The Gender Politics of Domestic Violence

Feminists Engaging the State in Central and Eastern Europe

Andrea Krizsán, Conny Roggeband

• Publisher: Taylor & Francis
• Year: 2017
• Print ISBN: 9781138667327
• eBook ISBN: 9781317212485
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Politics & International Relations
• Subtopic: Public Policy
• Index: Politics & International Relations

What are the factors that shape domestic violence policy change and how are variable gendered meanings produced in these policies? How and when can feminists influence policy making? What conditions and policy mechanisms lead to progressive change and which ones block it or lead to reversal?

The Gender Politics of Domestic Violence analyzes the emergence of gender equality sensitive domestic violence policy reforms in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE). Tracing policy developments in Eastern Europe from the beginning of 2000s, when domestic violence first emerged on policy agendas, until 2015, Andrea Krizsán and Conny Roggeband look into the contestation that takes place between women's movements, states and actors opposing gender equality to explain the differences in gender equality sensitive policy outputs across the region.

They point to regionally specific patterns of feminist engagement with the state in which coalition-building between women's organizations and establishing alliances with different state actors were critical for achieving gendered policy progress. In addition, they demonstrate how discursive contexts shaped by democratization frames and opposition to gender equality, led to differences in the politicization of gender equality, making gender friendly reforms more feasible in some countries than others.

1 Introduction

The Gender Politics of Domestic Violence Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe

Placing violence against women on the global human rights agenda is one of the most impressive successes of the international women’s rights movement over the last three decades. While violence against women was not an integral part of recognized women’s rights at the 1979 adoption of the United Nations Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), by now it is a core element, with most governments around the world adopting measures to address the problem. Domestic violence is a core issue within the broader agenda of violence against women. It is the issue that has elicited the most policy responses across the globe.

At first sight, domestic violence policy emerges as a field of important progress for women’s rights in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE) as well. By 2015, the overwhelming majority of countries in the region that are also currently members of the European Union (EU) had adopted specific laws addressing domestic violence.¹ Additionally, national policies and various implementation mechanisms were put in place to prevent and respond to domestic violence. However, differences between these countries are pronounced, in terms of whether these policies respond to the needs of women victims, and address the link between domestic violence and gender inequality. Some policy outputs are more favorable to women victims and more conducive to gender equality, while others are less so. Despite the common historical legacy of half a century of state socialism and recent democratization, and the fact that these policies developed in the context of international, and more specifically European influence, remarkable regional variations in domestic violence policies emerge.

Twenty-five years after the collapse of the Berlin wall and a decade after gaining EU membership, domestic violence policy regimes in CEE countries are characterized by differences rather than similarity. The extent to which policies in the different countries pursue gender transformation objectives seems to be strongly influenced by domestic contexts and policy processes, rather than regional homogeneity, historical path dependencies, or supranational conditionality. In each country, the politics of domestic violence unfolds in very different ways depending on the strength and strategies of domestic women’s movement mobilization, the given state’s openness, favorable or opposing political and discursive opportunity structures, and the quality of involvement by international, intergovernmental, and transnational actors.

The objective of this book is to understand the politics of domestic violence, and the ways in which this promotes or hinders domestic violence policy responses that are favorable to gender equality and women’s rights in five countries of CEE. To understand the diversity in gendering or degendering domestic violence policy responses, and to unpack the stories of success or failure of women’s rights activists in advocating domestic violence policy reform, we propose a discursive institutionalist approach. By doing so, we contribute to different bodies of literature: the politics of human rights and within that violence against women; comparative literature on gender and politics; and interpretive policy analysis.

Domestic Violence and Gender Equality

The politics of domestic violence is a valuable topic of inquiry for a series of reasons. To begin with, domestic violence policy debates are compelling from a human rights perspective: the promotion of state intervention against domestic violence challenges two sets of widely accepted social norms, both of which were unconditionally supported in most European societies until a few decades ago.

First, intervention in domestic violence challenges traditional ideas about privacy in the family, and the principle of non-interference in the family realm. In claiming that violence within the family and intimate partnerships is a crime equivalent to violence in the public sphere, the sharp distinction between public and private is challenged. This conflicts with traditional notions of human rights intervention, according to which violence is public, and the source of violence is largely the state. Addressing domestic violence thus implies a revision of traditional meanings of privacy in the family, and projects a transformative role for the state.

Second, promoting domestic violence interventions undermines traditional gendered hierarchies and patterns of domination within families. This challenge comes from making a link between violence committed by more powerful family members (mostly men), against weaker ones (mostly women and children), and traditional family roles and structural inequality patterns between women and men. Women’s rights advocates see domestic violence as both a cause and a consequence of gender inequality. Patterns of coercive control typical of domestic violence (Stark, 2007) are manifestations of social stereotypes about women’s subordination in the family. Addressing domestic violence along these lines indicates the need for a state-driven project of social transformation (Koppelman, 1996).

Domestic violence not only challenges, but also resonates with mainstream human rights agendas. In fact, it is perhaps the gender equality policy issue that has the highest mainstreaming potential. Domestic violence can easily be interpreted as a violation of fundamental human rights values, such as an assault on bodily integrity, as well as violation of autonomy, dignity, or even liberty. Compared to other gender equality fields, this resonance may indicate the potential for faster policy progress (Htun & Weldon, 2012; Keck & Sikkink, 1998; Mazur, 2002; Waylen, 2007). Yet at the same time, resonance with mainstream human rights may also open up the potential for co-optation, which results in sidelining the gender inequality component of domestic violence (Kelly, 2005). The delicate balance between linking up with mainstream human rights values, without abandoning the centrality of the gender transformative project, makes the politics of domestic violence a compelling field of contestation. This is especially so in the CEE context, where women’s rights are often seen as challenging the universal nature of human rights, an ideal so hard-fought for under state socialism.

Finally, domestic violence in public policy terms is not only addressed as a gender equality issue, but is also seen as central for family policy. In this context, domestic violence is linked to ideas about deviance and anomaly in the family, and its meaning is not limited to the gender inequality dynamics of violence, but includes all aspects of violence and conflict within the family, including child abuse and elder abuse (Miller & Knudsen, 1999). Following the CEE transition to democracy, ideas about the traditional family took center stage (Gal & Kligman, 2000). Retraditionalization in these societies made the link between domestic violence and family policy critical, despite the agenda-setting efforts of women’s rights groups. The centrality of family protection arguments thus brought a further element of contestation to gender equality meanings of domestic violence.

This makes the politics of domestic violence in CEE a fascinating and complex arena of gender equality politics, in which contestation and co-optation of gender equality meanings emerge, and where factors enabling progressive policy change can be investigated. Given our focus on an issue of gender equality politics that intersects with several mainstream policy fields, combined with a focus on a region of Europe that is less explored, this book will deliver new insights for comparative gender and politics literature. In this book, we address how differences in democratization processes, and the different ways that women’s movements were situated in these, shaped the politics of domestic violence as a gender equality issue. In this way, we contribute to the ongoing discussion about the relation between democratization and women’s political rights and participation (Moghadam, 2013; Viterna & Fallon, 2008; Waylen, 2007).

The Discursive Politics of Domestic Violence

The recognition of domestic violence as a public matter and policy issue throughout the region presents its own dangers. The concept of domestic violence has become a widely used and accepted term to refer to violence in the sphere of intimate relationships, despite its analytical shortcomings. Not all “domestic” violence occurs in the home or between those sharing a home. The word domestic, and its association with home and privacy, together with an apparent ungenderedness, is inadequate to address the extent and nature of the problem (Hearn & McKie, 2009).

Beneath the apparent conceptual coherence of the concept, large differences exist between ways in which the issue is framed. Multiple and competing interpretations coexist, also within women’s movements. Domestic violence is a malleable and contested concept, which makes domestic violence discourse a site where different actors struggle over competing meanings (Ferraro, 1996). Domestic violence may be defined from multiple standpoints, including those of the violated, the violator, those dealing with violence, or those who observe it (Hearn, 1998). The prominence given to one of these perspectives in the representation of the problem reflects the shifting nature of power (Hearn & McKie, 2009). Further, distinct representations often imply very different policy remedies, with a range of effects.

Across the region, we see different concepts circulate, sometimes used interchangeably (depending on the audience), but often, actors promote a preferred concept and contest or avoid others. The use of the term “domestic violence” (domashno nasilie) prevails in Bulgaria, although women’s rights groups sometimes use a qualified version: domestic violence against women, particularly when speaking to international audiences. In Croatia, a degendering of domestic violence is manifested in the terminology used in different documents. Thus, NGO and gender equality programmatic documents most frequently use “violence against women,” whereas domestic violence legislation consistently refers to “family violence” (nasilje u obitelji; Kajinić, 2015, p. 65) In Hungary, we see change over time in terminology. Feminist experts initially coined the term “wife beating” (feleségbántalmazás) in 1998 (Morvai, 1998), however, once on the policy agenda, it becomes “violence in the family” (családon belüli erőszak) during the 2000s, and this term is used both by the state and NGOs. Starting from 2008, NGOs start replacing family violence with “intimate partner violence” (párkapcsolati erőszak). Consequently, “partnership violence” (kapcsolati erőszak) is used in the 2013 Criminal Code. In Poland, terminology oscillates between “violence against women in the family” (przemoc wobec kobiet w rodzinie), violence in the family, and domestic violence (przemoc domowa; Gruziel, 2015). In Romania, policies initially used the terminology of “family violence” (violența în familie), with more recent policy documents specifying that it is a form of violence against women, while women’s rights groups used the terms “violence against women” and “domestic violence” all along.

Different meanings are attached to each of these concepts, and even the content of similar concepts may vary. It is therefore important to look beyond the labels used by different actors, and examine how the problem is interpreted when brought into the realm of policy making: what is represented as the problem, and what are regarded as causes, consequences, and solutions to the problem? We are particularly interested to see what happens to the concept of domestic violence in policy processes, and to identify the conceptual disputes between the different actors engaged in these processes. We analyze policy debates to unravel the diverse and often shifting meanings of domestic violence as a policy problem, and how these shape policy solutions. We adopt an interpretive approach to analyze the ways policy problems are constructed within policy processes (Bacchi, 1999). Scholars in this tradition have emphasized the processes of meaning construction in understanding policy change (Lombardo & Forest, 2012; Lombardo, Meier, & Verloo, 2009; Verloo, 2007), and argued that the role of ideas is as important as the role of actors in understanding policy change (Bacchi, 1999; Hajer, 1995; Schön & Rein, 1994). Policy scholars also examine the processes through which ideas, discourses, and ideologies may influence policy reforms, and the ways in which culturally given categories and ways of thinking inform policy outcomes (Allison, 1971; Baumgartner & Jones, 1993; Rochefort & Cobb, 1994; Schneider & Ingram, 1993; Schön & Rein, 1994).

A discursive approach allows us to explore the different meanings of domestic violence in policy debates across space and time, and to account for the variation of meanings used in adopted policies, but also to understand policy processes that lead to such specific adopted meanings in our case studies.

Understanding Domestic Violence Policy Responses

The adoption of domestic violence policies is a fundamental step towards greater gender equality, but the precise gender equality content of these policies in the five countries is sometimes difficult to gauge. This is because domestic violence laws and policies are rarely explicit about their gender equality objectives. Overwhelmingly, domestic violence regulations are degendered, and more sensitive understandings and measurements are required to assess the gender equality potential of the adopted legislative and policy frameworks.

In the literature, domestic violence policy outputs are measured and compared in various ways. There is significant variation in the scope and capacity of these measurements to capture how well policies serve the interests of women domestic violence victims and promote gender equality. Generally, evaluations focus primarily on policy measures, such as the adoption of laws and policy plans, but also on the availability of shelters, awareness raising campaigns, training for relevant providers, and provision of funding. Htun and Weldon (2012) use a ten-point scale to assess government responsiveness to violence against women. Their scale includes services for victims, legal reforms, coverage of vulnerable populations, training of professionals, prevention programs, and maintaining a specialized agency for coordinating activities (Htun & Weldon, 2012, pp. 550–551). Their focus is on the multifaceted nature of intervention, including prevention, protection, and prosecution, together with the need for coordination. Johnson and Brunell’s (2006, p. 577) scale for measuring state responsiveness to domestic violence revolves around somewhat similar criteria, including the criminalization of domestic violence and marital rape, the existence of specific domestic violence legislation (including victim protection restraining orders), publicly-funded awareness raising, training for police, specialized public entities, and publicly-funded shelters for victims. The main advantage of these output-oriented ways of measuring state response is that they facilitate cross-national comparison. A government that addresses more areas is evaluated as more responsive than one that has taken measures in fewer areas, because the scope of the response is broader.

The implicit logic behind this set of indicators appears to be that states that address all areas have a “woman-friendly” or gendered policy approach; nevertheless, the question arises whether this is necessarily the case (Roggeband, 2012). Policy responses, even when they appear similar on the surface, “may turn out to be quite different from each other in intent as well as in practice” (Levin & Young, 2000, p. 190), depending on how the underlying policy problem is defined. Research has shown how policy debates on the issue often reflect the normative underpinning of domestic violence. While there is a strong consensus in contemporary European countries that domestic violence is a problem that needs to be addressed through public policies, the underlying gender inequality dynamics are often contested or ignored (Krizsán et al., 2007). Importantly, the normative elements of the definitions underlying policies will have implications for the actions they prescribe (Bacchi, 1999). We contend that certain aspects, which are crucial for capturing how well adopted policies resonate with women’s rights and gender equality, remain neglected by such output-oriented approaches.

Existing measurements of state responsiveness have two limitations. First, they do not capture the extent to which the policies’ framing, and the meanings of domestic violence articulated therein, relate the problem and its solutions to an understanding of gender inequality and women’s rights. While training, awareness raising, and protection services are important measures, how exactly such programs and services define the policy problem will be fundamental to whether they resonate with the interests of women victims. Policies and laws often ignore the gendered roots of domestic violence, while interventions do not tackle gendered inequalities or promote the rights of women victims. It is the framing of policies and interventions that ultimately defines whether they are beneficial for victims or not, whether they treat only the symptoms, or also address the roots of the problem. States may have a variety of rationales for adopting domestic violence policies, but differences emerge in the various meanings of each adopted policy, in how those meanings translate into implementation processes, and in the extent to which such meanings are inclusive of gender inequality. Therefore, in our analysis, we move beyond previous comparative violence policy research that measures policy success primarily in terms of policy (and adjacent program) adoption. We assess domestic violence policy outputs from a gender equality perspective that extends beyond mere acts of adoption by disentangling how gender equality is framed by those policies.

Second, another weakness of output-oriented measures is their silence on whether domestic violence policy processes are inclusive, and whether women’s rights advocates are involved in policy processes past the agenda-setting phase. State intervention without meaningful involvement by women’s rights advocates may lead to policies that are not in line with feminist objectives and demands (Johnson & Brunell, 2006). One inherent danger that has often been raised is the co-optation of gender equality objectives in domestic violence policies, when autonomous women’s rights activists engage with the state, and partner with state actors (Bumiller, 2008; Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Matthews, 1994; Merry, 2009). The key to securing against co-optation, and realizing transformative gender equality objectives, is to gender policy processes by giving gender equality advocates a role in them (Johnson & Brunell, 2006; Martin, 2007).

To overcome these limitations, we adopt an alternative, two-pronged measure based on gender and politics literature, to assess the gendering of policies on two levels: 1) policy content; and 2) policy making and implementation processes. In the context of abortion debates, Ferree and Gamson (2003) differentiate between two aspects of women’s empowerment: autonomy and authority. The first aspect refers to framing policies in ways that promote women’s autonomy, operationalized as the governance of gender, while the second, operationalized as the gender of governance, refers to the participation of women with public authority and standing on issues of concern to them. Similarly, McBride and Mazur (2010) also point out the desirability of dual responses, characterized by both a policy content that falls along the lines of women’s movement framing, and an inclusive policy subsystem integrating women’s movement actors (McBride & Mazur, 2010, p. 19).

Based on this approach, in our analysis we assess the quality of domestic violence policy responses using a dual conceptual framework, in which the first element is substantive and focuses on the framing of policy content, and the second is procedural and focuses on empowerment through inclusive policy processes. Inclusion of women’s organizations in policy processes takes place if their opinions are considered, and they are supported by the state to participate in the process, that is, if co-governance emerges (Fung, 2006). We argue that it is the combination of gendering policy frames and inclusive policy processes which secures gender equality sensitive outcomes (McBride & Mazur, 2010).

Rather than assessing single laws or policy plans, we focus on policy regimes (May & Jochim, 2013). May and Jochim’s (2013) conceptualization of a policy regime consists of three central elements. First, regimes are held together and guided by a set of ideas. We argue that the concept of framing is useful here to analyze which different ideas underpin policies, and to discover whether policy regimes contain multiple, sometimes contradictory, sets of ideas about domestic violence. Second, institutional arrangements refer to th...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Half Title
• Title Page
• Copyright Page
• Table of Contents
• List of tables
• Preface
• 1. Introduction: The Gender Politics of Domestic Violence Reforms in Central and Eastern Europe
• 2. Five Stories of Change
• 3. Mapping Gendered Meanings of Domestic Violence Legal and Policy Reforms: Comparing Policy Change Over Time
• 4. Politicizing Domestic Violence: Dynamics of Gendered Structures
• 5. Comparing Women’s Movements Across the Region
• 6. How Does Gender Disappear and Reappear in Domestic Violence Policy Regimes
• 7. Conclusions: Gendering Domestic Violence Policies
• Bibliography
• Index