Blog

The times they are a-changing?

Freshly back from the inaugural European Conference on Domestic Violence, held at Queens University, Belfast, in September 2015.

An open-mindedness

I was very struck by the range of presentations which took as read that we need to move beyond a simplistic power and control/patriarchal analysis of intimate partner and violence and abuse. I'm distinguishing between IPVA meaning the context of intimate relationships, and 'domestic violence and abuse' as referring to a wider gamut of abusive behaviours including elder abuse, abuse of parents by children and so on. Some of these are of course not exclusive since partner abuse will very often take place in the context of a (nuclear) family model.

There was a strong Scandanavian presence at the conference, and in my experience the Scandanavians – particularly Norway - are far more advanced than is the UK in terms of understanding and applying a therapeutically informed approach to criminal justice issues.  They certainly seem to lack our ‘Sun’ or ‘Daily Mail/Express’ moral outrage and scapegoating, and instead take a more rational and compassionate stance that is not so quick to label, blame and assign ‘evil’ as a signifier.

One of the opening plenary presentations by Marius Rakil, Executive Director of the Norwegian Alternatives to Violence project  was “How can we improve the quality and effectiveness of therapeutic work with perpetrators of domestic violence?” The fact that he spoke second, and work with men was so foregrounded, was noteworthy.

Other typical presentations had titles such as ‘Experiences of taking part in an attachment based intervention for families with intimate partner violence’ or ‘Mental illness and  perpetration of  dometsic violence’. I attended one on “Partner violence against men” and what was noticeable for a veteran in the field like me was the lack of argument from the audience against the possibility that there are more similarities than dissimilarities, or that to consider female abusiveness is somehow illegitimate and victim blaming.

A new freedom to discuss?

Discussing with a colleague who has also taken a gender inclusive and therapeutically informed perspective for a number of years, we both felt that there is a change in perspective happening, a shift in paradigm in the field underway. I've been feeling this for a couple of years, noticing  that when I used to present on gender inclusive data I would have people come up to me afterwards to say that they agreed with what I was saying and their experience did not reflect the mainstream power and control as dominat analysis – but they were not able to voice this in public.

Now it feels as if a more psychologically informed and therapeutically aware approach can raise its head. Thomas Kuhn talks about the structure of scientific revolutions where new thinking (such as gender inclusive research) challenges a dominant model (such as a straightforward power and control analysis). A ‘crisis’ occurs when the existing theory involves so many unsolved questions, or “anomalies,” that its explanatory ability is greatly reduced.

Kuhn argues that when a new solution (a new paradigm) eventually emerges the two paradigms are mutually conflicting, and a great deal of heat is generated, before the weight of  of evidence shifts to support the new understanding. This occurs even in science, where rationality and debate should rule, so it is no surprise it occurs in a field as political and emotionally laden as intimate partner violence and abuse.

Another way to think about this in social psychological terms. Mosocvici talks about social representations. This is where what once were minority or marginal ideas enter the mainstream. For example, Freudian thought was once an almost occult knowledge and certainly marginal; whereas now concepts like  ‘projection or repression’or penis envy are in everyday parlance. even if not entirely correctly used or understood, the point is that the representation of the mind or of psychology has changed.

A parallel with intimate partner violence and abuse may be that it was  only through feminist activism that the notion of male abuse of women as anything other than the natural order natural began to enter the discourse and came to be seen as abusive. In turn the patriarchal power and control analysis became the dominant orthodoxy, and, while descriptive of some aspects of the continuum, is in turn being replaced by a more nuanced and sophisticated way of understanding abusive behvaiours in intimate relationships.

Another positive point was a brief presentation about the formulation of the Working with Prepetrators European network. This is something with which I hope ignition will be involved, and again, seems to have a much greater openness to working in a  therapeutically and psychologically informed way.

In Scandanavia there has always been a high degree of involvement by psychologists and therapists with domestic  abuse and intimate partner violence and abuse. My strong sense is that historically this has not been the case in the UK, and that much discussion about work with abusive individuals has been dominated by workers who, while doing great work in other ways, have no therapeutic or psychological training or qualifications. This has perhaps led to a defensive dismissal of very relevant ideas.

Mirabal still troubling

I was pleased to attend Professor Liz Kelly’s presentation on results from the Project Mirabal, published earlier this year as it expanded on comments, some of which I had found very confusing or problematic, from the original report  (a copy is in the Resources section of the website). I was glad of this opportunity to clarify a few points, as I've been struggling to formulate my thoughts since publication.

One thing that was clarified and continues to trouble me is that as expressed by Professor Kelly, Respect (the agency originally established to represent practitioners in the field and with some involvement in the research) continues to claim that ‘Respect accredited programmes work’. This is an interesting claim, for reasons I hope to blog about further, but essentially because accreditation does not address programme content, delivery or methods in anything but the broadest brush strokes. The Mirabal report itself makes clear that Respect accreditation focuses on organisational systems.

Added to this, my experience as a founder member and former Vice Chair and Executive Committee member of Respect is that historically there has been a  corporate unwillingness to explore what may constitute effective practice outside of a very narrow focus (patriarchal, instrumental, power and control). I have found a very dismissive attitude towards gender inclusive research and  the psychologically and therapeutically informed perspectives discussed above, though this may now be changing.

As another colleague, a psychology  professor with a particlular  interest in ipva said, it might have been interesting to have more opportunity to discuss and explore differing perspectives (dare I say ideologies?) more openly. For instance, the phrase ‘gender based’ violence and abuse was  used frequently, but it would be interesting to explore the ‘based’ part of that phrase, and exactly what we mean by it.

But to return to the positive: it was great to be part of such a full conference programme where the zeitgeist seemed to support the more inclusive, holistic way of working I have been advocating for many years, and very refreshing not to have to ‘argue’ this, as I have had to do many times at the old Network Practioners Meetings (now defunct) in the UK. I look forward to the next conference in what I understand may be a bi-annual event, and hope that future blogs will pick up on other themes and presentations of interest.