Abstract
Based on an ethnographic research on perpetrator programs in France and Italy, this article aims at analyzing men’s accounts of intimate partner violence in heterosexual relationships. Whether perpetrators explain their violence (1) as a trivial fact, (2) as a reaction to their partner’s behavior, or (3) as a temporary and exceptional loss of control, these adult heterosexual men refer to a “natural” gender order and to heteronormative representations of women and men. In particular, these violent acts against female partners seem to be employed as (4) strategic performances to “save face” and achieve a hegemonic model of masculinity. Situated in the tension between norm and deviance, the perpetration of domestic violence can be framed as a gendering practice: through the performance of abusive acts against women in the context of intimate relationships, perpetrators attempt to situate themselves in the wide spectrum of masculinities and in its internal hierarchy. The study of men’s perception and experience of violence perpetration leads to overcome the binary conception of intimate partner violence that opposes men and women.
Keywords
Introduction
In the analysis of violence perpetration, men have been traditionally treated as invisible subjects and their gender has not been problematized. Although criminological research has historically focused on the conducts of men and boys, the social categories of class, race, and age have eclipsed gender in the study of violence and crime (Kimmel, 1993; Renzetti et al., 2012; Rinaldi, 2018). However, intimate partner violence in particular has emerged as a specific form of gender-based violence, mostly perpetrated by heterosexual men at the expense of women. Since the 1970s, the gendered dimension of violence has been investigated by feminist activists and scholars, yielding practice and research that are mostly oriented toward the victims’ experiences and needs, with a view to protecting women and supporting their pathways to empowerment (Dobash and Dobash, 1979, 1992; Westmarland and Kelly, 2013). Research has therefore rarely focused on those who commit the abuse, and the gender of perpetrators has been taken into account to an even lesser extent. Fewer studies have focused on what men say about their violence, trying to situate perpetrators’ individual experience in the continuum of “men’s structural power within patriarchy” (Hearn, 1998: 11; see also Dobash et al., 2000; Wood, 2004).
This article aims at investigating the correlation between the perpetration of violence in intimate relationships and the social construction of masculinities, drawing from offenders’ interpretations, perceptions, and explanations of their acts, revealed in the context of domestic violence perpetrator programs in France and Italy. These “preventive” programs served as the setting of this ethnographic research, providing an entry point to access a population of heterosexual adult men, aged between 30 and 60 years, who were willing to speak about their violent conducts. In the case of voluntary programs in Italy and of mandatory treatment in France, during the group sessions participants disclose their violence, name it, and examine it quite openly, in front of professionals as well as other men. In light of the homo-social dimension of the meetings and of the fact that participants have perpetrated similar forms of abuse, perpetrator programs can be considered as one of the spaces for the cultural and social construction of masculinities (Connell, 1995). These peculiar microcosms serve as prisms through which to observe the connections between gender and violence, where “gender” is understood as a ritual performance based on the repetition of both corporeal and discursive practices (Butler, 1990) and as an interactionally constructed element of social structure (Connell, 1987; Messner, 2000; Ridgeway and Smith-Lovin, 1999; West and Zimmerman, 1987).
Rather than evaluating the effectiveness of perpetrator programs, this study focuses on how social actors represent their acts (Becker, 1998) and whether and how these representations relate to the making of their masculinities. By considering violence perpetration as a practice that contributes to the construction of gender (Hearn, 1998; Messerschmidt, 2000), evidence from the two fieldworks will shed light on the significance of intimate abuse for men: by performing violence in the context of intimate relationships, perpetrators try to achieve an inherently essential hegemonic masculinity (Connell, 1995) and to find their place in the hierarchical stratification among different kinds of masculinities (Connell, 2002; Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005).
Intimate partner violence between norm and deviance
Violence in the context of intimate heterosexual relationships has been traditionally normalized by criminologists. Husbands were considered entitled to rule over their wives and children, and wife battering used to be legitimated precisely on the basis of the relationship of the perpetrator to the victim (Gelles, 1974; Steinmetz, 1977; Straus et al., 1980). The romantic ideology serving the institution of heterosexual marriage, together with the myth of mutual dependence, complementarity, and fusion between spouses, has contributed to the division of labor within the couple (Giddens, 1992) and has legitimized intimate forms of abuse, sometimes leading to extreme acts such as the so-called “passionate killings” (Ben-Ze’ev and Goussinsky, 2008).
Over the years, global and national surveys have consistently confirmed the wide extent of the phenomenon of domestic violence (Fundamental Rights Agency [FRA], 2014; Idup-Ined, 2000; Istat, 2006, 2015; World Health Organization [WHO], 2002, 2013). Evidence has indicated that intimate partner violence is asymmetrical, making women the great majority of victims and men the great majority of perpetrators (Dobash et al., 2000). As a result of feminist activism and research, since the 1970s domestic violence has been acknowledged as a constitutive experience in women’s lives (Delage, 2017). Male oppression against women in intimate relationships has been described as part of a continuum (Kelly, 1988), ranging from coercive control tactics, to sexual, economic, and physical abuse, sometimes ending in death (Stark, 2007, 2009; Vandello and Cohen, 2008). Research on women and men’s experience of intimate partner violence—both conducted by academics or resulting from practical interventions with victims and perpetrators—has led to elaborate fundamental theoretical notions for the understanding of this phenomenon, such as the concepts of “the battered woman syndrome,” “the cycle of abuse” (Walker, 1979), “the power and control wheel” (Pence and Paymar, 1993), and “the 7P’s of men’s violence” (Kaufman, 1999).
Recent international and national reforms have clearly established that specific behaviors falling under the definition of “domestic violence” constitute unlawful conducts. In the past 50 years, acts that used to be “normalized” have been gradually recognized as forms of gender-based violence resulting from gender-based structural inequalities (United Nations [UN], 1979, 1992, 1993; Westmarland, 2015). Following the UN Beijing Conference in 1995, strategies to prevent and combat domestic violence have become a relevant topic both in institutional official discourse and in the media. Domestic violence has been acknowledged as a public crime 1 (European Convention on Human Rights [ECHR], 2009) and as a violation of women’s human rights 2 (Council of Europe [CoE], 2014), with important consequences on women and children’s health and well-being (WHO, 2002). In a relatively short time span, numerous laws have been approved in most European countries in order to punish specific forms of violence against women, and perpetrators of such acts now incur specific sanctions. 3
Existing studies have analyzed the impact of gender on experiences both of perpetration and of victimization, showing that not only are women exposed to domestic violence more often than men but they are also more likely to suffer from more serious consequences of the abuse (Archer, 2000; Dobash and Dobash, 2004; Walby and Allen, 2004). The focus on gender has allowed to see that, although women are also capable of acting violently, their acts are rather episodic and do not reflect a systematic pattern of aggression (Chesney-Lind, 1986, 1989; Johnson, 2008), whereas violence perpetrated by men is more frequent and more severe, and more likely to be associated with fear and control (Hester, 2009). This specific form of interpersonal violence—“paradoxical,” “privatized,” and “unequally intimate” (Hearn, 2013)—contributes to highlighting the systemic violence determined by intersectional structural power relationships between genders. According to Italian sociologist Carmen Leccardi, feminist literature has interpreted this violence in two main ways. The first approach consists in analyzing partner violence as the result of material and symbolic patriarchal oppression and as a fundamental instrument of domination, used by “the class of men” over “the class of women” to obtain material benefits and to ensure women’s subordination in all spheres of life (Guillaumin, 1992; Mathieu, 1985; Tabet, 2014). The second considers men’s violence against female partners as a consequence of the rupture of the traditional patriarchal order, triggered by women’s emancipation and quest for equality (Devreux, 2004; Falquet, 1997; Faludi, 1993; Pitch, 2008). In both cases, men’s violence against their intimate female partners has been interpreted as an attempt to maintain the asymmetrical and hierarchical gender order—including several intersectional configurations (Crenshaw, 1991)—and to restore male centrality against “the new power of women” (Leccardi, 2013: xvi).
Focusing on men: Perpetrator programs as a preventive strategy
While domestic violence has been a crucial topic for feminist work since the late 1960s, activists, professionals, academics, and legislators began to concentrate on the offenders much later: “the focus upon men’s violence to known women has become more conscious [. . .] in the making of such violence illegal and in the changing of criminal justice and other policies” (Hearn, 1998: 5).
With a view to preventing further and more severe acts of violence, work with domestic violence perpetrators started in the late 1970s as an experimental practice, as shelter workers started to notice that men repeatedly battered the same or different partners. Changing abusive men was intended as a strategy that could contribute to the victims’ safety and could reduce re-offending (Hester and Liley, 2014; Westmarland and Kelly, 2013, 2016). Following the example of the forerunners Duluth Model (Pence and Paymar, 1993) and Emerge program (Gondolf, 1985; Gondolf and Russell, 1986), most interventions were intended as coordinated community responses to domestic violence, in collaboration with women’s support services, and as a way to improve responses to both victims and perpetrators by holding perpetrators accountable for their acts. Treatments mainly resort to a pro-feminist, cognitive-behavioral group-work approach, based on a cultural understanding of violence, analyzed as a learned behavior in a patriarchal society (Gadd, 2004; Morran, 2011).
When, in the 1990s, violence against women became one of the main global concerns in the field of human rights (Keck and Sikkink, 1998), a growing interest toward the treatment of domestic abusers also developed at the international level. In the final document of the Beijing UN World Conference on Women, there is a first reference to “the need to rehabilitate perpetrators of domestic violence” (UN, 1995). A few years later, the CoE Recommendation 2002 (5) offered specific indications on the implementation of perpetrator programs (CoE, 2002), while in 2010 the UN Handbook for Legislation on Violence against Women also evoked “Intervention programs for perpetrators and alternative sentencing” (UN, 2010). Today, following the entry into force of the Istanbul Convention in 2014, all states having ratified this international treaty are under the obligation to systematically set up mandatory or voluntary programs for perpetrators of domestic violence, in line with existing international standards and guidelines (CoE, 2014).
Most existing literature on perpetrator programs is practice-oriented, aimed at improving treatments and at evaluating their effectiveness. Many studies have focused in particular on programs for convicted offenders, ordered by the criminal justice system in place of jail sentences. Academic debates have focused on methodological issues (Gadd, 2004; Gondolf, 1999, 2002), on the analysis of attrition rates and rates of recidivism (Dobash et al., 1999; Edleson, 2012), and on the importance of participants’ motivation in the case of court-ordered mandatory programs (Daly and Pelowski, 2000; Hester, 2009; Morran, 2011). Some studies have raised doubts on the effectiveness of such programs (Austin and Dankwort, 1999; Feder and Wilson, 2005; Fisher and Gondolf, 1988; Holtzworth-Munroe et al., 1995), while others have raised the issue of how to actually evaluate and measure “success” (Bowen et al., 2002; Westmarland et al., 2010; Westmarland and Kelly, 2011, 2013). Among the preconditions that have been identified for an effective practice, we can find adequate risk assessment and management, inter-institutional cooperation, long duration of the program, respect of minimum practice requirements, and robust evaluation of the treatment (Gondolf, 2002; Saunders and Hamill, 2003). Minimum standards for practice have been developed at the international level (Kelly, 2008; WWP, n.d.).
In a recent analysis of the results of Project Mirabal, 4 Julia Downes and her colleagues rightly note that research on perpetrators has mostly focused on “whether men change rather than on how and why.” The authors argue that previous evaluations of perpetrator programs were based on a narrow understanding of “success” and thus failed to explore “the uneven constitution and transformation of gender over time” (Downes et al., 2019: 270). They also note that, when it comes to the study of masculinity and violence, empirical research is limited and very few exceptions reveal what actually happens in group work with perpetrators (Miller et al., 2005; Schrock and Padavic, 2007): only a few qualitative studies have highlighted the link between perpetration of domestic violence and the instrumental use of hegemonic representations of masculinity and femininity (DeShong, 2015; Heward-Belle, 2017; Schrock and Padavic, 2007). Although they rely on small sample sizes, ethnographic studies can reveal important insights into the connections between individual behaviors and gender structures (Downes et al., 2019), as in the case of the research presented here.
Research contexts
This study aims at analyzing the accounts produced by men in the context of perpetrator programs in two European countries: in Italy, where perpetrators participate only on a voluntary basis, and in France, where such programs are mostly intended as a coercive measure imposed by the judicial system. Significant feminist movements have developed in both countries, and the reception of intervention programs for male abusers has sparked much discussion (Bozzoli et al., 2013; Helfter, 2007). The first phase of the research focused on the study of the national legal frameworks and on the socio-historic development of perpetrator programs in the country. In each context, specific institutional settings determine and shape the frame underlying the conception of intimate partner violence (Delage, 2017) and perpetrators’ treatment, entailing different effects on professionals’ attitudes and on perpetrators’ perceptions and trajectories.
In Italy, shelter workers and other professionals with a long history of supporting women victims of domestic violence originally founded some of today’s most consolidated experiences of work with perpetrators. Nowadays, perpetrator programs are included in institutional policies for the prevention of violence against women: Law 119/2013 provides for policy lines targeting perpetrators; the most recent National Action Plan on violence against women has detailed specific areas of action for their treatment, 5 and the national Dipartimento per le pari opportunità contributes to the funding of the programs. Participation is exclusively on a voluntary basis, and no legal framework allows for mandatory referral. In most cases, men initially have to go through a few individual sessions with a psychologist, and once they show commitment and motivation, they can join regular weekly group meetings comprising around 10 participants, for a minimum of 6 months. Some programs also offer follow-up for varying periods of time. Interventions are aimed at interrupting violent behaviors through a psycho-educational, cognitive-behavioral, and pro-feminist approach (Bozzoli et al., 2013; Peroni, 2019). Treatment is given by multidisciplinary teams mostly composed of social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, hired either by local non-governmental organizations (NGOs) or by the public health system. The national network Relive coordinates the activities of 24 member organizations across the country with a view to fulfilling international quality standards and guidelines and to promoting a gender-sensitive perspective in line with the Istanbul Convention (GREVIO, 2020; Relive, 2019).
As regards France, today domestic violence perpetrator programs are considered as measures for the prevention of delinquency and recidivism, and participation in them is mainly ordered by the judicial system. 6 Participation can be the principal penalty, a complementary sanction, or an alternative punishment to a more severe sentence for domestic violence offenses. 7 Civil society organizations 8 run the programs under the mandate of local prosecutors, in collaboration with the Correctional Service for Prevention and Social Reinsertion (SPIP), which is part of the French Ministry of Justice. Individual and group meetings with perpetrators often take place in the premises of institutions linked to the judicial system or to law-enforcement agencies, such as the “points d’accès au droit,” the “Maisons de justice et du droit,” or police stations. In some cases, the opening session of the program takes place in the Court’s premises, where the public prosecutor personally gives an introductory lecture to perpetrators. Professionals in charge of the treatment are not only social workers, psychologists, and psychiatrists, as is the case in Italy. In France, jurists and other legal professionals also play a significant role, since they are supposed to clearly explain both the nature of the offense and the purpose of the sanction. Since the adoption of the current legal framework established by the 2014 Law, no national guidelines indicate the objectives and methods for the implementation of “responsibility training programs” and “obligation of care,” resulting in differences in their enactment from one city to another 9 (GREVIO, 2019). Following the 2019 national “Grenelle des violences conjugales,” 10 perpetrators’ treatment emerged as a priority issue, together with the need to standardize professional practices nationwide and make these programs available across the country. 11
Methods and limitations of the research
Access to the fieldwork sites was a long process, which unfolded in several steps. Once the two national contexts had been examined, professionals working in five different programs (two in Italy and three in France) agreed on participating in initial explorative interviews. In three cases (one in Italy and two in France), I was allowed to observe regular group sessions with perpetrators as well as formal and informal meetings among treatment providers. The qualitative research combined different approaches, including semi-directive interviews with professionals, direct observation of perpetrator programs, focus groups, and individual interviews with participants. In the case of Italy, I focused on the functioning of one well-established perpetrator program in the region of Tuscany, where I observed the same group of men meeting every week, during 2 hours, over more than 2 years. In the case of France, I attended two different programs in the Grand Est region: two rounds of “responsibility training programs” in two different cities and one “obligation of care” cycle. 12
During this period of time, I was able to observe and listen to around 60 heterosexual adult men (20 in Italy and 40 in France), aged between 30 and 60 years, for the most part married with children. In both fieldwork sites, participants in perpetrator programs belonged to a variety of socio-cultural-ethnic categories, had diverse biographical backgrounds, different professions, and lived in both urban and rural areas. In the case of France, where men are intercepted by the judicial system, I noted a disproportionate presence of perpetrators of lower social status: a large number of participants were either unemployed or with a low-income salary, lived in deprived urban or suburban areas, and, in quite a few cases, had a background of migration. However, in both cases, almost all men were nationals of Italy and France, respectively.
My constant and extended presence at the group meetings facilitated personal contact with perpetrators. In both countries, I was able to conduct short workshops or group interviews, mainly resorting to visual sociology techniques (Harper, 2012; Navone and Oddone, 2015). Through these visual workshops, I was able to interact more directly with each perpetrator and to build some trust before proposing a face-to-face interview. However, securing private meetings proved to be challenging: only after a long period of observation was I able to conduct long biographical interviews—4 in Italy and 10 in France.
In most cases, this process was characterized by a general lack of empathy toward the subjects of my research (Avanza, 2008). Observing and listening to perpetrators during an individual meeting was not a pleasant experience, not only because I had to hear their self-centered stories and sexist claims, but also because at times their abusive practices led them to target me as the (gendered) recipient of their discourse. This was particularly the case in individual meetings with participants in mandatory programs in France, where I had to learn how to conduct the interview in a careful, cautious way: not too intimate, not too “provocative,” and also not too curious. As they gained confidence, men gradually abandoned their “good student” attitude and switched from formal to informal language, sometimes using slang expressions and vulgar or sexist terms. In some cases, they openly showed their resentment toward some questions or raised their voice. As if I were in the victim’s place in an abusive relationship, I often had the feeling of “walking on eggshells.”
In Italy, where participants attended the program on a voluntary basis and for a longer period of time, such attitudes were less frequent. In both cases, the space/time of our private interaction became another field of observation: while in the course of the group sessions perpetrators were on stage in front of a small crowd composed of at least two professionals and several men, during our interviews they represented themselves in front of a young woman, alone, inviting them to speak about their lives and willing to listen to their accounts, sometimes for up to 3 hours. As I abandoned the group setting in the presence of female and male professionals, I could notice that my personal characteristics (in terms of gender, age, origin, etc.) affected the dynamics of our private interaction, while, at the same time, respondents’ attitudes strongly impacted my research by imposing (self)-constraints and limitations. While trying to adopt “a correct distance” (Bensa, 1995; Naeples, 2006), interview after interview, I had to quickly adapt to the specific personality of each interlocutor. Because of the sensitivity of the topic and of their reactions, I eventually put aside the long and standardized life-grid I had originally prepared for individual qualitative interviews and opted for general and open questions. I then used prompts and follow-up questions to delve into some specific topics or aspects that they had already spontaneously broached.
Because of the differences between the two contexts, particularly the stark discrepancies in terms of duration of the treatment programs, rather than “comparative,” this research can be described as a multi-situated ethnography based on fieldworks conducted in two countries. In particular, this contribution will analyze men’s explanations and justifications of violence as produced and performed at the initial stage of perpetrators’ rehabilitation process, by primarily focusing on the common elements emerging in the case of both voluntary programs in Italy and mandatory programs in France. Unfortunately, an intersectional approach could not be adopted on this occasion. The small size sample of this research does not allow for a detailed analysis of the differences among attendants in terms of age, class, ethnic background, education, and so on. While taking into consideration all these elements, this study gives a central place to gender above all other variables, as one common element to all participants in the programs.
Results: Perpetrators’ narratives on perpetrating violence
On the very first day of a perpetrator program, men appear distant and suspicious. When perpetrators enter the room for the first time, they try not to sit next to each other and avoid eye contact as much as possible. Both in voluntary programs in Italy and in compulsory programs in France, perpetrators are not proud of being there. They hardly look eager to talk about their personal experience and they resist engaging in group discussions. As time goes by and as professionals intervene in the meetings, perpetrators gradually disclose and openly discuss their acts. In their accounts, violence is described as a trivial fact, as a reaction to their partner’s behavior, or/and as a temporary and exceptional loss of control. In particular, intimate partner abuse is interpreted as a strategy to “save face,” in line with the hegemonic model of masculinity.
Violence as a trivial fact
In the initial phase of the programs, attendants merely hinted at the most serious facts, often referring to one single episode, defined as “isolated” or “exceptional.” Several scholars have observed the use of “neutralization techniques” (Sykes and Matza, 1957) in perpetrators’ accounts of violence (Checuti-Osorovitz, 2016; Deriu, 2012; Merzagora Betsos, 2009; Ventimiglia, 2002). I observed minimizations, negations, justifications, and omissions in the context of both voluntary programs in Italy and mandatory programs in France: these discursive strategies aim at denying the perpetration of violence by both disclaiming the violence and disclaiming their agency. In this phase, men described “the event” as a trivial fact, something common in daily couple interactions: There was once a little slap, but it was a very, very little one. Something that would make you laugh too. [. . .] It was something normal. (H., group meeting, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
In the course of a mandatory program observed in France, the local prosecutor welcomed the perpetrators and asked for a short explanation of the facts. Just as in the case of the voluntary program observed in Italy, during this first meeting most participants hesitantly referred to “a silly argument” and described their acts as “just grabbing the partner” or “giving her a little slap.” Attendants actively selected the information and consistently used the passive form: they said “she got a broken cheekbone” instead of “I broke her cheekbone by kicking her face” or “she got a perforated eardrum” rather than “I slapped her and perforated her eardrum.” While detailing the facts, they either used an impersonal narrative—“it happened”—or bemoaned their lack of alternatives: If you asked me: do you agree about hitting women? I would say no, of course, but it’s the circumstances. (H., individual interview, mandatory perpetrator program, France) I used to think: “I cannot behave differently. If I don’t want to harm her, I have to stay away.” That was my rational explanation. I did not think that I had done something good, but for me—compared to everything that I was suffering because of her—that was the least I could do. I had no regrets, not at all! [. . .] (Q., biographical interview, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
Perpetrators entering a program struggle to openly recognize violence perpetration as a rational choice, unless they frame it as the only possible solution to a conflict between partners. Men’s deflective speech sheds light on the fact that they consider their behavior legitimate, although maybe “excessive.” In the case of France, in the event of their partner’s hospitalization, perpetrators minimized their acts even when confronted with clinical records or with other medical evidence collected during the legal proceedings.
13
They often resorted to arguments with a supposed scientific basis and invoked their partner’s physical vulnerability, as in the quotes below: My partner has a very sensitive skin, that’s why bruises appear so easily on her . . . (G., mandatory perpetrator program, France) She has very fragile bones . . . I just grabbed her and she broke her wrist. (T., mandatory perpetrator program, France)
Just as they referred to women’s “natural” sensitivity and fragility, perpetrators often mentioned their “natural” strength and power: She attacks me, I respond and in the end I hurt her too much, since I’m stronger. (N., group meeting, perpetrator program, Italy) It’s just . . . my hands are strong. We, the family, the boys, we are strong. Here [he looks at his hands and shows them to me]. And when we slap, we don’t notice the strength. For example, someone might try for a long time to do this [he simulates the gesture of opening a bottle] whereas we can easily do it. Just like that. We do have this power. We do. (B., individual interview, mandatory perpetrator program, France)
In men’s accounts, women’s physical inferiority matches men’s superiority: the naturalization and crystallization of this asymmetry place violence in a “natural” order. By describing intimate partner abuse as trivial, perpetrators manage to normalize these practices discursively as common spousal arguments, revealing a disingenuous confusion between “conflict” and “violence” (Johnson, 2008). At the same time, by excluding themselves from the story, perpetrators deny their own responsibility, even in the presence of the prosecutor.
Blaming the victim: Violence as a reaction
At the beginning of the program, perpetrators avoided speaking about their violence by focusing on their partners’ behaviors rather than on their own conducts: they shared detailed anecdotes on what she did or did not do to provoke the violence: She feels entitled to verbally kill me, but cannot tolerate my anger at all! She says that I change when I am angry, that my face changes. She takes me to the mirror and forces me to look at myself. But hey! How dare she do that! That’s why I would like to stand up for all of us who are here today [he refers to the men in the group and looks in their eyes as he speaks]. I feel like I do react to both her physical and verbal violence. I feel like a victim. [. . .] She’s poking me. She won’t give me peace. (O., group meetings, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
Men’s narratives were often characterized by the systematic devaluation of their female (ex) partners. Women were not only described as “aggressive,” they were also depicted as “extremely jealous,” “possessive,” “manipulative,” “lazy,” “ungrateful,” and “tricky.” Men felt like they had to intervene “to give her a lesson” and often emphasized how their female partner had failed to comply with normative models of “the good wife” or “the good mother.” In their views, women’s assertive attitudes can “push men to the limits” and thus justify their violent “reaction,” aimed at “correcting” their partner’s behaviors: We were in the car, she was very agitated, and there was no way to calm her down. [. . .] I slapped her in the face and she immediately calmed down. So I had to say in the group [in the context of the perpetrator program]. “On that occasion, the slap was therapeutic, it was a lesson.” And everyone laughed. (N, biographical interview, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy) We started having problems for all kinds of things. For example, one day at lunch she makes me a sandwich, and I got pissed off! I told her she needs to be more organized. And she replied that she was busy and had her own things to do. (U., group meeting, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
Victim-blaming attitudes against (ex) partners were more severe when perpetrators were forced to participate in a program as a consequence of legal proceedings. In this case, women were not only accused of “provoking” men’s violence, but they were also morally blamed for “filing a complaint against the husband” and for “taking the children’s father into police custody” or “to jail.” In perpetrators’ views, the legal consequences of their violent acts are not their own responsibility, as offenders. Instead, they produce a narrative in which they are themselves the victims, not only of their partners but also of the judicial system: We are victims of the judicial system and of our women. Today fathers can be separated from their children with great ease. I see my children once every two weeks. I feel like I haven’t been heard. My wife filed a complaint and said things that are not true. (C., group meeting, mandatory perpetrator program, France)
In perpetrators’ opinion, by reporting them to the police, women legitimize the intrusion of the judiciary into their private lives. Filing a complaint is perceived as a disgrace, a failure to “deal with it within the family”: I am not a violent person. I don’t hit women. [ . . . ] All couples quarrel. What happened was an act of hatred of her against me, but they [the police and the judge] didn’t listen to me. She [the wife] is now dancing knowing that I am here [forced to participate in a perpetrator program]. (P., individual interview, mandatory perpetrator program, France)
Perpetrators either recalled the image of an idealized, perfect family harmony—where men and women are defined as opposite and complementary entities—or evoked representations of a declared “war between the sexes.” By calling the police and by indirectly forcing their partners into a perpetrator program, women failed to preserve the family unit and instead satisfied their desire for revenge against their husbands and men in general. Perpetrating violence is thus presented as a “normal,” “fair” reply to women’s “unacceptable” behavior. In both Italy and France, perpetrators ignored the psychological consequences of a long exposure to intimate abuse and failed to recognize that women’s conducts are often aimed at expressing their own opinions, at containing men’s violence, at protecting themselves and the children from further abuse.
Violence as a liberation or a loss of control
Once they began acknowledging their violent acts during the group meetings, perpetrators described physically attacking inanimate objects—throwing a cup against the wall, punching the mirror, crushing the woman’s mobile phone—and their partners—“kicks in the ass,” “kicks in the face,” “pushing,” “slapping,” and attempted “strangulations.” In their words, perpetrating violence against something or someone is both a physical and emotional release of the tension built up by contained anger: Breaking objects, smashing something, beating her up . . . To me, it was liberating. I did not feel any kind of frustration, not at all. I felt better afterwards. I would have smashed anything in front of me! The more I hit, the better I felt, I released the tension. [. . .] (R., biographical interview, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
Perpetrators I have met in France and Italy also described the time of the violence as “a loss of control,” as if unmanageable forces subjugated them, with sentences such as the following:
The light went out.
I was blinded.
In those moments, I’m a pressure cooker. Here comes the wave. The blood stops in my vein. I’m on fire. I’m out of control. I’m not there. It’s like I’m a puppet being controlled by external forces. I have to learn to control the snake, to govern it. There’s always something inside me that I have to keep at bay. If I were to listen to all the primal instincts that are in my body . . . I don’t know what I would do.
Both in Italy and in France, in perpetrators’ accounts men’s “instinct” emerges as a force to be unleashed or as a power to be controlled. Their words suggest a conception of male aggression as innate, referring to a male body that needs to express itself and is reluctant to tolerate any limits, despite the normative injunction of self-control. As they feel confident with the group, participants gradually abandon euphemisms and justifications and engage in detailed descriptions of their practices in the moment of enacting the violence: how they speak louder and louder until they scream and yell, pace frenetically, throw objects, raise their hands and feet against something or someone. These accounts emphasize the expressive dimension of violence through corporal performances (Héritier, 2005; Segato, 2013). The repetition of these acts not only threatens, frightens, and hurts the partner and other people present, but can also be interpreted as an embodied and gendered-characterized practice (Stagi, 2008). These linguistic and corporal acts are repeated over time, targeting a real or imaginary audience, and are intended to affirm the perpetrator’s gender affiliation (Butler, 1990).
Violence as a strategy to “save face”
In the course of the group sessions, participants often recounted anecdotes and details aimed at building a personal positive image, depicting themselves as responsible family men juggling the pressures of work, rent, taxes, mortgage, and other duties. They often referred to episodes presenting them as reliable and generous, like in the quote below: There was an emergency once. I drove my ex-girlfriend home and then she found out that her cousin had an accident. I stayed with her the whole night. [ . . . ] I was very well liked by her and by her family, because I was always available. (N., biographical interview, voluntary perpetrator programs, Italy)
In particular, perpetrators emphasized their role as providers and breadwinners: they spoke about their sense of duty and described themselves as “hard workers,” honest, and appreciated by colleagues and clients: Actually, I have obtained a lot of satisfaction from my job, economically but also in terms of human relationships and of experience. [. . .] Honestly, I slowly built myself up, because I started from the bottom to get there, to my position [manager], but I did it all by myself. [. . .] Today I can easily afford to help my kids. (B., biographical interview, voluntary program, Italy) I did not want her to accept any [financial] help from her parents. (Z., biographical interview, voluntary program, Italy) In our family we don’t lack for anything. I earn a good living and I take her out for dinner several times a week. (R., mandatory perpetrator programs, France)
Men’s narratives evoke the ideal image of the homo faber (Kimmel, 2011): a sole player, maker of himself, independent, self-sufficient, and problem solver.
14
In their views, making sure that the family has financial support is a successful (and sufficient) fulfillment of their role, and women’s remarks or “reprimands” are often interpreted as a lack of recognition of their efforts. They often revealed that they “feel teased” or more vulgarly that they feel like “she is fucking with me.” Men talked about the uneasy feeling produced by “receiving orders” and “being told what they have to do.” As one man said during a group meeting, “I’m definitely someone who doesn’t like to be judged or criticized” (F., mandatory perpetrator program, France). By describing themselves as constantly “goaded” by their partners, perpetrators outlined a portrait of themselves as “martyrs” and presented their acts as valid reactions to women’s “provocations.” In the following quotes, participants in the programs explored their feelings in the moment of perpetrating violence against their partners: The trigger was . . . just bullshit . . . I had cooked and she said the dinner was not well seasoned. She said that there was not enough salt and pepper . . . She thinks everything I do is crap. And I hit her in the back of her head. (J., mandatory perpetrator program, France) She told me I’m not a good family man. But what does she want from me? I work, I support the whole family! I don’t drink, I don’t smoke, I practically never go out, and this one [his wife] breaks my balls every day. (P., voluntary perpetrator program, Italy) We, men, do not like to be subjected to certain behaviors from women . . . To be criticized, offended, accused, having to go over the same issue all the time . . . We have a sense of pride. (H., mandatory perpetrator program, France)
Other excerpts reflect how women’s comments and “attacks” are perceived as a risk of degradation of their status of “men,” perceived in essentialist terms: She told me more than once “I am the one who has the guts here in the house.” (L., group meeting, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy) She tells me “I want you to act like a father, like a husband, like a man.” (O., group meeting, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy) She told me that I am a frustrated man. (B., group meeting, voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
When their reputation is threatened, social actors actively engage in routine practices that allow them to “save face,” “face” being the standardized expressive equipment individuals intentionally or unintentionally employ in their representation (Goffman, 1956). In this specific case, domestic violence perpetrators seem to respond to a lack of trust in their role and try to be consistent with their “face” and with their “ideal self.” The ability to react and repair their own image under real or potential threat, including through aggressive behaviors, is considered one of the essential traits of hegemonic masculinity and a strategy that wipes out the risk of emasculation.
In this phase of the programs, rather than a criminal practice, perpetrating violence is interpreted as a legitimate way to affirm, confirm, or re-establish a “natural” order, which is based on the opposition and hierarchy between men and women, but also between different types of masculinity. By performing intimate partner violence, perpetrators clearly try to find their place in the dichotomy between men who “have the balls” versus “idiots who only nod to their wives,” men who know how to be respected versus men without character, and tough men versus weak men or “pussies.”
Men’s violence in intimate relationships emerges as a “preventive” or “corrective” practice; as a resource that easily allows men to align with heteronormative prescriptions consistent with the figure of the homo faber; and as a means of expression that aims at satisfying desires (Héritier, 2005), in this case the desire for self-affirmation through normative models of masculinity. Intimate partner violence also appears as a hegemonic device with a strong seductive power, as exemplified by this excerpt from a biographical interview: Even if you do not have the guts to act violently, you think it would gratify you, and you admire those who are able to do it. (L., voluntary perpetrator program, Italy)
Conclusion
At the beginning of the treatment programs observed in Italy and France, perpetrators present themselves as regular, average men—no matter their age, social class, cultural level, or ethnic origin. They define themselves as “just normal,” meaning “non-deviant” but also “conforming to the heterosexual norm.” These adult heterosexual men emphasize the fact that they follow the rules of society—having a regular job and a regular family, paying the bills, and so on—and that they fit the hegemonic model of (heterosexual) masculinity. The normative representations of women and men’s roles within the couple and within the family, produced and shared during the group meetings, outline the conception of an ideal and “natural” gender order, based on opposition, complementarity, and hierarchy between women and men. In this discursive creative process and through interaction, perpetrators are productively “doing gender” and reinforcing its “essentialness” (West and Zimmerman, 1987). In their views, the perpetration of violence—if employed in defense of their reputation and of their ideal image as homo faber—falls within this frame of “normality,” in a wider social context characterized by abiding sexist attitudes and gender inequalities. By considering intimate partner violence as a legitimate performance of their masculinity, men struggle to recognize their acts as criminal practices, fail to admit their responsibility, and can hardly accept the consequences of their conducts, in terms of both legal sanctions and psycho-social effects on women and children.
According to men’s experience, the perpetration of intimate partner violence seems to lie in the tension between norm and deviance (Lenclud et al., 1984). As other kinds of violence, intimate abuse is not “separated off from the rest of life” (Hearn, 1998: 15) and belongs to “ordinary, routinary, normative violence of daily life” (Scheper-Hughes and Bourgois, 2004). However, recent legislative changes in relation to domestic violence openly condemn these practices as a stark violation of the law and now entail specific sanctions. While on the one hand men resort to such conducts to maintain or restore a patriarchal order considered “natural” and legitimate, on the other hand they find themselves surprised when confronted with the consequences of their acts and with their image as “offenders.” The new institutional framework proves the outdatedness of “violent masculinity,” although this is still one of the dominant traits of hegemonic masculinity, and it is still perceived by men as one of the ways to achieve a patriarchal dividend (Schrock and Padavic, 2007).
As other forms of male violence, domestic violence proves to be an effective “gendering practice” (Giomi, 2017), defining the boundaries between different gender identities and determining the kind of masculinity social actors produce and reproduce. Results from the two fieldworks show that the material and symbolic benefits obtained through the perpetration of violence are part of a game of power and control that cannot be reduced to men’s relationship to women. According to men’s accounts, the meaning and value of domestic violence go beyond the couple, the family, and the relationships between genders: it also concerns the broad arena of social relationships between men. Perpetrators’ practices seem not only directed against women: they can also be framed as ritual performances toward the accomplishment of a gendered ideal representation of their self. The perpetration of violence in intimate relationships contributes to maintaining the hierarchical arrangements not only between genders but also within gender, that is, between different masculinities and different ways of performing hegemonic masculinity.
This contribution has exclusively focused on the initial phase of the programs without specific regard to the effects of the treatment—voluntary in the case of Italy and mandatory in the case of France. The analysis of the transformations of perpetrators’ masculinities over time would need to be addressed in a separate contribution. However, it should be noted that in the course of the programs, especially in the case of long-term interventions, participants gradually recognize the downsides of intimate partner violence and come to abandon at least some of these practices. Albeit for different reasons, both in Italy and in France, most men condemn the use of violence. Although they actively engage in alternative performances of their gender, they creatively interpret new normative “non-violent” masculinities, in order to continue “doing the man” (Fidolini, 2019) in line with the heterosexual norm and to keep their place in the (ideal) group of respected dominant males.
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: The research was supported by the University of Strasbourg, Postdoc IDEX (Initiatives d’Excellence) “Masculinités et violences domestiques dans les dispositifs de prise en charge civile et pénale des hommes agresseurs en France et en Italie,” under the scientific supervision of Nicoletta Diasio. This paper received support from the Maison Interuniversitaire des Sciences de l’Homme d’Alsace (MISHA), as part of the Excellence Initiative of the University of Strasbourg, funded by the French government’s Investments for the Future program.