Domestic Violence in Iran

Women, Marriage and Islam

Zahra Tizro

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2013
• eBook ISBN: 9781136623011
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Social Sciences
• Subtopic: Gender Studies
• Index: Social Sciences

This book offers a new methodological and theoretical approach to the highly sensitive and complicated issue of violence against women in contemporary Iran. Challenging the widespread notion that secularisation and modernisation are the keys to emancipating women, the author instead posits that domestic violence is deeply rooted in society and situated in the fundament of current discourses.

Investigating how orthodox jurisprudence as mainstream discourse, together with social, legal and public norms, help to perpetuate the production and reproduction of physical, psychological, sexual and economical violence against women, the author presents and reflects upon narratives, experiences and the social realities accounting for domestic violence against women. Drawing on qualitative empirical research, she theorises that the notion of secularization and modernisation helping to overcome such violence is to some extent represented by Islamic feminism, secular feminism, and religious intellectualism, all of which are methodologically examined in the analysis.

Challenging conventional wisdom regarding women's place in Iran and in wider Islamic society, this book offers a new insight into violence against Muslim women and as such will be an important addition to the existing literature in the areas of gender studies, Middle Eastern and Islamic studies, and Iranian studies.

1

Theories regarding the roots of
violence against women

The main focus of this chapter is to provide a review of the literature on the set of factors involved in restricting, increasing, or moderating violence against women. First, a brief outline of the definitions and terminology of domestic violence will be given. An attempt will be made to apply an interdisciplinary approach in viewing violence against women, due to the interplay of a complex configuration of factors involved in producing, perpetuating, and limiting violence. The discussion will be further developed by analysing some of the studies conducted in relation to domestic violence against women in Iran. The chapter will end with a summary.

Definitions and terminology of domestic violence

The term violence has usually been applied in a broad sense, covering a wide range of behaviours such as verbal abuse, physical harassment, intimidation, rape, sexual assault and homicide, and according to British Medical Association “it may be constant or spasmodic, and is experienced by “individuals from every class, race, religion and culture the world over” (cited in Shipway, 2004: 2). The term “domestic”, as Harne and Radford (2008) point out, indicates the “relational” nature of violence rather than the location where violence occurs. Although adopting an inclusive and broad approach towards violence may have some advantages, a narrower and more differentiated definition of domestic violence can increase the clarity regarding the nature and context of a particular form of violence. It may be difficult, however, to generalise it across a much broader spectrum of violent acts and behaviours.

Nevertheless, in order to theorise and conduct a research project on domestic violence, it is necessary to obtain a definition of the term that can shed light on what counts as violence and to whom it might apply. Since identifying the definitions and terminology regarding domestic violence and its application in Iranian society is the aim of this part of the study, the emphasis is on violence in heterosexual relationships. Although the term is widely recognised throughout the world, its interpretation and application may vary enormously. Based on the findings reported by the World Health Organisation (World Health Organisation, 2005b), women who suffer from physical and sexual violence also experience multiple acts of violence over time. However, a large number of definitions do not recognise psychological or emotional abuse or financial deprivation as domestic violence. As Shipway points out:

the reality is that injuries may well be hidden and the damage virtually undetectable to the naked eyes. Growing evidence confirms that countless women live their lives in constant fear and degradation, suffering from severe psychological and emotional abuse perhaps without the accompanying broken bones and bruises ... [i]t is this type of abuse which may lead to mental illness and attempts at self-harm including suicide attempts, and may never present in physical injury.

(Shipway, 2004: 3)

Regarding the wide disparity in understanding, it is necessary to give an explicit (working) definition of such a broad term as domestic violence. As the focus of this book is on violence in intimate relationships (between a man and a woman), I found the spectrum of abusive behaviours covered by the Home Office the most relevant one:

Any violence between current and former partners in an intimate relationship, wherever and whenever the violence occurs. The violence may include physical, sexual, emotional and financial abuse.

(Home Office, 2003: 6)

This definition recognises different types of violence, such as emotional, economic, and sexual, along with physical violence in adult relationships. However, the term “intimate partner relationship” does not make explicit that women are the victims. Therefore, for the purpose of this study I use this term to refer to female victims of violence.

In the following sections there will be an attempt to explain the involvement of psychological, biological and social factors in the emergence of violence.

Different approaches towards violence

In trying to understand different approaches towards violence in general, and domestic violence in particular, it is valuable to explore and highlight the potential and the limits of various disciplinary approaches towards the topic of violence (its causes, continuation and elimination). Expanding boundaries of knowledge through cross-fertilisation demands contributions from the disciplines of sociology, anthropology, social policy, evolutionary psychology and criminology, which can increase the current theoretical knowledge of violent acts generally, and violence against women in particular (Dobash and Dobash, 1998). For instance, sociological, anthropological and socio-political theoriesput emphasis on the cultural, structural inequalities and institutional factors in trying to explain how societies support or tolerate violent behaviours, whereas psychologists have focused on the individual and interpersonal relationships (Barnish, 2004).

Evolutionary psychologists mostly put emphasis on underlying biological and psychological factors to explain the roots and causes of violence (Wilson, Daly and Daniele, 1995). This model sheds light on violence by trying to explain why men use violence in their intimate relationships, why they tend to control women sexually and why they feel insecure and afraid of losing their power. Evolutionary psychology attempts to trace the origins of violent behaviour in males by pointing to the predominant violent tendencies in human male ancestors, whose activities were mostly based on male-male competition in aggressive acts such as as hunting and warfare, in circumstances where obtaining access to females, land and food required coercive and forceful strategies like threats and assault (Crawford and Symons, 2001). In criticisms directed at these views it has been argued that evolutionary psychology does not indicate why women are so much more passive in their relationships with men and accept their coercion and domination. Moreover, this interpretation is not able to explain the effectiveness in pre-modern social situations of such coercive acts on females’ behaviour as victims, due to the lack of empirical evidence (Crawford and Symons, 2001; Wilson et al., 1995).

Meanwhile, environmental contingencies play an important role in guiding behaviour, in the learning theories. As Bandura (1973: 113) points out, “humannature is characterized as a vast potentiality that can be fashioned by social influences into a variety of forms”. The importance of learning from role models such as parents, siblings, teachers, media personalities and so on is one of the assumptions of Bandura’s theory, which was called observational learning. For example, children can learn emotional behaviour, such as aggression, through observing others in their environment acting aggressively. In some studies it was found that aggressive adolescent boys had experienced more physical aggression than less aggressive boys, who tended to live in nonaggressive environments (Bandura and Walters, 1963). Based on this theory, observing role models and the consequences of their actions can provide us with useful information. Bandura and Rosenthal(1966) proposed that by observing someone else’s experience – for example, an unpleasant outcome as a result of an action – classical conditioning effects in the form of vicarious reinforcement or punishment could be induced in the observer. It is important, however, to note that Bandura’s explanation of social experiences has different applications in different societies; for instance in the West the role of peer groups is considered to be more important than in Eastern societies, such as Iran, where family relations still play a major role in shaping children’s social behaviour.

On the other hand, in emphasising the role of the environment in regulating and evaluating behaviour and emotions, as a consequence of the mechanism of reward and punishment, learning theories do not address the role of ‘self’ in regulating hostile behaviour. These theories cannot explain why some children do not go onto perpetrate violence despite being exposed to it. Meanwhile, there are abusers who did not experience any exposure to family violence (Cunningham et al., 2004). The self can monitor whether a person’s behaviours tend in the direction of societal and adopted standards. Individuals can practise some degree of control over events that affect their lives, through their perceptions of self efficacy. This sense of self-efficacy can influence a person’s responses to perceptions of discrepancy between his or her own behaviours and those of a model (Bandura, 1986).

Sociological analyses of male violence emerged in the 1970s, in particular with Amir’s (1971) theory of victim precipitation in rape. Family sociologists’ work on domestic violence contributed to this literature through attempts to explain male violence that gave more weight to social factors than to individual psychopathology. These works have been criticised, not only for undermining the central role of sex and gender in all male–female relationships and their association with the incidence of violence, but also for disregarding the power structure of gender relations and sexual politics (Clark and Lewis, 1977; Smart, 1976; Dobash and Dobash, 1977, 1978). On women’s oppression, earlier feminists thinkers like de Beauvoir (1949) tend to disregard biological or any innate physical and psychological differences between males and females, as in their view these biological factors are emphasised as a result of patriarchal ideology. These feminists believe that the source of male sexuality is a social construction, rather than determined by biology. As Jackson points out: “the way sexuality is experienced and acted out is socially scripted” (1978: 20). Social institutions, such as political, social, economic and ideological structures, are responsible for defining, shaping, and constraining concepts such as masculinity and femininity, and for creating a hierarchical society where gender stratification is fundamental. The interrelationship between power, violence and sexuality has always been recognised in feminist analyses of male domination, in which it is believed that patriarchal relations were formed through sexuality and, in turn, sexuality is constructed through gender (Coveney et al., 1984; MacKinnon, 1989). In patriarchal relationships between men and women, especially between husbands and wives, it is believed that men have the right to dominate and control, as women, by their nature, are subordinate to men. This relationship is regarded as natural and sacred; and consequently the husbands’ abusive behaviours are deemed inevitable (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). For instance, in the Islamic society of Iran this view is very popular in philosophical debates (Motahari, 2001; Amoli, 2000), and Islamic laws consequently put unlimited power into the hands of the husband, as the head of a household (this will be discussed extensively later on).

According to feminist theories, the subordination of women is explicitly established in institutional and patriarchal practices and is supported by some of the most prominent religious, political, legal and literary figures. Thus, patriarchy encompasses issues to do with cultural values, the public–private divide and sexuality, as well as more obvious gendered concerns. Constituted by, and in turn constituting, social interactions, processes and relations, patriarchy benefits men. It “advantages” them (Dowding, 1996), and facilitates the exercise of power in different ways. Using violence in different forms (sexual, economical, physical) against women, feminists argue, might be a way of maintaining and securing the relations of male dominance and female subordination in a patriarchal social order (Hanmer and Maynard, 1987; Eisikovits and Edleson, 1989; Hamberger and Hastings, 1993; Cunningham et al., 1998; Healey et al., 1998; Mauricio and Gormley, 2001). The interaction between patriarchy and other forms of power structures, such as class, age, race and social status, feminists recognise, can form women’s experiences of violence as well as the reactions of other institutions, like the police and policy makers (Hanmer and Maynard, 1987).

Using the analysis of gender relations (instead of class relations), violence is considered to be a “gendered phenomenon within the context of patriarchal social relations” (Hester et al., 1996: 4), in which men’s and women’s relationships to patriarchy are constructed through a series of historically emergent narrations between gender and other social practices. As Hester states, “the way violence is used and acted out in relationships, encounters and institutions is specifically gendered and constructed by, as well as a reflection of, the power relations which constitutes hetero-patriarchy” (Hester et al., 1996: 4).

Although the role of stressors on marital violence, such as poverty, a low level of education and a large number of children, are well recognised (Jewkes, 2002, Martin et al., 1999), recent feminist work on male violence against women considered force and violence as the main factors in maintaining male power over women. They have argued convincingly that male violence against women is not an indication of loss of control but rather a means of establishing control (Hanmer and Maynard, 1987; Horsfall 1991; Yllo, 1993). Being a universal phenomenon, masculinity, and male power, can be shaped and lived within a cultural context, having commonly recognised features across the world. Violence might be intentional, functional and patterned, rather than impulsive, irresistible and unplanned (Keline, 1998; Baumeister, 1999). Accordingly, violence can be seen as socially enacted and constructed; it emerges in the way we relate to the other, so it does not reside in our soul. In researching the fundamental roots of violence, it is widely believed that a number of factors may influence well intentional people to commit violent behaviour (Baumeister, 1999). One of these factors is the desire for material gain, such as money or power, which is called instrumental violence. In this case violence seems to be an effective tool for creating and sustaining power relationships in the long run (Baumeister, 1999).

The prevalence of the root causes of violence in time and space would suggest that it be even more widespread and common than it is. The reason why violence is not as common as it might be is that violent impulses are typically restrained by personal inhibitions; people exercise self-control to avoid lashing out at others every time they feel like it. The question is, why do some lose their self-control? Is it true that violence happens as a result of impulses and the loss of control? If violence is just an impulse, how do people know when to stop and where to use it? For example, violent men do not show their anger in front of police or authorities, according to Dobash and Dobash (1998). Self-control may fail for a number of reasons: because self-control has not been sufficiently developed by a person’s upbringing and socialisation; because capacity for self-control is decreased by stress; because emotional upset can make a person cease to care; or because culture condones the loss of self-control as appropriate under some circumstances (Church, 2000; Markus and Kitayama, 1991).¹

Consistent with these views, social psychologists also argue that violence and aggression may be understood as coercive processes that reflect an aggressor’s deliberate decision, by using force against a victim and making the decision to punish the victim for perceived transgressions or to retaliate against perceived wrongdoings. The approaches of feminists and social psychologists highlight the fact that the use of force in relation to violence and conflict in the family is a matter of choice, within a person’s control, rather than being an impulsive reaction originating from loss of control, and that the aggressor’s interpretations of the events in the family may lead him to use force and punishment against his partner.

Meanwhile, the role of the social construction of sexuality and heterosexuality and their relationship to violence has been recognised by some contemporary feminists (Hanmer and Maynard, 1987). According to these feminists, the forms and functions of male sexuality, such as rape, sexual harassment, physical assaults and so on, in the social control of women, represent the male attitude towards women as inferior members of society. Additionally, the way sexuality is constructed is a way of securing and maintaining the relations of male dominance and female subordination, which are central to the patriarchal social order. (These arguments in relation to Iranian women will be extensively addressed in the following chapter.) These feminists argue that patriarchy is crossed through and interacts with other power structures, namely those of race, class, age and status regarding disability. Violence in such societies plays a big role in the social control of women, both by men and social institutions dominated by men (Hanmer and Maynard, 1987), shaping women’s experience of sexual and physical violence and the response of the police and others. It is through challenging the patriarchal order, by increasing women’s autonomy, that men’s violence must be confronted (Dobash and Dobash, 1998).

Contemporary feminist theory tends to explain male power over women by pointing to social and cultural factors in shaping female sexuality as the fundamental factor. Marxist feminists have touched upon the role of ideological notions in forming gender relations and both men’s and women’s sexuality (in Rich, 1980; Barrett, 1980). Such ideas about femininity, masculinity, motherhood, monogamy and other related characteristics springing from these concepts are enforced by social institutions and practices, such as marriage and family, law (judicial) and state legislation, divorce and economic systems. These, in turn, reinforce men’s economic, social and political power over women and women’s dependence, and establish their submissive and docile positions in a patriarchal society (Smart, 1984, 1982). The traditional roles of the man as the rule maker at home and the female submitting to his power still exist in today’s marital relationships (Shipway, 2004). Similarly, in Iranian society men are believed to be the heads of the family and women are supposed to respect that supremacy and authority (see Chapter 2 of this book).

Environmental contingencies: modernisation, social change and the prevalence of violence

The question remains: why, despite the availability of legitimised and formal sources of prevention of violence in society (mostly in Western societies), do men still use violence in their relations with women? The twentieth century offered human rights and equality to women. The participation of women in social and political affairs enabled them to have some rights, such as the right to vote, work and so on across society. Nevertheless, women’s situation has not been drastically improved, due to an actual disregard for their rights and needs as individuals. The structures of dominance and submission (Rich 1980) can be viewed through the conceptualisation of female sexuality. Women, as de Beauvoir observed, are viewed as The Second Sex (1949) and as “. . . somehow more biological, more corporeal, and more natural than men” (Grosz, 1994: 14). Viewing women as less rational and more natural (the duality between body and soul, female and male)leads to this conclusion that women and their sexualities need to be disciplined and controlled. For instance, rape, as Brownmiller has pointed out, is an ideologywhich is “fuelled by cultural values and is not an act of sexual gratification but an exercise in power and intimidation made possible by anatomica...

Table of contents

• Front cover
• Domestic Violence in Iran
• Title Page
• Copyright
• Dedication
• Contents
• List of illustrations
• Acknowledgements
• Introduction
• 1 Theories regarding the roots of violence against women
• 2 Power, knowledge and subjectivity in relation to domestic violence against women in Iran
• 3 Methodology
• 4 Sanction and sanctuary: the judicial system in Iran and its role in relation to domestic violence against women
• 5 Women’s experiences, perceptions and understanding of domestic violence
• 6 Men’s perceptions and understanding of domestic violence
• 7 Conclusion
• Appendices
• Glossary
• Notes
• Bibliography
• Index