f i c t e c h n i q u e used t o measur? physical v i o l e P C e 1s t h e V i o l e n c e s c a l e o f t h e f a m i l y C p g f l l ~ T z c t i c s S c a l e s (cTs) i n s t r u m e n t ( S t r a u s . 1974a:15; 1979). I n this t s c h r l g u e . t h e r e s p o n d s n t i s f i r s t a s k e d t o i d s c ! i f y t h e major s o u r c e s of d i s a g r e e m e n t and c o n f l i c t d u r i n g t h e r e f e r e n t year. P o l l a v i r g t h i s , a s e r i e s of q u e s t i o n s a r e asked concercicg partner's responses t o c o n f l i c t s 3urirg t h a t year. T h e s e q n e s t i ~ ~ asr e a r r a n g e d i n g r a d u a l l y i n c r e z s i C g o r d e r o f c o e r c i v e n e s s of r e s p o c s e s , bPgir.ning with d i s c ~ s s i ~ tgh i n g s c a l m l y , a n d ? n d i c g w i t h h i t t i n g t h e o t h e r p e r s o n ~ i t hs o w e t h i P g h a r d .

------- ------

T h e V i o l e n c e i n d e x c c n s i s t s of t h e f i n a l f i r e i t e m s . E c o ~ p 1 e t . e l i s t o f t h e CTS q u e s t i o n s i s g i v a r i n S t r a u s (1974a: 1979). togsther with data cn ths ini~rna consistency r s l i a b i l i t y o f each index. Validity data e r e q i v e n i c B u l c r o f t a n d S t r a u s (1975).*4 p x g r neasurg. The c n n c e p t u a l l z a t i s c a r d measurement o f c c n j u g a l p o w e r h a s p o s e d many d i f f i c u l t i s s , a s a v i d a n c e d by s e v e r a l c r i t i c a l s t u d i e s (Cromwell and Olson, 1975; R ~ e r , 1963: Olson, 1969: Olson and Rabunsky, 1972; S a f i l l o s - R o t h s c h i l d . 1970: and Turk and B a l l . 1972). Our d ~ f l n i t i o n 1s s x p l a i n e d i n S t r a u s , 1977 and S t r a u s and Ta11m2n. 1971. The s p e c i f i c n % a s u r s used i n t h i s chap:=r is t h e D e c i s i o r Power I n d e x o f E l c o d e n d WYlfe (196D).*5

Rlthoogh i t h a s been widely c r i t i c i z e d ( i n p a r t because i t i s t h e most w i d e l y u s e d m e a s u r e ) . B l o o d a n d w ? l f e ' s measure seemed b e s t s u l t e d t o t h i s r e s o 3 r c h f n r the f o l l o v r r g reasocs: (1) It u s e s a c o n v e n i e n t l i s t of i n d i c a t o r s i n w h i c h power l s t h e o r e t i c e l l y m o s t l i k e l y e e i d e ~ t - - w h o h a s t h r f i n a l s + y i n i m p o r t e n t 2nd t y p i c a l f a m i l y d e ~ i s i o n s . ( 2 ) I t s w i d e U S E in t h e p a s t d s c a d e 2 n d a (3) The h a l t p ? r m i t s c o e p 2 r i s c n w i t h many p r e v i o u s s + u d i = s . many c o r r e l a t e s o f p a v e r a s m e a s u r e d by t h i s s ~ r i o d p r o v i d e v h a t is, i r sftect, " c c r : s t r u c t v a l i d a t i c n " a v ~ d e n c a , a n d a r e c e n t p a p e r by S t r a u s ( 1 9 7 7 ) provides eutdence of concurrent validity. ( 4 ) R e s e a r c h on power l o tilniliss t.35 i n c r ~ z s i n g l yd e m o n s t r a t e d t h e a u l t i d l m e n s i o r . a l n n t u r e o f t h e CCP.COPI..

The t h e c r y b F i r g t e s + e d r e q u i r a s a m f e s u r e r e s 7 r i c t e d t o what C r o m w e l l a n d O l s o n ( 1 9 7 5 ) c a l l r h e " p a v e r OutcYnes" dteenslon. This, of course, deliberately onits othcr c r u c i a l d i m e r s i o r s s u c h a s t h o p r o c e s s e s by which d e c i s i o n s a r e reached. A l t h o u g h f o r c o n v e n i e n c e i n e x p o s i t i 2 r ws f o l l o w t h s c o l v e n t i o n o f u s i n g t h e word eaE.ez Esr t h e p a r t i c u l a r a s p e c t m e a s u r e d , f h e r e a d e r m u s t b e a r i n micd t h a t t h i s a s s r e f e r s O n l y t o who makes c e r t a i n som:vhat arbitrarily s e l e c t e d d e c ~ s i o n s . I n p a r t i c u l a r . t t e n e % s u r e e x p l i c i t l y e x c l u d e s v h a t French and R a r e r (1959) c a l l t h e " b a s i s " of power, s u c h a s " r e w a r d power" (the ability t o p r o v i d ? r e w a r d s b e c a u s e o f c o c t r o l of m n € y o r 02h?r v a l u e d g o o a s sr s e r v i c e s ) . " e x p e r t p o s e r v 8 b a s e d o n p s r c e p t i c c cf

s u p e r i o r knowledge, exc. 4 ' p o w e r ourcome" t y p ? m e a s u i - was c e c e s s a r y b e c a u s e :he t h e o r y b-in? tested cnrcerns tho r e l a t i o C S h i p S between c s r ' a i r of French and Raven's "basas" of power ( w h i c h we p r e f e r - 3 i d e n ' i f y a s w r e s o u r c = s n ) and pOW4X outcomes, i n t h e s e r ~ s e of who makes c r i t i c a l d~cisions. S i n c e t h e Flood and Uolfe t e c h n i q u e examines a n s w e r s t h a t i n d i c a t e "who h a s t h l f i n a l s a y " i n r e s p e c t t o t h c s i x 6 e ~ l S 1 0 n ~a.n d s i r c e t h e m e a s u r e i s s c o r e d s o t h a t h i g h s c o r e s show t h a t ? h ~b a l a r c e o f p o u e ? i s o r t h - . s i d e 3 f t h e h u s b a n d a n d l o v s c o r e s shcv t h a t t h e xi*? h i s r ~ l s t i v e l y more d e c i s i o c p o w e r , up w i l l s o s e t i m e s u s e t h e t e r n " F i n a l S a y Power I n d e x " o r V e l a t i v 1 Powei I n d e x ' ?a i d s n t i f y t h i s instrument.

-

f l e a-s u-r e-. -ReSOUrCE - --

POT e a c h S ~ J U S F , a2 Rbsalute Index and a R ? l a t i v e R E s c u r c a I n d e x %#?re c ~ n s t z ~ c l e d . T h e B b s o l u t e R e s o u r c e I n d z x c a n s i s t s of the snm o f f o u r i t e m s r e f e r r i r q t o 2san_ogir Ezes;ao conf=rr_&r,g c h a r a c ? e r i s t i c s ( e d u c a t i o n , o c c u p a t i n . incams. s a t i s f a c t i o n w i t h income) and f o u r i t e m s r e f s r r i n g t o v a l u e a (high self-esteem, achievement ori-nts'ion r , ~ ~ ~ g g'~_Q+;s && The former c e c be and soc1ab;llty. ard l c v anxisiy). t h o u g h t o f a s c o r r e s p o n d i n g t o what 3 1 a u ( 3 9 h u : Z O - 2 2 ) would c a l l ' m ~ x t r i n s i c ' zr e s o u r c e s , and t h e l a t t - z e s "hat h e i d e n t i f i e s as "intrznsic" resources. A parallel P-lntivs Re50DTC9 I n d e x v a s a l s o c o m p u t e d f o r F 2 C h Sp3U5EI by f i r s t calculating t h e e x t e n ? t o w h i c h a p a z i i c u l a r J ~ U S P h2a E h L g t e r s c o r e on e a c h r 2 5 o n r c ~a n d t h s n sumnic.g ?ktf p o s i t i v e scores.*6 RBSOUICE

P O U F P AND V I O L E N C E

The m o s t e l e m s n t a r y e m p i r i c a l d a t a o r t h e i s s u s o f t h i s p a p s r is t h e c o r r e l a t i o n O p t v e e r t h e b a l a r c e o f power i n t h e r a m l l y ( + s m e a s u r e d b y o u r v e r s i l r . o f t h e 31036 a n a W>lf= '*Decision Power Index") a c 3 :he f r e q u e n c y 3E p h y s i c a l v i o l e w e bezwsen s p c u s e s . Howerer, a s was e x p l a i ~ r ai~ t h e iniroductior, a r d a s w e n o r e agai3. b o l o v , s n c h c o r r e l + ' i o n s a r e n o t an a d e g u a t e ?@s% of u l t i m a t e r e s o u r c e ' h a c r y b - c a u s e t h e y do c o t t a k e ~ n - o account t h s r e s o o r c s s t h ? i g i v e lfgiCloicy t o each ac"orTs pcvfr positioc. Neverthelass, t h s S 4 s i m p l e ~ o ~ r ~ l a t i oare n s a ~ 2 p p r o p r i a t e p o i ~ ia ? w h i c h to b a g i n t h e d a t a a n e l y s l s , i r f o r co a t h f r r s a s o n t h a t t o demonsfrate t h e i r inadaquacy.

Ch.12.

ResO~rce6and Power

Page 19I1

T ~ E uppe; arrow of Figure 1 give5 the orr re let ions between the relative p o w 7 index acd t h s us? of violence by tho total sznplr, by the working class par? 3 f +t.e sample, and by fhe mlddle cless part o f th; sample. The ~ o r r e l a t i o ?betweer ~ the Re1er:vs Power Irdox and the wife's violenc~are s h o w in the lover arrow. In gecsrsl, Figure 1 6hox5 C P ~ Ylow and variable correlations between pcusr and violence. However. to the extext that Cocclusions can be drawn, Flguze 1 suggests that in the middle class. ch=re is ro relationship betweer relative power and t h e PASbBgCP VIOI~PCF, but a5 Lhe husband's paver increases, i& x:EQL~ violence decreases (-.16). The pattern is reverse* t 3 r ?he vorklng class, "here there is a slight tendency E l r the husbz~d's Violexce to increase as his power incr~asCS. but nc relatiocship is shown between his porsr and violence. The pattern for the Latal sample is 'he same as i h c p3ttern to= ?he middle class, largely because the preponaersnce of Case5 are middle class (75 to 80 percent, depending 2n the variables ic a qiven set of tabulations).*7

c h . 1 ~ . Resources and Power

P a g e 195

Ch.12.


P a g e 196

RFSOURCZS P W D POWER g&gcs9= R 9 s o u r c ~ s - P a r ? A o f F i g u r e 2 s h o w s t h a t fcr a l l S a B p l s s , a s t h e h u s b 2 x d l s r e c a u r c s r i c c r e a s e , t h ~ r ?i s a t e c d s n c y f o r h i s p o u e r t o i n c r e a s e (r = 0 . 1 9 ) . Eaealy any r e l a t l o r i s s e e p b e t w e e n Che vifglj r e s c u r c s s a n d t h e 30% t o t h e extPct - h i t z b a l a n c s o f power i n ? h e f a m i l y . re1a':lonship e x l s t s , t h e n e g z t i v e c o r r e l a t i o n s s u g g e s t %he o t h e r s i d = o f t h e c o i n shoun by t h e f i x d i n g s f o r t h e husband: t h a t is, t h e n o r e t h e w i f e ' s r e s o u x c r s t h a l e s s t h e hUSband'5 POWET.

--------

P f l a t i v s ----Resources. C o r r r l a t i o r s betwesn r$&gd&lg r e s O U r C e s a x 6 t h e h u s b a n d * ~b a l a n c e of p o u e r a r e g i v s r i n Par': B o t F;gure 2. These c o r r e l a ? i o n s r r v e a l t h s same p a t t e r n a s was t o u n d f a r a b s o l u t e r e s o u r c e s € x c ? p t Z h 3 t t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s a r e l a r g e r ( s n a v e r a g e of 7 3 p e r c s n t g r e a t e r ) . T h e r 9 t o r e C h e s e d a t a show t h a t b a t h a b s o l u t e a n d r e l a t i v e ~ E S O U T C ~ Sa f f e c t t t . ~ b a l a l c e cf powzr i n fhe f i m i l i e s studied. Acuever, Evan w i t h i n t h e c o > t = x t o f t h e l o r c c r r e l a t i c r s t h a t o r e E X P F C ~ S i n a n a l y s a s o f a s r ~ g l ec a u s a l factor, o c l y t h s h u s b a c d . s r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e s se?m t o h a v s a subs:znti+l r e l a t i o ~ a h i p t o who h a s the final say. F ~ r t h ~ r m o z e .f o r b o t h h u s b a n d s s c d w i v e s . t h e c c r r + l a t i o n b e t w e e n r e s o u r c e s a n d power i s s t i o n g e r ~ L t h i c t h e w o r k i n g Class t h a r u l + h i n t h e middle c l a s s p a r t of +ha ssnple. Despite i h e s i qualifications, t h s c o r r e l a t i o n s il e a c h sample, f o r b o t h h u s b a ~ a sa n d w i v e s , and f o r b 3 t h t y p e s o f r e s o n r c e s . a r e i r t h e same d i r e c t i o n a s T h a t p r e d i c t P d by t h e r e s o u r c e theary.*8 TAEORIES OF RESOUSCES A N D VIOLElCF n p t o :his p o i n t v e h a v e shown o n l y a u s ~ ka n d = r r a r i c r E l a t = O ~ . ~ h ~b ep t w e e p n o l s n c e a r d t.h? h a l a r c ? o f p a v e r i n family decisloni. We s u g g e s i e d t h a t t h ? s i n p l e c o r r e l a t i o n b e t w e e n p o w e r B S ~ v i o l e n c e f a l l s '0 ~ a k ei n t o i c c o o a t t h e dimension o f legitimacy ;r, e x e r c i s i n g power. i n a modern ~ n d u s r a a l s o c l e t y , a s i n aosz o t h e r s o c i e t i e s , p o u s r i s u s u a l i y a s c r i b e d '0 t h s h u s b a n d . But t h e h u s b a n d mus? a l s o p o s s s s s t h e p e r s c c a l a l d m a c e r i a l r;souzces t h a t a r 3 v a l u e d i n such a s o c l e t y . I n s h o r t , i t was a r q u ~ dt h a t d s s p i < - t h e n c r m a r i v s a s s u n p t i c n t h a t t h e h u b a n d w i l l he t h e f a s i l y leader, t h i s s t a t u s must h e v a l i d a t e d by m=irs of apprap2iat.e rescurces. T h e r e f o : ~ , p a g e r i ~ vd i o l e n ~ ew i l l h c r e l a t e d o n l y i t t h e e x e r c l s e o f power i s i l l s y i t i a a i e . A s a f i r s t s t e p i n t e s t i n g t h i s nore s p e c i t i c thsory of t h e relation b e t v e e r power a n d v i o l e n c e , racail :ha? t h e p r e c e d i n g s e c t i o n shoved r e s o u r c e s t o be c o r z a l a t r d w i t h power; t h a t is, o r + h e a v e r a g e , husbards ~ x r r c i s i r g s ~ p 9 r i o rpower h a v e v a l l d a i s d t h i s p s s i t i o n b y s u p e r i o r

ch.12.

Resanrces and power

P a g E 197

Cb.12.


Page 198

a b s o l u t e Resources. The c o r r e l a t i o n s i r t h e t o p l i n e show t h a t ? h e g r e a t e r t h e h u s b a n d ' s o f F i g u r e 3, p a r t A, a b s c l u t e r e s o u r c e s . t h e less h i s u s e of p h y s i c a l v i o l e n c e . F o r wives, t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s shown i n t h e l o w e r a r r o w o f p a r t A a r e s m a l l b u t i n ? h e same d i r e c t i o n 3s t h o s e f o r husbands: t h e g r e a t E r h e r a b s o 1 n t e ~ e s o u r c e s ,tb.e l e s s h e r violence. For both spouses, but especially for th? husbands. t h e correlations are stronger for the wrklng c l a s s t h a n f o r r h a middle c l a s s . T u r n i n g t o t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s between husband's r e s o u z c e s a n d t h e life15 v i c l e r c e , t h e u p p e r d i a g o n a l a r r o w of p a r ? P i n d i c a t e s t h e same t r e c d : a s ?he husband's absolute resOurcEs i n c r e a s e , t h e wife's v i o l e n c e decreases. This same t e n d e c c y i s e v l d e n t from t h e c o r r e l a t i o n s o f w i f e ' s r ~ s o u c c e s w i t h 'he husband's violence, except t h 3 t t h e c c r r e l a t i o n s . although a l l negative, a r e a l s o a11 near z e r o iT m a g n i t u d e . It a p p e a r s from t h e s e d a t a t h s t t h e h u s b a n d ' s a b s o l u t e r e s o u r c e s a r e more r e l e t e d t o t h s w i f a ' s ana h i s own v i o l e n c e , t h a n t h e w i f e ' s a b s o l u t e r e s o u r c e s a r e r e l a t e d t o h e r h u s b a n d ' s ard h e r cwn v i o l e n c e .

--

R e l a t i v e Resources. A t f i r s t g l a n c e it s e e m s a s t h o n g ~ h p a r t B o f F i g u r e 3 shows c n l y low a n d e r r a t i c r e l a t < o r . s h i p s . TO a c e r t a i n e x t e n t . t h i s i s c o r r e c t . a o u a v l r , p a r t of w h a t seems a t f i r s t t o be e r r a t i c v a r i a t i o n s t u r h o u t t o be t h e o r - t i c a l l y meanirgful r e v e r s a l s i n t h e "sign" of t h e correlations. Let's begin w i t h t h e t o p arrow. T h i s shows e s s e n t i a l l y P O r e l a t i o n s h i p b ~ t v e et h~e e x C e n t t o which t h s husband's r e s o u r c e s e x c e e d t h o s e o t h i s =if€ icl h i s ues o f physical violence. However, t h e b o t t o m a r r o w s h 3 u s a s l i g h t t e n d e n c y t o r s p z whose r e s o u r c e s e x c e e d t h o s e of t h e i r hnsbands t o use physical violence. Although these WE suggest t h a t they indicate correlations are low, rebctions t o a situation t h a t goes against t h e leaaership norms i n A e e r i c a r s o c i e t y . Turning t o t h e r e l a t i o n of each s p o u s e ' s r e l a t i v e r e s o u r c e s t o t h e v i o l e n c e qf q:&x, f o r h u s b a n a s , we find again t h a t t t e r c is little relationship. Bowever, for wives, t h e l o w e r d i a g o n a l a r r s w shows t h a t t h e more h e r r e s o u r c e s e x c e e d t h o s e o f h e r husband, the greater violence. Our i c t e r p r e t a t i o n o f t h i s f i n a i n g i s t h s t t h e c o u n t e r n o r m a t i v e S i t u a t i o n of a xire having greater r e s o u r c e s t h a n h e r husband is a s s o c i a t e 3 with g r e a t e r r l o l e n c e on t h e par' o f b o t h s p o u s e s . b u t e s p e c i a l l y by t h e h u s b a n d whose a s c r i b e d p o s i t i o n i s b e i n g threa$en;d. Ln o t h e r words, t h e f i n d i n g r e f l e c t s e f f o r t s b y w i v e s t o a s s e r t power on t h e b a s i s o f h a v i n g s u p e r i o r r e s o u r c e s , i c t h e m i s t a k e n b e l i e f t h a t s u c h s u p e r i o r i t y i n r e s o u r c e s makes e q u a l o r s u p e r i o r pow=c legitimate. T h i s i s a r e a s o n a b l e e x p e c t a t i o n i n view o f t h e r e q u i r e m e c t t h a t husbands v a l i d a t e t h e i r a s c r i b e d s u p e r i o r p o s i t i o n by a p p r o p r i a t e s u p e r i o r i t y i n resources. S u t a s c o u n t l e s s women h a r e discovered. s o c i r t y s t a c k s t h e c a r d s a g a i n s t them by

Ch.12.

RasO%nces

and Pouer

P a g e 199

c r e a t i n g a d u a l s e t of r a g 0i r e m e 1 Satisty: t o e x e r c i s e 1s, g i t i m t f a m i l y , o n e must b o t h h a v e s u p e r : O b v i o u s l y o n l y husbands can meet BESOUPCES B N D T E E LEGITIMlCY OF POVEB llthaugh t h e f i r d i n g s i n t h e precsdicg three sections a r e i n t e r e s t i n g in t h e i r own r i g h t , t h e y w e r e p r ? s e n t r d p r i m a r i l y 70 l a y t h r groundwork f o r a a x e s p e c i f i c t e s t o f t h e t w o main h y p o t h e s e s d e r i v e d f r o m t h e u l t i m s t e r s s s u r c e theory. S p e c i f i c a l l y , i n en i c d i v i d u a l - a c h i e v e m a r t o r i e n t e d SCCiEXY such 15 t h e United S t a t e s , t h e p a t t e r n of rormativsly prescribed male family leaaership that c h a r a c t e r r z e s s o many s o c i e t i e s i s s u p p l e a s n ' s d by ths f o r t h e r r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t t h e husband deaons're%r his e l i g i b i l i t y t o occupy a l s a d s r s h i p p 3 s i t i g r i n p o s r z s s i c q v a l u e d p e r s o n a l c h a r e c t f r i s t i c s and p r o v i d i n g ecocomic goods. I f he d o e s n o t , t h e n t h e l e g i t i n a c y o f h i s p o v r r is undermined. under these circunstacces, w e suggest, aale POW47 w i l l be asSOCia?ed w i t h v i o l e n c e .

ch.12.

Resources and

over

P s g e 200

Th4 f i n d i n g s can b e s u m m a r i z e d u n d e r t w o h s a d i c g s : e high resource group and a low r e s o u r c e g r a u p - f l 0 C c r r e l a t i o n s between P O Y I ~ and v i o l e c c e v e r e t h s c computed w i t h i n each of t h e r e s o u r c e groups. T h i s p r o c P s s was repeated f o r each of ores on the social 120-159 i n J. D3uglas (~3.). relatrosship.n Pp. Deviance and Respect?biliCv. wev Ycrk: B 3 s i c Eo-ts. D I X O N , 1. J. ( s d . ) 1965 EBD--Eiomedlcal Compurar Program. 459-481. 1.0s B n g o l e s : U.C.L.A. Pp. DOXRENUEBD. BRUCE P. 1961 "The s o c i a l p s y c h o l o g i c a l n s t u r e o f stress: R tramEwCrk f o r c a u s a l i c q u i r y . " J o u m 9 1 of Abnormal a n d s o c i a l P s y c h o l o g y 6 2 ( n a r c h ] :294-302. DOLLBRD. J O B N C. et. 1939 F r u s t r a t i o n a n d E g g r e s s i o n . NCY 89vera: Yale U n i v e r s i t y Press. of sociological Mpthod. DURKHEIN, EMILE 1950 R u l e s

a.

1966 Wayuard P u r i t a n s . New York: Wilep. ERIRSON, K R I ERLRNGEA, HOWARD S. 1974 " S o c i a l class diffsrerc9s in parents' u s e o f p h y s i c a l p u n i s h n n n t . " Pp. 150-158 i n S t e i n m e t z a r d S t r a u a , 197U. ETZIONI. BUITbI 1 9 7 1 " V i o l e n c e . " C h a p t e r 14 i n Robsrt K. n e r t o c and Robert I. Nishet (eds.) Contemporary xeu Park: earcourt S o c i a l Problems. T h i r d E d i t i o n . Brace Jovanovich. FERRINGTOY, KEITH 1975 'ITcuard a g e n e r a l s t r e s s t h e o r y o f A p a p e r p r e s e n t e d a t t h e 1975 xntra-famlly violence." a n c u a l n e a t i n g of the N a z i o n a l C o u n c i l oc F a m i l y B e l s l i o n s . S a l t L a k s C i t y , Utah. the FARRINGTON, KEITB a n d JOYCE E. POSS 1977 " I n s e a r c h of family s o c i ~ l o g y : 'missing' c o n c e p t u a l framework i n t.ha s o c l a l c o n f l i c t t r a x e w o r k . " P a p ? r p r e s e n t & a t t h e T h e o r y D e v e l o p w r t a r d n e t h o d s Workshop, a n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e Na?iocal c o u c c i l an Family R e l a f i o a s , October, 1977, S a r D i f g c , C a l i f o r n i a . PENNSLL, NUBLA 1974 I r i s h m a r r i a g e . Dublin: The n e r c i e r P r e s s Ltd.

.

Ref~rences

P a g e 240

FERNBNDEZ-BBRINA, R A R O N . EDUlXDO P. BRLDONIDO, a n d RICHERD D. TRENT 1 9 5 8 " T h r e e b a s i c t h e m e s i n P u e r z o R i c a n a n d Mexicap-lmerlcan family ~ a l u e s . " Jourral of Social P s y c h o l o g y 48:167-187. 1963 "Family myth a n d homeos:etis." PERREIRA, RNTONIO J. ? . r c h l v 9 5 c f G e n e r a l P s y c h i a t r y 9:457-463. FESBBPCH. SEYnOUR 1 9 7 0 " A g g r e ~ s i a n . ~C~h a p t e r 22 i n Paul E. nussen fed.). C a r n i c h a e l ' s B a r n s 1 o f CktLd ? s y c h 9 l o g y . Third Edltlox. N9U York: J C h l V i l e y a3a SOXs. FESEBBCB, SEYMOUR a c d ROBERT D. SINGE?, 1 9 7 1 T a l f v i r i l n a c d aggrsssinn. San F r a r c i s c o : Jossey-aass. FIELD. ER9TRR B. and AENRY 7 . FIELC 1 9 7 3 " n a r i t a l violence and +he c r i m i n a l process: Neithsr justics o r peace." T h e S o c i a l S E ~ V ~ RCC FV ~ E Y 47 ( J u n e ) : 2 2 1 - 2 4 0 . 1978 "wife bszting g3V9rDmeFt FIELDS, UARJORY D. at i n t e r v e n t i o n p o l i c i e s and p r a c t i c i s . " Testtmo-y h e a f l n g s on "Research Into Dmestic violence," Commi%tee oc s c i e r c e a n d T e c h n s l a g y , D.S. Bouse o f R e p r e s e n t a t i v e s . P e b z u a r y 14-16. 1 9 7 6 "Rife b e z t i n g : BOV i 0 d E V p l J p 3 FOTJIK. KRTSLEEN R. v i t a a s s a u l t t a s k f o r c e and project." En? Lrbor. filchigaf: Rnn B r b o r - U a s h t e n z v C o u r t y N O W W i f e R s s a u l t Task Force. POX, GREER LITTON 1 9 7 3 " A n o t h e r l o o k a t t h E C C n p a r E t i V e r e s o u r c e s model: l s s e s s l r g t h e b a l a n c e o f power i n T n r k i s h a a r r i a g e s . Q y J o u r n a l o f n a r r i a g e and t h e Femily 3 5 ( 4 ) :718-729. FBBICKE, LINDA BIBD 1 9 7 7 "Tho body C o u c t i n t h e b a t t l e Of t h e s e x e s . " N e w York T i m e s ( S e p t s m b a r 29) :44. a ~ BERTRAM d R. R I V E N 1959 "The b a s e s Of FRENCH JOHN R. P. s o c i a l power." Pp. 150-167 ir. Dorwin C a r t w r i q h t ( e d . ) , Arn B r h o r : Fessarch Center s t u d i e s 1r S c c i a l Power. f o r G r o u p Dynamics I n s ' i t u r e f a r SJcial Research, u n l v e r s l t y c f Richigen. F R E U D , S. 1 9 5 9 Why War? Letter t o Professor Albert Ir c o l l e c i e a P a p ? r s . T o l u n ~5~. New Einstein. 1932. Basic Books. York: New York: Holt, PROBM, ERICA 1 9 4 1 S s c a p c f r o m Fre@dom. Rinehart acd wlnstan. JR. 1 9 6 6 "The A m e r i c a n f a m i l y : 1 FURSTENBERG, FSRNK F.. look backward." Rnerlcan S o c i o l o g i c a l F e v i e w 31 ( J u n e ) :326-337. a n d HILLiRB SIMON 1 9 7 3 S e x u a l COcdUCt: GRGNON. JOHN A. The Social Sources of Human S e x u a l ~ t y . Chtcago: Rldlne. GECRS, VIKTOR 1 9 7 2 " B o t i v o s a n d aggressive a c t s i n p o p u l a r 5-x and c l a s s d i f f ~ r e n c s s . " b m s r i c a r J - u r n a l fictio5: o f S o c i o l o g g 7 7 ( J a n u a r y ) :680-696. GELLES, RICABRD J. 1 9 7 3 'VChild a b u s e a s p s y ~ h o p a t h o l o g y : I s o ~ t o l o g l c a 1 c r i + i q u 9 and r e f o r m u l s t i o n . " P e a r i c s n Also J o u r n a l of o r t h o p s y c h i a t r y 4 3 ( J u l y ) : 6 1 1 - 6 2 1 . r e p r l c t e d i n S t s i r m e + z a n d S t r a o s . 1974. 1974 The v i o l e n t Home: A Stu?y of GELLES, RICEBRD J. Physical Aggression Between H u s b a c d s a n d Wives. B ~ v e r l yH i l l s . C a l i f o r n i a : Sage P u b l i c a t i o n s .

References

Page 291

GELLES.BICHARD J . 1976 "hhused wlvss: a h y do t t e y s t a y ? * * Jouraal ot Marriage and the Family 38 INoVenber! :659-668. GELLES, R I C H A R D J . 1977 " v i o l 9 n c a Towards C h i l d r e n i n t h e United States.' Paper prasonted a t t h e amsricac R S S O c l a t l o ~ f c r t h e i d v a n c e m e n t o f S c i e n c e , Denver. GELLES, RICBARD 3 . a n d M U R E A Y A. STRRUS 1 9 7 4 " T o v e r d 21 i n t e g r a t e d t h s o r y of i n t r a f a n i l y violent?." F a p n r r e a d a t t h e 1974 Thecry C o n s t r u c t i c x a o r k s h o p i t t h e Annual neeting of t h e National Council on F a n i l r S e l a t i o i s . St. Lcuis, Missouri. GELLES, RICEBSD J. 2nd tlUPRAY 1. STFAUS 1 9 7 5 'F3n:ly e x p e r i e n c e 2nd p n b l i c s u p p o r t o f t h e d e a t h p e c a l t y . ' * P m e r i c a n J o u r n e l of O r t h o p n y c h i a f z y 4 5 ( J o i y ) :596-613. GELLES, R I C H A R D J. a n d nURRE? ?. STRAUS 1 9 7 8 " D e t p r ~ l i r a r t s Of Violence i n t h e famlly: Toward a t h e o r e t i c a l B u r r . Ruebe?. H i l l , i C t E g r a t i o n . " c h a p t e r i n w a s l e y E. F. I v a n Nye, s n d I r a L. Reiss ( e d s . ) , C o n t e m p s r a r y N P U York: Fre? Press. T h e o r i C s About t h o F a m i l y . G3RBNER. G B R G S a r d LARR? GROSS 1 9 7 6 "The scazv w o r l d of TVTS heavy viewe:." Psychology Today 9 ( A p r i l ) :91-49.89. GIRNOPULOS. ARTIZ a n d POWARD E. BITCR3IS 1957 "Msrital disagreements i x vorking w i f e marriages a s a function husband*^ a t t L t u d s s t o w a r d wife's a~ployasnt." Of a a r r r a g e a n d Fam11y L i v i n g 1 7 ( n o s ? m b ~ r ):373-378. GI?., D A V I D 0. 1971 ' * V i o l e s c s a g a i r s t c h i l d r e n . " J o u r n a l o f n a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 33 (?lovenberj:637-648. 1975 "Unraveling c h i l d abuse." Bm~rican GIL, D A V I D G. J o u r n a l o f o r t h o p s y c h i a t r y U5 ( A p r i l ) : 3 4 6 - 3 5 6 . GLPZER-RALBIN, NONh 1 9 7 5 Old F a m i l y , Nev F a m i l y . Pp. 27-65 "Ban and vosan: IntPrpcrsmal relationshrps i r D. Van g o s t r a n d . +he m a r i t a l pair: New York: GOLDFARE 1 9 7 0 "We'zs acre violent than we think." BacLean's nagazine (Rugust):25-28. GOODE, UILLIEn 3 . 1962 " a a r i t e l satisfaction and A cross-cultural a n e l y s i s of airorcs instability: rat9s." Intermtioral Social Science Journal 14 131 '507-526. ~-~~ GOODZ,' U I L L I A ~ J. 1971 'Force a r d v i o l s n c e i n t h e family." of Barriaqe and the Family 33 Journal z (Nov~nber):624-636. A l s o r e p r i n t e d i n S t a i ~ ~ e t aEd s t r a u s . 1979. GOODSTADT. B. a n d L. BJEILE 1 9 7 3 "Power t o t h e p o v s r l e s s : LOCUS o f c o n t r o l a n d t h e u s e of power.g' J o u r n a l o f P e r s o n a l i ' y a n d s o c i e l P s y c h o l o g y 27 ( ~ u l y ) : 1 9 0 - 1 9 6 . G O R D O N , WEITNEY E. 1 9 6 4 B Community iP s t r e s s . N e w York: Livxng Eooks. GRiEB8, H U G E DAVIS 2 r d TED ROBERT G U R R ( e d s . ) 1 9 6 9 V i O l ~ P c e ID Eserica: R i s ? a r i c a l and Comparative P s r s p e c t i v s s . of A 3 t i o n a l Commission O n t h e C z n s e s a n d P r o v e n t i o n I 3 r d II. W a s h i n g t o n , D.C.: Violence: Rsparts. Vol. U.S. Govs7neent P r i n t i n g o f f l c a . GREBLZR, LEO. JOAN P. NOOB!. ~2nd RALPB C. G U Z R B N 1970 T h ? fiexican-American People. Nev York: Free Press.

Peferences

P a g e 2i)2

GREEN, 9RNOI.D W. 1941 " 3 e c u l t o f perscnali'q a r a s s x u a l Psychiatry 4:393-398. relations." a n d JOHA P. SPIEGEL 1 9 9 5 Bell Under GRINKER, R O Y R. Stress. Philadelphia: T h e S l a k i s z o n C3mpany. New York: GUTBACEER, fi1NPRED 1 9 6 0 Th4 n i r d o f t h 4 n u r d e r ? r . REWKES, GLENN R. a n d N I A N 4 TAYLOS 1 9 7 5 "PoVPr s"ruc's?S in Mexican a n d a ; x i c a n - l m e r i c a : ~ f e r n E a r i l i n s . " J o u r r a l of narriaos a n d th e~ f a e~ ilv ' . -37.807-811. -~~ HARKINS. JAuES L. 1 9 6 8 ~ r 8 s s a c i a t i o cb e t w e e n c m p a n i o n s h i p . azd n a z i t a l satisEactioc." J o u r c a l of hosti1i:y. N a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 30:647-650. 1 9 5 8 "Domin3ore 3 r d t h o v c r k i n g *if-." BEEB, D A V I D n. S o c i a l F o r c e s 36 (May) :341-397. BEER. D I V I D 8 . 1 9 6 3 "The measuremen= a s 6 b a s e s o f faail7 power:An ~ v ~ r v i e w . " narriage and Family L i v i n g 25-133-139. REIDER. FRITZ 1958 The Psychology of Interp?rsonal Nsu York: w i l e y a n d Sons. Relations. EENNoN, CEARLES E. 1976 " I n r e z p e r s o c a l v i o l e n c e snd its management by c o h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s . " P a p e x p r e s e n t s $ a t 1976 w e s t e r n S o c l a l S c i e n c e f i e e t i c g s , Tzmpe, ? . r i z o n a . BENRY, ANDREW a n d JIflES SEORT 1 9 5 9 S u i c i d e a n 9 Homicide. G ~ C C C C E . Ill.: Free Press. RENRY, JULES 1 9 6 3 C u l t u r e B g a i n s t Man. New Yorh: Random ROUSE. 1 9 7 1 "The subculture of violecc-." HEPEURN. JOEN R. C r i i n i n o l o g y 9 ( n a y ) :87-98. i r interpersonal HEPSURN, JOeN R. 1 9 7 3 " P i ~ l e n tb e h a v i o r Qulrterly 19 ?~l?.tionShips." The Socioloqical (summer) :$19-427. of bor9d3m." BERON, HOODBDSN 1 9 5 7 "The pathology s c i e n t i f i c R m e r i c a n 1 9 6 ( J a n u z r y ) :52-56. a n d KARILYN PLATT 1970 '*Rari:al happiness RICKS, SARY W. a review of t h e r e s e a r c h i o t h e and s t a b i l i t y : B r o d a r i c k ( e d . ) . A DEcad? of s i x t i s s . " I n C a r l f r e d 5. Family Reselrch and Action. niroespolis, ninn: N a t l o n a l C o n n c i l o n F a m i l y Xela:ions. BILL, SEUBEN 1 9 5 8 " G e n e r i c f e a t u r e s of families under stress." S c c i e l Casework 3 9 ( F ~ b r u a r y - f l 3 r c h ): 139-150A O F P ~ A NLOIS , 1. 1 9 6 0 " E f f e c t s o f emplnymez+. o f m o t h e r s an p a r e n t a l power r e l a t i o n s acd t h e d i v i s i o n of hOusEhola t.asPs." f l a r r i a g f a n d F a n i l y L i v i n g 2 2 (Februaryj:Z7-35. 1 9 6 0 " P a r e n t a l power x e l 3 t l o n s aPd the ROPPBBN. LOIS U. ~ Z V I S I O C of h o - u ~ e h o l dt a s k s . ' Pp. 215-230 i n F. Ivan Yya a n d L o i s w. Roffman (eds.). The Employed flo:h?r in America. Chicago: Rand n c 8 a l l y . 3. 1970 " P s y c h o p h y s i o l o g i c a l e v a l u a t i o o of RORANSOH. J. t h e catharsis h y p c t h e s d s . " I n 3. I. M+gargee a c d J . s c k a n s o n ( s d s . ) , The Dynamics 3 f Rggression. New York: R a r p e r a n d Sow. BOLSES, T Z O N A S 8. a n a P I C H R R D X. R A S E 1 9 6 7 "The s o c i a l readjustment r a t i n g scale." Journal of Psychos3matic R e s e a r c h 11: 312 f f . . ~

.

.

Page 243

~eferences

ROMANS, GEORGE C. 1961 S o c i a l a e h a n i o r , Its El~mrntarg Forms. A ~ w York: AarCoUrr, Brace a n d Y o r l d . PORNER, RATINA S. 1972 'Tovard an understandicg of achievement-releted ccnflicts i n womec.' Journzl of S o c l = l I s s u e s 28:157-175. AOWARD. ALBN a n d ROBERT R . SCOTT 1 9 6 5 " A p r o p o s e 3 f r a m e w o r k s t r e s s i- t h e human o r g c c i s m . " trom t h e a r a l y s i s o f B e h a v i o r a l S c i e n c e 10:lUl-160. HOWARD. JANE 1 9 7 0 P l e a s e Teach: 1 G u i d e d T o u r o f t h e B n m e P P o t e n t i a l novemeni. new York: D e l l P u b l i s h i r g . ROUELLS, WILLIAI DEAN 1 9 6 0 T h e Rise o f S i l a s Lapham. New York: H o l t , R i c e h a r t and Winston. a n d ShRCLAY NBETIN 1 9 7 6 ' B e b a v i o r e l JECOBSON, NEIL S. marrlage therapy: C u r r e n t slates." P s y c h o l o g i c a l E u l l e t l n 8 3 ( J u l y ) :5UO-556. JBNIS, I R V I N G L. 1958 P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t r ~ s s : P s y c h o a o a l y t i c New York: and B e h a v i o r a l S t u d i s s c f S u r g i c a l P s t i a n t s . John R i l e y a r d Sons. acd K. E. DAVIS 1 9 6 5 "From acts to JONES, E. E. disposit1ocs.I n L. Berkovitz (ed.) P.dvaccss i n Experimental S o c i a l Psychology. 1 2. Nev York: Acad?mic P r e s s . KARDEL, DENISE B. and GERALD 5. LESSER 1972 "X2rital decision-making i n American +nd Danish u r b a n f a m i l i e s : R r e s e a r c h n o t e . ' J o u r n a l o f B a r r i a g e +ad t h e Family 3 4 ( 9 e b r u a r y ) :134-138. KANOUSE. D l V I D E. a n d L. REID BlNSON 1 9 7 1 " N e g e L i v i t y i n E. J o n 3 gl. (eas.). evaluations." In Bttributicn: Perceiving t h e Causes of Bsharlor. I % o r r F S t o X n , N.J.: General Learning Prass. University o f Nebraska Press. 1975 S e l f L t t i t u d e s and Devlant Behivior. KRPLAN, HORPRD 73. P a c i t l c Pslisades, California: Goodyear. KEADINLR, BERAa 1 9 6 3 T h e P s y c h o l o g i c a l F r o n t i e r s o f s o c i e t y . New York: Columbia U n i v e r s i t y Prass. 1967 * ' h t t r i b u t i o n t h e o r y i n social KELLEY, BAROLD H. Z e r i n s ( e d . ) , N e b r a s k a Symposium o n p s y c h c l o g y . " I n D. n o t l v a i i o r , 15. L i r c o l n , Neb.: U n i v e r s i t y o f Nebraska Press. 1971 " E t t r i b u t i o c i n s o c i a l i n t e r a c t i o n . KELLEY. HEROLD e. In E. E. Jones ga. (eds.). Bttrihution: Perceiving t h e C a u s e s a t Behavia:. Uorristour, R.J.: General Lsarnirg Press. KELLEY, ARROLD 8. and J O l ? N W. TBIBBUT 1969 "Group problem-solving." C h a p t e r 29 i n G a r d r e r L i n d z s y and E l i o t Aronson (eds.), The eandbook of Social Psychalcgy. 2nd E d i t i o n , v o l n m e 0. R e a d i n g . nzss.: 4ddiso~-Wesley. a n d D. EONDY KELLEY, SAROLD I!., J. If. TRIBADT. S . RBDLOFF, 1 9 6 2 ' T h e d e v e l o p m e n t of c o o p e r a i i a n i c t h e ' m i c i r n a l ' social situetion." P s y c h c l o g i c a l n o n o g r l p h s 76 (19) (Whole r o . 538). 1 9 6 2 "The b a t t e r e d - c h i l d s y n d r o m e . " RENPE, C. HENRY sLa l . Journal of t h e R a e r i c a c a s d i c a l A s s o c i a t i o r 181 ( J u l y 71 :17-24.

.

.

References

p a g e 211

KOCR, 30ENME and LEU KOCR 1 9 7 6 ""he o z g s n t * r i v e ts a a k good marriages batter.7s Psychology Today 1 ( S e p t e m b e r ) : 33-35 f f . KORN, BELVIb L. 1969 C l a s s and Ccnformity: E Study i Values. Aomeuood, 1 l l l n o : s : Dorrsy Press. K O L B . TRUDY D. n c d BURPPY P . STRRUS 1 9 7 4 " l $ a r i t % l p o w and m a r i i a l happrness i n r a l s t i o n t o p r o b l e a - s o l v i r ability.' J o n r n a l cf n a r r i a g e a n d t h r ?Emily 3 (November) :756-766. KOi3BROVSKY. M I R R E 1962 Blue C o l l a r n a r r i a g e . N e w York Random House. KOMAROVSKY, 8IRR1 1 9 7 3 " C u l t u r a l ContPadictiOns and se. roles: T h e m a s c u l r n e cise." eeerican Jourral o S o c r o l o g y (Jar.):873-884. A l s o r e p r i n t s 6 i n E r l e n s ant Jerome S k o l ~ l c Z ( e d s . ) , I ~ ? i m z c y . P a o i l y , aad S o c i e t y . Sostor.: L i t t l e . Brown a n d Co., 1 9 7 4 , Pp. 245-257. K U R N , DEBNNL 1 9 7 6 " S E X - r o l e c o c c f p t s of two- a n d thras-yea1 old=." P a p e r p r e s e r t e d a t t h e a n x u a l m e e t i n g sf t h t Western P s y c h o l o g i c a l A s s o c i a t i o n , Los E a g e l s s , bpzil, 1976. 1 9 7 2 T h e P c l i t i c s cf t h e P a n i l y . N e w York: LAING, R. D. Vantage. in Bazri~ge: IBROSSA, RALPN 1 9 7 7 C o n f l i c t and Power Bsverly R i l l s : sage. Z x p e c t l ~ gi . h c F i r s t c h i l d . LARSON, LYLE 2' . lY74 m s y s t e s a n d s u b s y s t e m p e r c e p t i o n o f family roles." J o u r n a l of n a r r i a g e and t h e P i m i l j 36 ( F e b r u a r y ) ~ 1 2 3 138. LESLETT, BARBARA 7973 "Ths f a m i l y a s a p u b l i c a c d p r i v a t ~ R historical perspective." J o u r n s l of icstitution: n a r r i a g e and t h e F a m i l y 3 5 ( E u g u s t ) : 4 8 0 - 6 9 2 . LAZARUS, RICRhRD 5. 1966 P s y c h o l o g i c a l S t r e s s snd the coping Process. N e w York: ncGrav-Eill. LEFKOWITZ. HOWROE P ., LEOPCLD 0. WILDER, L. ROWPLL D. ERON 1976 ' P a r e n t a l HOUSEflENB, ard LFONERO punishmhnt: E longitudinal a n a l y s i s o f ~ f f e c t s . ~Pt s p s r rEad a t t h € I c t e r c a t i o n z l Sociezy For Research o r eggression conicrance, Paris. LEBASTERS, ERSEL E. 1957 "Parecthood a s c r i s i s . " Marriage a n d P a n l l y L i v i n g 1 9 (Norember):352-355. LERESTERS, ERSZL E. 1 9 7 1 'The passing of the 6cminant of Science or Socie'y husband-tather." lapact ( J a n u i r y - D a r c h ) :2 1-30. the LEVINE, SOL and BORuAN R. SCOTCA 1 9 6 7 "Toward developnent of t h e o r e t i c a l modsls: 11." 8 F l b a n k nei3oria.l Pund Q u a r t e r l y US (2):163-179. LEVINGER, GEOFGE 1966 " S o u r c e s cf m a r i t a l d i s s a t i s f a c t i o n among a p p l l c a c t s f o r d i v o r c e . " American J o o r n a l o f O r t h o p s y c h i a t z y 26 ( C c t o b e f ) : 8 0 3 - 8 0 7 .

~fferences

Pag;

2115

LEWIS, OSCER 1 9 5 9 " F a m i l y d y n a n i c s i n a nariciln illa age.^ B a r r i a g e a n d F a m i i y L i v i x g 21:218-226. LEWIS, OSCRB 1 9 5 0 T F p o z t l a n : V i l l a g e i n Eexics. New York: Ealt. RlPehart a r d winstor. LEWIS, OSCAR 1963 The Children of Sanchez. New York: V i n t s g s Books. Nev York: Random Bouse. LEWIS, O X a P 1 9 6 7 kg !rip=. LEUIS. PORERT R. 1971 "Socializ3tior into national ViolSCce: Famil.ia1 ~ C r r 9 l a t S E c f hawkish a t t i t o d e s t o w a r d war.' J o u r n a l o f r i a r r i a g s a . 3 =he Pamily 3 3 (November) :6?9-708. A l s o r e p r i n t e d i n S t e i n m ? : ~ an3 S t r a u s , 1979. LOPRTE. RELTNA 2. 1971 o c c u p a t i a c : Elus?vif;. NPW York: Oxtord U n i v e r s i t y Press. N e w York: Barcourt LOBFNZ, KONRBD 1 9 6 6 Oc B g g r e s r i o n . 3race Jovenorich. LUPRI, EUGENE 1 9 6 9 " C o ~ > t e n p o r a r ya o t h a r i t y p a t t e r n s i c t h e West German family: A study i n cross-natioral v a l i d a t i o n . ' J o u r n a l of n a r r i a q e and t h e Familv 31 ( F e b r u a r y ] :139-149. LYNN, KENNETA 1 9 6 9 " V i o l e n c e i n A m e r i c a n l i t e r a t u r e a n d tolklorf." C h a p t e r 6 i n Augh D. Graham a n d r t a 8. Gurr (eds.1. V i o l e n c e i n Emerica: Eistorical acd I. U a s h i r g t o r D. C. : C o m p a r a t i ~ e P e r s p e c t i v ~ s Vol. U.S. ~ o v e m m e n tP r i P t i n g o f f i c e . DAVID a n d VFAR nACE 197Y W BRCE, e Can Have Sstter narriages--If We Really Want Them. Nashoille, Ternessee: B b i n q d o ~P r e s s . RADSEN. YILLIRR 1 9 6 u B e x l c a n - A m e r i c a n s o f S o o t h T e x a s . New YOrk: H o l t . S i n e h a r t a c d Wics;on. MARTIN, DEL 1 9 7 6 B a t t e r e d Wives. San F r a n c i s c o : Glide Publications. Moscow: Prsgrcss 1 9 6 9 T h e German I d e o l o g y . BRBX, KARL Publishers. acd J. RLTROCEI 1 9 6 9 " E t t r i b u t i o n of SASELLI. D. D. i n t e n t . ' P s y c h o l o g i c a l S n l l s t i n 71:445-454. RRTZE. D E Y I D 1 9 6 9 RecomiPg D P v i a x t . Englewooa C l i f f s , N.J.: Prentice-Fall. BPUREE, RDEA 1979 "Corporal punishment." Assrican Psychologis: 29 (Rugust):619-626. HPY, ROLL0 1 9 7 2 Power a r d i r n o c e a c e : A SElrch f o r the S o u r c e s o f VZalence. New Yark: Norio3. and Psychcl3gical nCGARTB, JoSEPE E. ( ~ d . ) 1 9 7 0 S o c i a l Factors i n strass. Pp. 10-21 "A c o n c e p t u a l f o r m u l a t i o n f o r r e s e a r c h on stress." New York: Rolt, Rinehart and Winston. ECKINLEY, DONRLD GILBERT 1 9 6 4 S o c i a l C l a s s aad Pamily N O W Ycrk: Free Press. Life. R Stuly i n UECERNIC, D R V I D 1 9 6 2 S t u d e n t s Under S t r e s s : Free t h e S o c i a l P s y c h o l c g y o f A d a p t ~ t i o n . N e x York: Press. NECFLNIC, D A V I D 1 9 6 8 n e d i c a l S o c i o l o g y . v=u York: Free Press nERCORI0, JOE 1 9 7 2 C a n i n g : E d u c a t i o n a l R i t e and T r a d i t i o n . Spracuse: Syracuse University Press.

~eferelces

P a g e 246

BERTON, ROBERT K. 1957 S o c i a l Theory and S o c i a l S.nS 195U '-The i n t ~ g r l t 5 o n of S i n h a l e s e s o c i z t y . * v S € s c a r c h S t u d L a S of t h a S t a t e c o l l e g f o f U a s h i c g % a r 22 (December) : 179-227. BYDER, R. G. 1968 "Eusband-wife dyads versus married S ? ~ a I l ? E r S . " F 2 8 i l Y PrOCeSS 7:233-237. SRPILIOS-EOTHSCHILD. COBSTANTINA 1 9 h 7 "1 c o n p a r i s o n o f power s t r u c t n r e s a d m a r i t a l s a t i s f a c t i o n i n u r b a n GrrPk and F r e n c h f a m i l i e s . " J o u r n a l o f u a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 29 ( h a y ) :345-352. SRFILIOS-ROTASCHILD. CONSTANTINE 1 9 7 0 "The s t u d y o f family Journal of powfi ~ t r u c t u ~ e : a r e o i e v 1960-1969." N a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 3 2 (Novsmbar):539-552. a SEFILIOS-BOTHSCHILD, CONSTANTINB (ed.) 1972 Tovard Sociology of women. Pp. 63-70 "1ns:ead sf a discussion: c o ~ p a r i o n a t e marriages and sexual Mass.: quality: a r e they compatible?" Lexington, K E r o X COrpora%iOn. and microSIIILIOS-SOTESCHILD. CONSTANTINR 1 9 7 6 "R macro+r e x c h a n g e examination of f a m i l y power a n d l o r s : model.' Journal of n a r r i a g e and the Fmily 38 ( n a y ] :355-362. 1468 " B social system analysis of SCRNZONI. JOHN H. d i s s o l v e d a n d e x i s t r n g famil:e~.~V J c u r r s l o f m a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y 30 ( l u g u s t ) :452-461. 1970 O p p o r t u i i t y and t h o P a a i l y . New SCANZONI, JOBN H. YoT~: F r f ? TTFSE. SCANZONI, JOBN H. 1972 S s x u a l Bargaining. Engl~vood C l i f f s , R.J.: Prec+ice-Rall. SCPNZONI, JOHN A. 1 9 7 5 "Sex r o l e s , economic f a c t s r s and m a r i t a l s o l i d a r l t y 15 b l a c k a n d w h i t e m a r r i a g e s . ' ' Jourlal of Narriage and the Pamily 37 ( F e b r u a r y ) :130-149. Patterns of ahptto SCBULZ. D R V I D 1 9 6 9 Coming up B l a c k : Prec'ics-Pall. Soci?.lizaticn. E n g l e v o o d C l i f f s , N.J.: +nd STAAFORD LYNAN 1 9 7 0 " L c c o u c t s , SCOTT, K I R V I N B. Douglas deviazce a ~ d s o c i a l o r d e r . " Pp. 89-119 i n J. N e w York: Basic (ed.) , D e v i i n c s a n d R e s p e c t a b i l i t y . Books. a n d ALAN HOWARD 1 9 7 0 "NOae1.5 Of s t r s s s . " SCDTT, ROBERT A. Pp. 259-278 i n S c l L e v i n e a n d Norman L. Scotch Chicago: Aldine. (eds.) , S o c i e l S t r e s s . evsntlessnsss." SEIDZNBERG. ROBERT 1 9 7 2 "The t r a u m a of P s y c h o a n a l y t i c Review 59 ( s p r i n g ) :95-109. SELYE, AANS 1 9 5 6 The Stress of life. Yew York: NCGraw-Bill.

SBAPIRO, SOWARD and RRNOLD DASHSFSKY 9 7 EthXiC Identification Rmong A m e r i c a n J e w s . L e x i n g t o n . 835s.: Lexingtoz moks. SHAVEP. XELLEY G. 1 9 7 5 Rn I n t r o d u c < i o n r o Attribution Processes. C a m b z i d g ~ , zass.: uinthrop. SEE&?.", LLOYD 1 9 7 5 " I L g e b o r g D e d i c h ~ n : S h e was t h e g r s a t P a r a d e (Ju1y):Y-5. l o v e or A r i s t o t l e O n a s s i s . ' ' SXOSTROI, EVERETT L. 2Ld J A l r S KAVPNlUG3 1 9 7 1 3%tW?eE Ban a n d woman. Los Angeles: Nash P u b l i s h i n g . Kurt SIEnEL. G ~ O R G 1 9 5 0 The S o c i o l o g y c f G e Q r g Simmel (ed. H. Palff). N e w York: Free Press. Group SIXnZL, GEORG (1908) 1 9 5 5 C O P f l i c t a n d t h e Ueb Of Affiliations. G l e t c o , 111.: F r e e P r e s s . SIPES. R I C H A P D G. 1973 " X i r . s p o r t s and aggression: An empirical test of two r i v a l t h e o r i e s . " lmerican R c t h r o p o l o g i s t 7 5 ( F e b r u a r y ) :64-68. 1 9 5 3 S c i e n c e a n d Auman B e h a v i o r . New Pork: SKINNER, 5. F. Fzee Press. SKOLNICK, ARLENE 1 9 7 3 T h e I n t i m a t e Envir0nmer.t: Exploring Boszon: L i t t l ? , Brown a n d Marriage and The Family. CO. (edS.1 1974 JERORE 8. SKOLRICK SKOLNICK, BRLEN3 ard Boston: L i t t l e , Brow? Intimacy, Family, end S o c i e t y . and con. SPXEY, JETSE 1 9 6 9 "The f e m i l y a s a s y s t e m i n c o n f l i c t . " Journal of Narriaqe and the Family 31 ( B o v e a b e r ) :699-706. SPREY. JETSE 1 9 7 1 "On t h e management of conflict in flmilies." Journal of E a r r i a g e and t h e Family 3 3 (Bovlmber):722-731. E l s o r e p r i n t e d i n S t s i n m s t z and S t r a u s , 1974. Pp. 110-119. SPREY. JETSE 1 9 7 2 "Parnlly power structure: R critical comment." J o u r r a l c f M a r r i a g e and the P a l i l y 3 9 ( n a y ) :235-238. STRPP, JOY a c d IYALA PINES 1 9 7 6 " C a r e s r o r family? The g o a l s on l i k i c g for a c o m p e t e n t w3man." i n f l u e n c e of t h e western P a p e r p r e s e n * e d et t h s a n r u a l m e e t i n g o f P ~ y c h o l o q i ~ aAl s s o c l a t i o ~ , L o s R n g e l e s . R p r i l 1976. "niddle Class STARK. RODNEY a n d JEBES NCEVOY I11 1 9 7 0 v i o l e n c e . " P s y c h o l o g y T c d a ? U (Noo'smher) :52-65. STEELE. BFANDT F. a n d CREL a. POLLOCK 1 9 6 8 " A psychia;ric s t u d y o f p a r e n t s who a b u s e i r f a n t s a n 8 s m a l l c h i l i r e ? . " H e l f e r a n d C. A e r r y Kenpe Pp.103-197in Ray E. Child. Chicago: u n l v r r s i t y of ( e d s . ) , The 02-ere6 Chicago Press. S T E I N ~ E T Z . SUZANNE K. 1979 ' O c c u p a t i o n a l anv:rcnmrrt in -. iblation t o physical punishment a n d d o g n a t i s m . ' Pp. 166-172 i n S t e i r m e + z a n d S t r a u s . 1979. Cycle Of vi3l;nce: STEINEETZ. SUZANNE K. 1977 T h e Rssertive. P. ~ -~ T B S S I V E a n d I b a s i V ? F a s i l p I n t e r a c t i o n . New I o r k : Praegcr. a n l nUPFAY K. STRAUS 1 9 7 3 " C h a c g i n g STEINnETZ, SUZBNNE K. scx r o l e s a r d t h e i r i m p l i c a t i o n s f o r seasur?mlnt of f a m i l y sac;oeconomic s t a t u s . ' Paper presented st t h a 1 9 7 2 m e e t i n g of t h e E m e r i c a n S n c i 3 1 a g i c l l A s s o c i a t l o c .

References

Page 250

STEINUETZ, SOZANNE K. and B U R R A Y A. STR?.WS 1973 "Ths family as c r a d l e of violence." Society (formerly Transac3on) lo ( s p p t e m b e r - O c t o b e r ) :50-56. (8 adaot?t;or c- f- D a r t af t h e i n i r o d u c t i o r *o r -e - ~o u b l i c n t i o n ~ t o v l o l e n c ~i n t h e Pamily.) a n d B U R R A Y A. STREWS (Eds.) 197u STEINDETZ, SUZANNE K. V i o l e n c e i n t h c Family. N e w York: H l r p f r s n a Rol ( o r i g i n a l l y p u b l i s h e d by Dodd. H&ad a n d Co.) STRKUS. M U R R A Y A. 1969 ' n e a s u r i n o f a m i l i e s . ' Chaw. 10 i r H a r o l d T. C h r i s t e r r e n ( e d . ) , Pandbook o f f l e r r l e g ~ a c i Bans BcNally. the famly. Chicago: 1971 "Some social antecedents 31 STRAUS. MURREY A. p h y s i c a l purishmen*: a linkage theory interpretation.' of Barriage and the Pamily 3: Journal (8ovember):658-663. R l s o r e p r i n t e d i n S t e i n m a t z ani S t r a u s , 1974. 1973 "A g e n e r a l systems t h e o r y a p p r o a d STRRUS, n U R R R Y A. t o a t h e o r y o f v i o l e n c e b e t w e e n f a m i l y members." S o c i a l S c i e n c e I n f o r m a t i o n 12 (3une):lOS-125. STRAUS. M U R R A Y A. 1 9 7 9 a " L e v e l i n g , c i v i l i t y , and r i o l e n c r Ln t h e f a a l l y . " J o u r n a l o f B a r r i a g e and t h e f a m i l y 31 ( F e b r u a r y ) :13-29, p l u s addendum i n August 1974 issue. R l ~ o r e p r i n t e d i n Nursing Education, 1979: and i l R i c h a r d Y. C a c t r e l l a l d David F. Schraaer (~ds.), Dynamics o f f l a r i t a l I n t e r a c t i o n , Kendall/Punt. 1974, W. Kammeyer, (ed.) , c o n f r o n t i c g t b ' a n d i n K e r n e t h C. S e x Roles, f l a r r i a g e and t h e Family. Bssron. Issues: L l l y n a n d Bacon, 1976. 1979h V u l t u r a l and s o c i a l organizations: STRRUS, B U R R R Y A. L n f l u e n c e s on v i o l e n c e between f a m i l y members." I1 Raymond Prirca and Dorothy BarriPr (aas.) CoCfigUraticns: B i o l o g i c a l a n d C u l t u r a l F a c t > r s i! S e x u a l i t y a n d Family. R e w York: D.C. Aeath. 19'75 "Husband-wife i n t e r a c t i o n i n n u c l e a ' STRAUS. B O R R A Y A. and j o i n t households." Pp. 13s-135 i n D. Narai' (ed.). E x p l c r a t i o n s i n t h e Family and O t h e r Essays n. Kapadia n s m o r i a l volume. Bombay P r o f e s s o r K. Thzcker. STRAWS, ? I U R R A Y A. 1976 " S e x u a l i n e q u a l i t y . c u l t u r a l norms A l s and w i f e - b e a t i n g . " V i c t i m o l o g y 1 ( S p r i c g ) :54-76. r e p r i n t e d i n E n i l i o C. viano (ed.). V i c t i m s an V i s a g e cress, 1 9 7 6 , a n d i Society. U a s h i r g t o n , D.C.: J a P e R o b e r = s Chapman and M a r g a r e t G a t e s (!?is.). Wane I n t o Wlvos: The L e g a l a n d Economic I m p a c t o n n a r r i a g e S a g e Y e a r b o o k s I n Women P o l i c y S t u d i e s . VOlumP 2 Beverly F i l l s : S a g e , 1977. 1977.3 " A s o c i o l o g i c a l p e r s p e c t i v e on t h STPBUS, K U R R A Y R. p r e r e n t i o r and t r e a t m e n t of wife-beatirg." I n Maria Ro New York: Va (ed.), Battered women. Nostrand-Reinhold.

.

2

References

P a g e 251

STRAUS, ~ U R R R YE. 1977b " S c c i e t a l morphogenesis zed i n r r a f a m i l y violence i n c r o s s - c u l t u r a l p e r s p e c t i v e . " Ic Leonore ~ o e b Adler (ed.). i s s u e s i n Cross-CulL.ura1 N e w York: Rctals Of t h e H E Y York ZcadEmy Of Research. S c i e n c e s 285:717-730. Elso reprinted in Karac ovals ski, (ed.), a o m e r e s H e a l t h Care. Vakefield, nass.: N u r s i n g D i n e c s i o r , Vol. 7, 1 9 6 8 , Pp. 05-63. 1 9 7 7 ~' q N o r a a t i v e a n d b e h a v i o r a l a s p e c t s STRRWS, EWRRAY A. of violence betveer spcuses: P r e l i m i P l r p 3 6 % ~of a n a t i o i a l l y r e p r e s e n t a t i v e OSB sample." Papor read at t h e Symposium o n V i o l e c c f i n C a n a d i a n S o c i e z y , E a r c h 12. sTRAUS, n U R R A Y A. 1917d "Exchange end power i n a e r r i a g e i c cultural context: a multiwethnd a r d m u l t i v a r i a t e a n a l y s i s of Bombay a n d N i c n e a p a l i s f a m i l i e s . " Paper r e a d a t t h e t 9 7 7 meetlng of t h 8 A s s o c i a t i o n f o r B s i a r S t u d i e s , N e w York. 1979 "measuring i n t r a f a m i l p c o n f l i c t and STRROS. EURRAY A. t h e C o n f l i c t T a c 5 i c s (CT) s c a l e s . " J o u r n a l violence: o f n a r r i a g e a n d t h e F a m i l y . 41:75-88. RICHARD J. GELLES, a n d SUZANNF K. STR105, M O R R A Y I., ViOlePCE in t h e STEINBET2 1 9 8 0 B e h i n d C l o s e d D O O I S : N e w York: Qnchor/Doubleaay. In American Family. press. a ~ d LBRRENCE J. ROUGHTON 1 9 6 0 STRAUS. fiORR3.Y A. "Rchievement, affiliation. and co-operation v a l u e s a s c l u e s t o t r e n d s i n Rmerican r u r a l s o c i e t y . 1924-1958." R u r a l S o c i o l o g y 2 5 (December) :399-903. STRAUS, BURRAY A. a n d I R V I N G TALLBAN 1 9 7 1 "SIfiFAU: E technig"~ for ob~ervational measnr?ment and e r p e r i n e n t a l s t u d y of f a m i l i e s . " I n J o a c Blaous 21. reds.1, Family Problem Solving. Einsdale. I l l i r o i s : Dryden. 1958 "Family i o t e r z c t i o n . values and STSODTBECK, FRED L. Scclelland, a c h i e v e m e n t . + - Pp. 135-194 i n D a v i d C. A l f r e d L. B a l d w i n . Uris B r c n f e n b r e n n e r a n d P r l d L. S t r o d t b e c k [eds.), T a l e n t and S o c i e t y . New J e r s e y : D. V+C NOstIanC?. SURGEON GEXFRAL'S SCIENTIFIC ADVISORY COEilITTFB ON TELEVISION E N D SOCIAL BEBhVIOR 1 9 7 2 R e p o r t Of t h ? s u r g e o n G e c e r a l * s s c i e n t i f i c A d r i s o r y Committee 3o T e l e v i s i o n and S o c i a l Behavior. Washington. D.C.: O.S. Government P r i n t i n g O f f i c e . T A N E Y , C. 1969 " A p s y c h i a t r i c s t u d y o f homicide." ?.m?rican J o u r n a l o f P s y c h i a t r y 7 2 5 (9) :1252-1258. J. T., P. SUTH a n d R . BROWN 1974 "E TFDBSCAI, reintarpretation cf research on aggression.' PsyChOlOgical B u l l e t i n 81r540-562. a n d EXBOLD H. KELLEP 1 9 5 9 T h e Social TEIBAUT. JOHN W. NEW Pork: John V i l s y end Sons. P s y c h a l o g p of Groups. T P U N I N G E R , ELIZ?.BETH 1977 n f i a r i t a l v i o l e n c e : T ~ El e g a l 501utio1. " The Bastings IBY Journal 23 ( n o v e m b e r ) :259-276.

.

P a g e 252

References

.

WELSH, RALPH S. ' i976 " S e v e r e parental pur.ishnect acd delinquency: a developasntal theory." Journal of C l i l i c a l C h i l d P s y c h o l o g y 5 ( S p r i n g ) :17-21. YESTLEY. s I L L I A n R. 1953 ' * v i o l e n c e and the police." A m e r i c a n J o u r n a l o f S s c i o l o g y 59 ( J u l y 1 :3U-41. WHITE. LESLIE 1. 1975 T h e C o n c e p t o f C u l t u r a l S y s t e m s . New nork: Columbia u n i v e r s i t y P r a s s . 1979 " V i o l e n c e in husbaua-wife WHITERURST, ROBERT N. 75-82 i n s t c i n m a t z a n d S t r a u s , 1974. i n t e r a c t i o n . " Pp. BRITEHURST. BOSERT N. 197U ' R l t e r n a t i v e f a m i l y s t r u c t u r e s a n d ~ i c l e c c e - r e d u c t i o n . " Pp. 315-320 i n S t e i n m e t z a c d S t r a u s , 1973. YEITING, SEFTRICE B. 1965 "Sex identity coaflic* and 1 c o m p a r a t i v e study." :nerican p h y s i c a l violence: R n t h r o p l c g i s t 67 (December) : 123-140. w I L L I A ~ S ,DOBALD B. 1979 " c o n p e n s a t i c q v i c t i m s o f c r i m e s of v i o l e n c e : B n a t h e r l o o k a t t h e s c h s n s . ' Pp. 147-153 ;a I. D r a p k i n a c d E. Viaco (sds.), victimology: R Aev FOCUS. volume 11. Sccie!y's REaction t o V i c t ~ m i z a t i o ~ . Lsxingt.on. $ l a s s . : L e x i n g t o n Books. WILLIAES. ROBIN E. 1970 R n s r i c a r S o c i E t y : E Sociological N e w York: A l f r s d A. Krspf. Interpretatior.. WILSON, LANCE 8. a n d GERALD U. MCDONALD 1977 F a a i l p I m p a c t A n a l y s i s a n d F a m i l y P o l i c y Advocate: The PzOCess o f Inalysis. Family Impact S e r i e s . miaessota Family 4. s t u d y center, R e p o r t BO. UINTEP. 8 . D.. FERREIRA. 2. J., End N. BOREPS 1973 'D~cision-maki-g in marries a n d u n r e l a t e d c o u p l e s . " F a m i l y P r o c e s s 12:83-94.

Refezeaces

P a g e 253

XOLFE. DONALD n. 1959 * u P o v e r a n d a u t h o r i t y i n t h e f a m i l y . " 99-117 i a D. Cartwrigt: (nd.), Studies i n S2cial Pp. Power. Bnn A r b o r . a i c h i g a c : U 2 l v s z s i t y of E:chigan I n s t i t u t a f a r S o c i a l BesEarch. 1968 S c r e s s a n d D i s c a s e . second Edi-ion. uOLFP, EARoLD G. E d L t e d by S t ~ w a r tw o l f a r d H e l e n G o o d e l l . Springfield, Ill.: C h a r l e s C. Thomas. 7956 "Susbald-wifhornicifis~.~* WOLFGANG, EARVIN E. COrTeCtive P s y c h i e t r y a n 3 J o u r n l l c f S o c i a l Thsrzpy 2:263-271. WOLFGANG,R B R V I N 3. 1957 "victim-precipitate& criminal homicide." J o u z n a l of C r i m i n a l Law, C r i m i n o l o g y e n d ( J u n e ) : 7-11. A l s o Pp. 72-87 ic P o l i c e S c i e n c e 98 Wolfgang (ed.), S t u d i e s i n Aoeicide. New E a r v i n 3. York: H a r p e r a r d Row. 1969 " v i o l e n c e a n d human b e h a v i o r . " UOLPGANG. l5BRVIN E. P s p e r p r e s e r t e d at t h e e n n u a l m e e t i n g o f t h e i m e r i c a n P s y c h o l o g i c a l 1 s s o c i i t i o n . W a s h i n g t o n , D.C., B u g u s t 30. UOLPGbNG, nABVIN a n d FRANC0 PERBACUTI 1967 T h e S u b c u l t u r e O f Vlclence. Nev Y c r k : a a r c e s a n d Noble. New York: Papsrback YIFPE, JANES 1968 T h e A m e r r c a r J e w . Library. RBRRIET S. YARROW. M A R I A N RADKE, CBERLOTTE GREEN SCIWPRTZ. ilURP!iY, ma LEILB CALBOUN DEASY 1955 "The p s y c h o l o g i c a l J o u r r r l of m e a n i n g of msrtal i l l n e s s i c t h e f a m i l y . " s o c i a l I s s u e s 11 ( 4 ) :12-ZU. YINGER. J O H N n. 1965 T a w a r a a F i e l a Theory o f Behavior: New York: Personali:~ and Social structure. RcGraw-H111. a n d EURRRY A. STRlUS 1980 " I n t e r p s r s s n a l YLLO. KERSTI 8. v i o l e n c e among m a r r i e d a n d c c h a b i t i n g c o u p l e s . " F a m i l y Coordinator. Epril, i n press. YOUNG, IICHPEL a n d PETEF WILLBOTT 7973 T h e Syer8strical B S t u d y c f Work a n d L e i s u r e i n t h s L o n d o c Family: Region. London: R o u t l e d g e a n d Xegan P a u l . ZOK. GERALD H. 1978 " A t h e r a p i s t ' s p 4 r s p e c t l v e on J e w i s h family veluss." Joornal of n a r r i s g s and Family C o u n s e l i n g 9 ( J z c u a r y ) :103-110.

Indexes

Author Index

Abbort. S., 186" Adorno, T. W.,217, 218 Aldous, J., 1 7 8 Allen, C. hl., 16,19,77,87,137,156,171, 188 Altrochi, 1.. 141 Aniiiews, F. zW., 237 Antell, M., 4 7 Applry, ,\I. H., 9 6 Archer. D., 57. 213 Ardrey, R., 111 Bach, G. R., 20, 1 1 2 , 174n, 1 8 5 , 186-87% 220 Bachman. J. G., 215 B a h ~S. J., 186n. 191. 204,205 Balswick, J . O., 180

Bard, M., 50n, 226-27 Baii, P. B., 8 8 Bawwitz, H., 95 Bcll. N. W.. 1 9 2 Beilak, L.. 4 7 Bern, D. J., 38 Bern. S. L., 38 Benedici, R., 41

Berger, P., 9 Berger, A. A., 1 8 2 Brrkowitz. L.. 220 B e i n s ~ r i n .P. S.. 77, 78 Berry, W. A., 247 Bertelheim, R., 52, 60, 66n, 106. 112 Bickman, L., 48 Blau, P.. 4, 174". 193 Blechman. 6:. A,, 217. 221 Blood, K. 0..9, 129, 166, 177, 178, 179, 183, 186". 189, 192, 193, 204. 206 Blumberg, M.. 103 Blurnenthal. M., 213 Bohannan, P.. 40 Boigorta, E. F., 237 Boti, F.. 1 2 8 Bowerman.C. E., 186n, 191. 204. 235 B o w e r . N., 4 8 Brim. 0 . G . Jr., 174" Brown, B. W., 19. 21, 77, 171, 172, 181, 182.188 Brown, K. C., 145 Brownmiller, S.. 93 Buckley, W.. 174n Bulcioft, K.,32, 49, 191-92 Burgers, A . W., 8 8 Buric, 0 , 186"

Author Index Burke. R. J., 178 Burr, W.R.,181 Buss,A. H., 138 Calonico, j . M.. 191 Calverr, R., 13 Cameron. P.,145 Camphell, J. S., 103-4 Carillo-Beron. C., 72,73,7 4 Carroll, J., 14,137 Cenieis, R., 186n Chadiha. L.B., 237 Cohcn, P. S., 65n Cole, G. A , , 237 Conger, R.E.. 247 Cooper. D., 139 Cooie. A., 45 Coaer, L. A,, 8, 20. 79, 116-19 passim, 122-27passim, 129,130-31,133,137,

183,218 Cotrrell, L. S.. 181 Cromwcll, R. E.. 192 Croog, S . H., 104 Cuhei, J . F., 9,21,127,128 Cuifis, I. A , , 40 Dahrendorf, R., 20, 170,218 Dashefsky, A , , 77,78 Davis. A.I.. 88 Davis, K. E.. 138.147-48.151 Drasy, L.C.. 253 Deniin, N. K.. 139-40 Diuon. W.J., 62 Dohienwend, R. P., 95 Dolizrd, J. C . , 111,112 Durkhrim, E., 57 Edelheitz, H.,46 Emhree, j . F.. 41 Epsiein, S . , 141 Eiikson, I

The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence

Social Causes of Psychological Distress (Social Institutions and Social Change)

The Book of causes

Football, Violence and Social Identity

The Echo of Violence

The Anatomy of Violence

The Creed of Violence

The Meanings of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Creed of Violence

The Creed of Violence

Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences

The Creed of Violence

The Violence of Love

The Creed of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

On the causes of war

The Echo of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Creed of Violence

The Creed of Violence

The Spaces of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

Violence in Mental Health Settings: Causes, Consequences, Management

Causes of Exclusion

Causes of War

Causes Of Discontent

Causes of War

Causes Of Climate Change

Causes of War

The Social Causes of Husband-Wife Violence

Social Causes of Psychological Distress (Social Institutions and Social Change)

The Book of causes

Football, Violence and Social Identity

The Echo of Violence

The Anatomy of Violence

The Creed of Violence

The Meanings of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Creed of Violence

The Creed of Violence

Mass Imprisonment: Social Causes and Consequences

The Creed of Violence

The Violence of Love

The Creed of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

On the causes of war

The Echo of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Keeper of Lost Causes

The Creed of Violence

The Creed of Violence

The Spaces of Violence

The Keeper of Lost Causes

Violence in Mental Health Settings: Causes, Consequences, Management

Causes of Exclusion

Causes of War

Causes Of Discontent

Causes of War

Causes Of Climate Change

Causes of War

Recommend Documents