Survivors’ Social Construction of Intimate Partner Violence in Cebu City,Philippines

Do Social Constructs on IPV Influence the Victims’ Perceptions of Their Social Processes?

Hörl’s theory of the social construction of violence is founded on “selective perceptions that grow out of . . . special positions in society” (Hörl, 2007 p. 37). These selective perceptions can be placed at two different perception levels: individual and community. For the former, the perceived constructs for spousal violence were the following: victims’ perceptions of masculinity and femininity and victims’ attitudes toward violence, the economic activities of wives and spousal duties, infidelity, and the mismanagement of households (Alzoubi & Ali, 2021; Barnett, Maticka-Tyndale, & Kenya, 2016; Hatcher et al., 2013). These constructs underscored that men should rule and subjugate women, and these constructs were maintained because of men’s dominant position in society. For the latter, the fulfillment of social expectations by women was the major construct for IPV, including negligence in performing domestic duties, nonsubmission to male authority, nonfulfillment of spousal duties, and inappropriate public display of behavior (Barnett et al., 2016; Laisser, Nyström, Lugina, & Emmelin, 2011). Subjugating women, submission to male authority, and the imposition of masculine rule are major component concepts of masculinity in which the achievement of masculinity is founded on violence (Demetriou, 2001). Feminist researchers posited that in societies where the patriarchal system is imposed, there is the protection of the masculine image, women are demeaned, and anyone who attempts to emasculate men is sanctioned (Anwary, 2015). Within this scope, abuse becomes legitimate and within legitimate bounds (Rao, 1997). Because this theory is based on “selective perceptions,” different perceptions may exist. It is, therefore, important to explore the dyad in the social construction of IPV between perpetrators and victims as well as the reciprocal relations involved (Hörl, 2007).

Studies investigating the perpetrator side of the dyad have considered IPV a serious public health problem and a violation of women’s human rights (Devries et al., 2013) that should be prevented. These studies have examined the deleterious effects of IPV on women’s reproductive health and outcomes for pregnancy (Sarkar, 2008), the fetus and the victims’ extended family (Shay-Zapien & Bullock, 2010), the mental health of victims, and the sexual transmission of infectious diseases (Dillon, Hussain, Loxton, & Rahman, 2013). Clinical studies have associated detrimental emotional, psychological, and social well-being (Ali, Mogren, & Krantz, 2013); aggressive behavior of children (Holmes, 2013; Levendosky, Bogat, & Martinez-Torteya, 2013); abortion; and unintended pregnancies with IPV (Pallitto et al., 2013). Researchers have reported that male intimate partners refused to acknowledge the perpetration of violence because they perceived violent acts as men’s prerogative because men either acted in self-defense against a threat posed by their wives (Catlett, Toews, & Walilko, 2010; Dworkin, Colvin, Hatcher, & Peacock, 2012) or performed a duty as protectors of their wives and families (Boonzaier, 2015). However, some studies report that some cultures do not share these findings (Salter, 2016).

Sociocultural studies have drawn their conclusions from the many preexisting harmful local practices and traditions that contribute to the social construction of IPV. For example, Draper (1992) and Boonzaier (2015) claimed that IPV has its roots in sociocultural conventions for example, gender inequality, male supremacy and dominance, and power relations. In a study by Helman and Ratele (2016), IPV begins in the family where male domination is encouraged, including behavioral control (Lelaurain et al., 2018). Controlling women in almost every aspect leads to their marginalization, making them less empowered by offering them few opportunities to participate in decision making (Barchi, Winter, Dougherty, & Ramaphane, 2018). Women are made to bear the heavy burden of production and reproduction, and limited access to education and livelihoods is afforded to them. This marginalization is the outcome of discrimination, patriarchal attitudes, economic inequality, gender inequality, and violence tolerance.

The underlying theme of the many studies on the perpetrator side of the dyad shows evidence of hegemonic masculinity. These studies indicate that superiority and authority are anchored in dominance, aggression, and violence (Anwary, 2015). In some studies, abuse is even legitimized or legitimated by societies that welcome this form of masculinity (Bhana & Mayeza, 2016).

Studies of the victim side of the dyad have directly addressed victims’ perceptions of violence (Hörl, 2007) to define the context and perceptions of abuse (Mehrotra, 1999), to find ways of improving empowerment (Bosco et al., 2019), and to design empowerment programs for both batterers and victims (Catlett et al., 2010). Some contexts of IPV situate abuse as “fighting” that occurs normally within the conjugal abode as a means to settle disputes and differences (e.g., infidelity and disrespect to husbands; Kaye et al., 2005). Another context views IPV as a normal phenomenon that occurs in every family and requires no intervention from any parties (Odero et al., 2014). Some contexts construe women as passive and helpless and as needing to be dominated and protected by men (Boonzaier, 2008). The context that construes women as helpless and passive involves the acceptance of male supremacy, with which feminist researchers disagree. For feminist researchers, abuse of women is an outcome of permissive societies where abuse is considered legitimate and encouraged in some circumstances (Bhana & Mayeza, 2016). Therefore, attempts to implement strategies to prevent any form of abuse require comprehension of the context of abuse (Li, Levick, Eichman, & Chang, 2015). Some studies have reported that responses aimed at preventing abuse have created confusion among victims (Dichter, 2013) because victims perceive their actions as self-defense, expressions of anger, and ultimate acts to end violence (Stuart et al., 2006). Finally, in studies recommending programs for empowering IPV victims, the theory of social construction suggests that to reduce IPV, interventions should (a) ultimately address the empowerment of individuals to allow them to make informed choices and (b) respond to the victim’s needs because what may work for one victim may not work for another (Lanier & Maume, 2009).

In the Philippines, violence against women has been reported to be present in all regions of the country (PSA, 2013) and has affected the lives of many women. In a report by the PSA (2017), the percentage of women who experience physical, sexual, and/or emotional violence decreases slightly with age. In this report, women who were divorced, separated, or widowed were more likely to have experienced all forms of violence by their recent partner compared with married or cohabiting partners. Factors of these abusive acts were identified, and researchers have reported findings consistent with studies on male-perpetrated IPV in other developing countries, suggesting similar dynamics of male IPV perpetration (Fehringer & Hindin, 2014). The outcome of abusive treatment results in absolute surrender to the husband’s authority (Tsai, Cappa, & Petrowski, 2016). However, no studies exploring the social construction of IPV have previously been conducted in the Philippines.

The RPs and the Recruitment Procedure

Initially, the recruitment of RPs was facilitated by a police station’s women’s desk officer on duty. RPs met the following criteria: the victim’s residential address was available to facilitate personal interviews, the type of violence was reported, surviving abuse, the victim’s personal background, and the extent of victim disclosure recorded in the police blotter journal. Successive RPs were recruited through the snowball approach (Ellard-Gray, Jeffrey, Choubak, & Crann, 2015). Prior informed consent (PIC) was given to all RPs prior to the actual interview sessions. Majority of the RPs were legally married females (93%), with the remaining 7% in cohabiting arrangement, underwent counseling from local nongovernmental organizations (NGOs; 67%), and did not sever the marital union (73%). The average age of RPs was 39.87 years. They had lived in an abusive relationship for an average of 13.67 years and had an average of four children. All the RPs belonged to the lower income bracket, and were IPV survivors.

Data and Collection Procedure

The primary data collected were interview transcripts of survivors of IPV. These data were the narrated personal experiences of survivors, including the processes and strategies used in victimization. Face-to-face interviews lasted approximately 45 to 60 min each and were nonstructured and free form. A total of 20 interview transcripts were collected from these interview sessions. At the RPs’ request, interview sessions were held in private and in the local language, Cebuano. According to the RPs, the subject of intimate violence was considered a personal matter and could not be disclosed to persons outside their trust circles. Therefore, the interviews began when trust was established and full cooperation was guaranteed. Interview sessions were conducted with an individual trusted by the RP, labeled the referrer. Although referrers had knowledge of the topic, they were not consulted during the actual interview or allowed to provide input on the topic, except when consulted by the researchers to avoid data or information cleansing or setting the precedent for proxy interviews. The topics discussed were provided in advance for approval by the RPs, and the topics that were rejected were not discussed. Topics discussed revolved around cohabitation history and relational experiences with their intimate partner, perceptions on the quality of cohabitation before and after the abuse, history of disclosure and help-seeking strategies, and strategies used to survive the crises. The topics not discussed revolved around the type of IPV specifically on the sexual abuse and relational assessment with the intimate partner. Secondary data were the publicly communicated official reports, NGO performance reports on IPV cases, technical reports, and policy papers.

Data Analysis Procedure

In the data analysis, the thematic approach was used. All personal information from the interview transcripts was removed to maintain confidentiality. The final approved version was then loaded to Atlas.ti8 software for qualitative data analysis (QDAS). Documents loaded to QDAS were referred to as primary documents (PDs). A total of 10 PDs were loaded to QDAS. The researchers followed a three-phase procedure in the analysis: The first phase was the reading of the entire transcripts to identify the overarching theme; the second phase was the coding and memoing of the narratives using the QDAS with respect to the categories identified; and the final phase was the drawing of interactions between codes and memos. As an outcome of this three-phase procedure, researchers were able to draw two categories: (a) perceptions of violence, victimization, and its impact on the victims; and (b) help-seeking strategies and the means employed to survive IPV.

Ethics and Consent

The study received research clearance from the Research and Development Council of the Cebu Technological University, Cebu City, Philippines. PIC forms were individually given to RPs prior to the actual interview.

Violence Made Survivors Emotionally Strong Individuals

The RPs claimed that IPV had made them tenacious because they were able to endure hardships to promote their own ends, such as keeping their marriage intact, keeping their children safe, and protecting the family from shame. They believed that their struggle was a worthy cause. The narrative begins with the experience of beating and humiliation and the process of enduring hardship and humiliation. As told by a survivor,

If you do not endure hardships, you cannot receive a reward from God. You will not become a saint. Every time I am physically hurt, my parents and parents-in-law advise me to pray, for God will make me survive all hardships despite all odds (1: 14) . . . My mother would usually tell me that I am strong (1:45) . . . Of course, without God’s grace, I could not do it . . . Because I was able to endure pain and hardships, I can say to myself that I am strong. I can say to myself that violence and abuse made me strong (8:29).

Because they were able to endure suffering, the family was intact. According to an RP,

I was told by my parents when I got married that it was my responsibility to keep my family intact and protect the children at all costs. My mother used to tell me that fulfilling this task requires a strong woman. Hence, if I am not strong, I should not go and marry my husband now. I survived the ordeal. I kept on praying to God to help me survive. My prayers were answered. I am a strong woman now. Violence can make you strong. It is my trial. I cannot be defeated (9:30).

Perceptions of Impersonal and Indifferent Assistance

When IPV incidents were reported to the appropriate authorities, the RPs claimed that the responses of service providers such as police authorities or health care providers in dealing with IPV incidents were impersonal and indifferent. They perceived a lack of concern and indifference in handling their cases. According to an RP,

When my partner beats me, I reported the event to the community officer, but I was just promised that he would contact my partner. He offered no assistance or options on what I would do next. I was just dismissed (3:1) . . . As for counselling, it does not help me at all. When my husband backed out from the session, there was no strong resolve to bring him back. All I have were promises that everything will be taken care of and is under control (5:23-25).

Based on the narratives, two types of impersonal assistance were perceived, apathetic responses and counseling by faith-based ministers.

Limitations

There are some limitations that should be recognized in the current study. Most of the data used in this article were self-reports by the RPs, so it is only possible to draw conclusions for similar situations, and the findings cannot be generalized. Although self-report data are common in the IPV field, this study did not consider the perspective of the RPs’ husbands. Although most of the data in this article were from an urban setting, perceptions of IPV from rural areas need to be considered when comparing and contrasting IPV perceptions in various settings. To obtain a picture of IPV in this part of the country, IPV perceptions from individuals of different social classes need to be considered in future research. Most of the collected data came from the lower social class, giving the impression that IPV involves the poor sector only. In addition, the data relied heavily on the narratives of RPs who requested privacy. The researchers were very limited in their investigation in this regard because they had almost no other means to check their stories with third-party sources.