(Most links within this article connect to the Facebook Domestic Violence Intervention and Education group, where I detailed most of the conference. I apologize in advance for the length of this article, the details and information are extensive so I tried to do them justice in brief, which for the content of a blog entry are not brief at all. I hope those who attended can use this to reflect on the presentations you witnessed, and maybe expand your learning beyond the conference itself. Those who did not attend - I hope you can see the content of a BISCMI conference and join us next time!)
Since 1994, the Batterer Intervention Services Coalition has been steadfast in bringing service providers from around the state of Michigan to discuss trends, challenges, and updates to work with domestic violence offenders. Initially, they had a plan to be one of fifty-one chapters throughout the United States with goals of organizing work within the field. While there have been several attempts since 1994 to make that vision a reality, currently BISC-MI is the only organization that brings together not only providers within Michigan, but people from throughout the nation and the world who are interested in improving interventions for abusers.
The 2016 conference marks BISC-MI's 21st conference, and the theme of "Reflecting Forward" created an organized approach to considering the history of domestic violence work, and using that history to build toward the future. One tactic involved removing breakout workshops, instead using a themed plenary approach to the structure. This move may have galvanized attendee's focus, but I am sure was a disappointment to those who found particular topics not in their interests. At the same time, it offered a challenge to all to be engaged even in those areas of discussion that do not hold personal interest - but may be important to reflect on, or expand on, for yourself or those we work with.
The first day began with a presentation by Jackson Katz, an author, researcher, and presenter on objectification issues in media, using a masculinitites lens to consider sexism and other oppressions involved in our cultural makeup. He has a style that is unique to him, and much of the information covered would be groundbreaking for those new to work to end domestic violence. He spoke of the need for a paradigm shift on talking about gender violence - namely putting the emphasis on perpetrators, or those responsible (giving the example we speak of teen pregnancy and focus on girls, but do not talk about boys impregnating girls). Also a concept that domestic violence is a "women's issue" and instead shifting thinking to it being very much a "men's issue."
More interesting to me in his talk was his addressing various cohorts of men in the movement, quoting work by Michael Messner on "Some Men." I would have liked Dr. Katz to spend more time speaking to media, as he often does, rather than detailing other's work - but overall his presentation created a foundation for the rest of the day.
There was a flow from Dr. Katz talking about the big picture, to me bringing forward the large gap in services that is very common in domestic violence work - technology use. I provided information on the history of social media use, and how domestic violence agencies need to think of the internet as a community that needs to be coordinated. Social services has historically struggled with technology use, and when analyzing Twitter discussions of domestic violence and related issues, almost all content is focused on victims/survivors, and when abusers are a focus, it is mainly to decry the impact they have on families, and villainize their behavior. This creates great opportunity for programs to communicate the value in guiding abusers toward respect and health, as well as to humanize work in domestic violence overall.
I always encourage people to contact me for any assistance or questions about setting up or using social media to address domestic violence intervention, and I believe that as we move forward we need to be more conscious of both having a presence online to offer referrals and information to victims/survivors, and to consider how we engage abusers in entering into programs.
The National Network to End Domestic Violence sent Rachel Gibson to speak to how abusers use technology to stalk, harass, and abuse their partners and families. NNEDV has been a pioneer in creating apps, videos, and tutorials on understanding security issues surrounding social media and technolgy, and Rachel did an excellent job giving an overview of several ways to be more aware of the risks.
An example she brought forward included the EXIF (exchangeable image file format) geolocation data that is stored on photos taken with cellular phones. If a user does not know how to turn off this feature, any picture posted to the internet has data that indicates location coordinates. However, she also cautioned that some of the more common ways abusers might stalk would be to simply ask (or manipulate) children for locations. Sometimes it seems that someone is using technology, when in actuality, it is something much more simple - and it is important for safety reasons to understand both potential leaks of information.
Bryan Victor, a PhD student from Wayne State University in Detroit, went into further detail on sexting and dating violence - expanding on some of the information presented by Rachel previously. The phenomenon of digital cameras installed on cellular phones has over the past 10+ years created opportunity for teens and youth to pressure for nude photos. While often these photographs are most often acquired through consent (albeit with manipulation and coercion involved), they can easily be shared to others, over social media, or to pornographic sites which can harm someone in several ways.
Often referred to as "revenge porn" where a perpetrator is intentionally sharing intimate images and/or videos with pornographic sites, there are efforts to instead re-frame the topic as "non-consensual image sharing" to better capture the broader scope of the use of someone's image in ways they do not want. This is a challenging topic on several levels, but with peer pressure and establishment of image and reputation being so valuable for teens, one site that can assist in discussing the topic with youth comes from the "That's Not Cool" dating violence intervention site.
Shifting the discussion from technology (both its opportunities and its potential dangers), Debby Tucker opened the conference to talking about trauma informed considerations for interventions, particularly within the military community. She discussed much of the history behind work to end domestic violence as a whole, and I personally enjoyed her bringing forward that we need to stop using Lenore Walker's "Cycle of Violence" model. There have been efforts to educate the domestic violence community about how this educational tool is outdated, oversimplified, and problematic for several reasons - but in many ways Walker's work helped to move the military to understand and respond to victims/survivors in real ways.
This is an important aspect I would like to spend a moment highlighting. I believe that we need to be aware of the fact that interventions in domestic violence are in their infancy. If you consider that most work began in the 1970s, and that legal/social responses did not become more prevalent until the mid-1990s, we have actively been working from frameworks that need to be analyzed and updated in order to move forward and evolve our work to increase safety and comfort for the victims and survivors we want to assist. These foundations have had important roles in our history, but we need to have the strength, courage, and fortitude to question ourselves and listen to those we serve (both victims/survivors and abusers).
Debby brought forward some differentiation between resistive, situational, pathological, antisocial, and battering violence - which could be a topic for an entire article all on its own, and is important to consider for all perpetrators of domestic violence. She highlighted some of the challenges within military responses to these varying kinds of violence and stressed the need to work to understand both the context and the intent behind violent behavior. This highlight is critical to working with military referrals who experience post traumatic brain disorder (PTSD) or traumatic brain injury (TBI).
Chris Huffine furthered the discussion of trauma informed care with abusers, and one of the first thing he worked to clarify is that trauma informed care is NOT trauma specific services. Working with domestic violence offenders is not therapy or a sort of counseling where a therapist is specifically working through trauma a patient experiences - domestic violence intervention (batterer intervention) when it is trauma informed, understands that abusers may have experiences which were traumatic for them, and by understanding that using that experience to generate both empathy for their partners, family, and themselves as well as understand the importance of self-care in being healthy and respectful.
The part of Chris' presentation I was most appreciative of was his inclusion of the concept of cultural humility - the concept that it is most important to understand your own culture as deeply as possible, and from that work to not make assumptions about other's cultural experiences and backgrounds. If we worked more diligently to be introspective and reflective of our own experiences as interventionists, counselors, and educators - we may have more ability to be motivational and guide abusers to respectful and healthy alternatives. This standpoint emphasizes being WITH others rather than trying to understand them. In the case of trauma informed care - that approach is necessary if you are going to work to move people to end abusive, controlling, and violent behavior. Not to be with them in a collusive manner - but to be with them enough to understand methods of guidance and support that will work as a part of that change process.
Oliver Williams finished the day by again stressing the value of trauma informed care. He named some specific ways abusers might be drawn in to traumatic experiences as children, including violence among family or friends, bullying, neighborhood or community violence, and gang related violence. Oliver brought forward that some of the impacts of trauma might be a development of inappropriate or hurtful coping mechanisms which may grow into violence, abuse, control, and harm toward others and toward self. He discussed one man's story by showing a video and challenging BIP/DVIP work to expand out understanding in ways to offer guidance toward healthy self-care, counseling, and separate work from BIP/DVIP that may be necessary for victims of trauma.
Later that evening, we had an AQUILA meeting, an organizing branch of BISC-MI that involves planning and outreach. Much of the meeting was spent explaining the purpose and goals of AQUILA, which involve a combination of trying to get more people to understand the purpose and philosophy of domestic violence intervention (batterer intervention), and to combat some of the push back that has been occurring over the past several years by various research organizations to discredit the historical and current work to end domestic violence. In part, some of the major challenge with AQUILA has been in communication and ongoing motivation and connection. As I am personally a part of the steering committee and outreach subcommittee, I can understand some of the scheduling and problems in navigating my own busyness and the need to be involved in the process.
However, we have some possible solutions. We have begun to recognize that a listserv model of discussion has been cumbersome, at best, and that there is a need to develop systems of interaction that are not necessarily tied to a specific meeting time (either in person or by phone). With that in mind, I will be working on developing a discussion forum which can both be a hub for the overall organization of AQUILA committees, but also a place for discussions to take place in various categories. Currently, I administer the Facebook group which has several discussions and links to content and resources (an extensive file section) which in part has and will continue to serve as a parallel support to this work. I hope you consider joining us as we move forward.
(For links to conference materials, please click this link. Next article continues this discussion by highlighting more of the BISC-MI 2016 conference on day two.)
Discussions and reflections on interventions for domestic violence perpetrators and related anti-oppression work.
Tuesday, November 8, 2016
Reflecting Forward at BISC-MI 2016 Conference (Day One)
Thursday, October 27, 2016
We Don't Care About Domestic Violence - Part Two
It feels “good” to care for domestic violence survivors; to
offer cell phones or other goods to shelters and programs; to donate money to
deserving organizations that do shelter, counseling, advocacy, and support for
victims of extreme harms. But there’s a reason why these victims take so long
to leave hurtful relationships, it has nothing to do with strength or weakness
and everything to do with our values.
We don’t value domestic violence programs or services. If we
consider our monetary focus as value, in the United States it’s simple to see
we value sports and entertainment to the tune of hundreds of billions of
dollars. When we ask domestic violence programs to constantly find government
grants or fundraise to survive tells us a lot about the lack of value we have
for these services, and in the issue as a whole. Workers in domestic violence
agencies get paid poorly, get little recognition or support, and many key
services are staffed by volunteers (and sometimes interns) with little
training.
History plays a big part in our apathy toward domestic
violence. It’s been a strong value for things in the home to stay in the home.
Sayings such as “a man’s house is his castle,” enforce ideas of patriarchy and
control on their own. The book, “Domestic Tyranny” by Elizabeth Pleck details
historical responses to domestic violence in the United States noting, “the
Puritans regarded outside intervention as disruptive, justifiable only to the extent that is restored family order.”
Yet this small community in colonial Massachusetts set out
to “reform the moral code” and address family violence in the mid-1600’s. They
did so through church-based courts. The practice ended in the early 1680’s when
Great Britain instituted colonial law.
Therefore, in some ways we cared about domestic violence in
the 1600’s - for about 40 years. Similarly, in the late 1800’s, the United
States had several “Societies for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children” which
worked to address family violence. This movement also lost momentum after 30-40
years. However, the care we showed in those years is similar to the care we
have today. We like to cover our asses within professional communities by
making sure we follow guidelines but don’t press much farther than that for
fear of stepping on too many toes.
It’s no small coincidence that law
enforcement communities only started to step up their response to domestic
violence after Tracey Thurman sued the Torrington, CT police department for
failing to protect her from her violent husband (and won a $2.3 million
judgment). We care about losing money, and it’s a great motivator for change.
But it is a strange place we find ourselves today regarding
how we address domestic violence. Funding, though minimal, exists for agencies
serving victims and survivors of domestic violence. Very little financial
support is provided for any work to guide change in domestic violence
offenders.
For much of society, abusers are seen as incapable of
change. It is easy to demonize their behavior by focusing on things like I mentioned
in Part One of this article: to maximize the external harms and minimize our
culpability in societal support for violence against women and children. Since
we do not believe domestic violence offenders are human beings, we don’t think
they can change - we certainly do not want to provide money to agencies and
programs to try and stop violence and abuse.
We’re a “lock ‘em up and throw away the key” sort of
country. Out of sight, out of mind – right?
Domestic violence intervention programs (aka batterer
intervention or other similar designations) are disorganized, poorly connected
to each other, often have superficial linkages to domestic violence counseling
and support agencies. We often use piecemeal models of intervention based more
on individual facilitator whim than concrete and effective tools and
educational lessons. We have very shoddy research on such programs, for the
most part, that investigate agencies and programs that use national models –
yet the national models themselves are not researched for effectiveness.
Then we have to consider what it even means to be effective
in domestic violence work: does it mean a victim/survivor gets out of an
abusive relationship and lives happily ever after? Does it mean an abuser
doesn’t get arrested again?
A radical notion about domestic violence is that it is not a
mental health issue, it is not a substance abuse issue – it is a BELIEF issue; an
ENTITLEMENT issue. One could even argue it is a SPIRITUAL issue involving an
individual’s values and meaning in life that sit in places of personal
advantage and superiority. How do you measure those things? By surveying people
using 1-5 Likert scales? That seems a poor method of capturing how someone sees
value and meaning in their relationship with their partner and children.
I suppose we could conduct more longitudinal studies that
survey victims/survivors (and perpetrators) over several years – but surprise!
There’s no money in that, very little funding, or very specifically directed
funding sources that target traditional research methods.
Maybe it is the fact that domestic violence is an
entitlement and belief system issue that keeps us from caring about ending it,
or preventing it, or talking about it in a useful manner. Many societal values
are superficial – they involve rituals and practices that put a high priority
on being happy at the expense of being human. The so-called “American Dream”
was about acquisition, after all, not about relationships of care, health, and
support.
Previously discussed, Pleck details in her book that
historical systems of policy intervention in family violence have lasted 30-40
years. Perhaps we are at the end of that timeline in current history. It seems
unlikely services for domestic violence victims and survivors will just end. It
seems increasingly likely they will stagnate and miss working within
communities to change societal beliefs.
It sadly appears there is little desire
to coordinate domestic violence intervention services for abusers as being a
critical part of ending domestic violence as a whole. We seem to be increasing
our ability to at least have the awkward and uncomfortable discussions about
oppression. Maybe we might start to see that intersectionality is a key to
understanding how to intervene in violence.
It is my hope we truly start to care about domestic violence.
Frequently, I say I like to think about how people in a hundred years will look
back at the work we do today. How will they will see the failures and successes
in our responses? It keeps me moving forward in this work despite the
disheartening avoidance of facing the issue in real and authentic ways.
Note: “Domestic Tyranny” by Elizabeth Pleck can be found at http://www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/87bwk5bk9780252029127.html
More information on “Thurman v. City of Torrington” can be
found at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thurman_v._City_of_Torrington
Wednesday, October 26, 2016
We Don't Care About Domestic Violence - Part One
What are the first images that come to mind when you hear
the term, “domestic violence”? Is it a woman with varying evidence of physical
assault upon her person? Bruises, cuts, broken bones?
What popular movies do you think about when hearing the
category of “domestic violence”? “Sleeping With the Enemy”? “Enough”? How about
music?
These questions can go on for some time about all sorts of
popular media and societal norms. The answers will invariably be the most
extreme behavior, the worst of the worst, violent and potentially lethal. But
why is this? Don’t we, on some level at least, realize domestic violence is
much broader, much bigger than just physical assault?
Often we don’t. And therein lies the biggest place where we
really do not care about domestic violence.
When we make things extreme, we do so to feel better about
ourselves, to feel “normal,” to avoid difficult questions, to create simple
solutions.
Our society, our culture doesn’t care about a lot of social issues.
We certainly don’t care much about racism, because racism is other people –
extremes and horrible examples of behavior that everyone can readily see and
hear. Instead of white people identifying ways that personal stereotypes about People of Color are hurtful and potentially oppressive, it’s easy to claim “reverse
racism” focus on other’s behavior and hold to one’s own sense of innocence (and
superiority).
We only think about people who are disabled when we see
handicapped spots in parking lots, or maybe accessibility ramps. But do we
think when we see such things, or do we just get used to them and therefore
feel uncomfortable when we see people struggling with their physical
surroundings? Maybe we think we should help, but do we really want to make the
effort? Do we think about mental health disabilities and the challenges people
face beyond externally visible physical ailments?
It is October 2016 – which means it is Domestic Violence
Awareness Month, and therefore a time we are socially obliged to have some sort
of passing concern about domestic violence (and breast cancer awareness since
October shares both issues as an awareness month). Have you seen purple ribbons
around, or heard of various domestic violence agencies doing fundraisers? Maybe
you have seen a special news bulletin or article talking about statistics. Perhaps
you have heard a survivor’s story of successfully getting out of a horribly
abusive relationship.
The problem is, as a society we like drama. We are caught up
in fantasy thinking based on images we have seen, movies we enjoy, things we
have heard from talking heads or from brief speeches on important issues. It is
a fantasy that domestic violence is about extremes.
I’m here to tell you as human beings, we all do things that
are hurtful and controlling to those we love. Domestic violence offenders,
often referred to as batterers or abusers, make choices that lead to
consequences for this behavior. It’s more about the level of harm, the pattern of
harm, the responses to harm that differentiate these (often) men from the rest
of our society.
Over nearly twenty years of facilitating and co-facilitating
group sessions for domestic and sexual offenders, I can count on one hand the
number of men I would consider to be sociopathic. The number increases if I
consider men who may not be physically assaultive, and instead are emotional
and psychological terrorists – but the number would not be much larger.
Most men I see make a series of choices that have negative
consequences on their families (and on themselves). Their choices may include
emotional harms like yelling and swearing, name calling, or just simple
alienation of affection. Over time, a buildup of self-centered behavior, and/or
controlling patterns lead to coercing a partner or child do things they do not
want to do. These men who choose abusive behavior may be keeping those same
family members from doing things they want to do.
In such cases, non-physical harms far exceed the physical
harms that victimize partners and children. Often the men I see have been
physically assaultive on one incident. It makes it much easier to excuse their
behavior, minimize impact, or blame others for their own choices.
And our society allows that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)