“Her decision was not about leaving, but
about living”
A discourse analysis of the Swedish research field on
women leaving abusive men
Emelie Klinga
Supervisor: Ericka Johnson, Gender Studies, LiU
Master’s Programme
Gender Studies – Intersectionality and Change
Master’s thesis 15 ECTS credits
ISRN: LIU-TEMA G/GSIC1-A—20/023-SE
Abstract
This thesis identifies the discourses of women leaving abusive male partners by examining the works on the matter by famous IPVAW researchers Viveka Enander, Carin Holmberg, and Margareta Hydén. Using discourse analysis, and thus a social constructivist approach, I have studied how the researchers explain women’s leaving processes and the resistance associated with those by drawing on the theories of Normalization of Violence and Neutralization of Violence respectively. Further, this thesis examines both what women are included in the research studies and how women leaving their abusive partners are portrayed in the material. By using an intersectional perspective, I explore who is missing from the research material and what impact their absence might have. I argue that discourses have an impact on people’s lived realities, thus who is depicted as a victim of abuse by being included as a subject in research is highly important. In short, the findings draw attention to how researchers within the same field provide different modes of explanation and thus comes to different conclusions based on the theories chosen for the study, ultimately leading to that they (re)produce different discourses which create a discursive struggle. The thesis also highlights the necessity of including an intersectional framework when researching women exposed to violence.
Keywords
Men’s violence against women, IPVAW, leaving processes, discourse analysis, intersectionality
Acknowledgments
First and foremost I would like to thank my supervisor Ericka Johnson, thanks for your guidance, your support, and your patience. Further, I would like to take this opportunity to thank Frida Jaeger Tronde, thank you for being my study partner during the first year of this master’s program, your encouragement has been invaluable.
Table of Content
1. Introduction ... 7
1.1 Terminology ... 9
2. Aim, research problem, and importance ... 10
2.1 Research questions ... 11
2.2 Situatedness ... 11
3. Background and cultural context ... 12
3.1 Violence against women in a Swedish context ... 13
3.2 Viveca Enander, Carin Holmberg and Margareta Hydén ... 14
4. Previous research ... 15
4.1 The prevalence of men’s violence against women in Sweden... 15
4.2 Why is the man abusive towards his partner? ... 17
4.3 Why is the woman staying? ... 18
4.4 Why is the woman leaving? ... 19
5. Theoretical Framework ... 20
5.1 The Normalization of Violence ... 20
5.2 Neutralization of Violence ... 22
5.3 Intersectionality ... 23
6. Research Design and Methods ... 24
6.1 Social constructivism... 25
6.2 Discourse analysis ... 26
6.3 Search strategy ... 27
6.4 Limitations ... 28
6.5 Ethical considerations ... 29
7. Results and Analysis ... 30
7.1 Frameworks and analytical tools ... 30
7.2 The process of leaving ... 35
7.3 The white Swedish woman suffering IPVAW ... 41
8. Discussion ... 43
8.1 The lack of intersectionality ... 44
9. Conclusion ... 46
9.1 Research contributions ... 47
Appendix 1 ... 48
Appendix 2 ... 51
List of Tables
Figure 1...27
List of Acronyms
IPV – Intimate Partner Violence
IPVAW – Intimate Partner Violence Against Women VAW - Violence Against Women
To make visible men's IPV does not just mean that one make visible the men who exercise gendered power in their relation, one also makes visible the power men as a group have in all of society
Maria Eriksson (2003)
1. Introduction
Violence against women is a problem worldwide, occurring, to a greater or lesser degree, in all regions, countries, societies, and cultures, and affecting women irrespective of income, class, race, or ethnicity. (UN General Assembly, 1993) He hits you; you leave. Some argue that it is that simple. In Sweden, “Gå vid första slaget!” [“Leave after the first punch!”] is a widely recognized phrase. Maybe intending to be encouraging, but not seldom used to shame women for not immediately leaving their abusive male partner. This phrase implies that it is your responsibility to leave a violent partner if you do not - that is on you. The solution to the man’s violence is thus the woman escaping it (Enander, 2010). However, what this saying fails to acknowledge is that it rarely starts with a punch, or a shove, or a kick. It starts with psychological abuse, or material, or economic, or latent abuse. Or all the mentioned combined. But it seldom starts with him physically hitting you. When he does that, you probably already are broken-down, you have most likely started to doubt yourself and your self-worth, maybe you are isolated, feeling disconnected from the outside world. Maybe you feel as if no one would believe you. The violence is often hidden and occurs in the home; thus, it may only be you and your abuser that know what is going on behind closed doors. In the context of men’s IPV, the question “why is she staying?” is often heard. As if leaving was simple. No woman, or man, wants to be abused. No one goes into a relationship to become a victim of abuse. Instead of asking “why is he treating another human being, one that he also claims to love, like that?” The public debate, often, makes the women’s actions the main concentrate, not the violent men.
Despite many women having nowhere to go, no economic means, and no one supporting them, they do leave their violent male partners. They leave although it is a known fact that the violence tends to get worse right before, during, or after separation (Ekbrand, 2006; Ellis & Dekeseredy, 1997; Mahoney, 1991). They leave fearing for their life, and perhaps their children's lives, their relative’s lives, and their pet’s lives. Men’s violence against women continues to be a severe threat to women’s health globally, and according to new research, 30% of women are estimated to be exposed to VAW during their life span (WHO, 2019).
As a result of the COVID-19 pandemic during the year 2020, domestic violence, which includes male IPV towards women, has increased (see for example Ertan et al., 2020). Because of lockdowns and quarantine women are forced to stay in their homes together with their partner,
due to factors such as social isolation and economic stress, already vulnerable women risks getting violated to an even higher degree, whilst at the same time, there are indications that options for support are limited (Peterman et al., 2020). Although not much research has been published within a Swedish context, Jämställdhetsmyndigheten (Swedish Gender Equality Agency), concludes that IPV risks increasing during the outbreak. The authority has commissioned the municipalities to further improve their way of working with IPV, due to special circumstances with COVID-19 (Jämställdhetsmyndigheten, 2020a). With this in mind, I argue that understanding, and combating, men’s partner violence is thus more relevant than ever – in Sweden and elsewhere.
Sweden calls itself “a pioneer in the gender equality field” (The Swedish Government 2007, p. 4), however, it’s a known fact that women are subjected to various kinds of heterosexual intimate partner violence by husbands, fiancées, cohabitants, boyfriends, and sexual partners, including ex-husbands, ex-fiancées, ex-cohabitants, ex-boyfriends, and ex- sexual partners, every day. The abused woman is your neighbor, your teacher, your co-worker, your local cashier, your mother, or your best friend. Men’s violence against women is a widespread problem, impacting Swedish society profoundly on different levels. It has its roots in the historic inequality between men and women and the theories behind its occurrence are many and varied. So are the theories on why some women leave, and why some do not.
In this thesis I will, study abused women’s leaving process(es) as described by researchers Carin Holmberg, Viveka Enander, and Margareta Hydén. I would like to acknowledge that IPV exists also in same-sex relationships and queer relationships (RFSL, 2008), as well as in heterosexual relationships with the woman as the perpetrator and the man as a victim (see for example Dobash & Dobash, 2004). However, on a general level, heterosexual men’s violence towards a female partner is the most common form of IPV (see Background and Cultural Context for statistics). It is also the most researched, theorized, and debated area of IPV, in both a national and an international context. Without, in any way diminishing partner violence carried out outside of heterosexual relationships, I will in this study solely focus on men’s IPVAW due to both this study’s limitations and my interest.
1.1 Terminology
1.1.1 Men and women
Although I find it problematic to use ‘men’ and ‘women’ as two fixed binary categories, I will in this thesis do exactly that - with the risk of reinforcing the already existing dichotomy between the two categories and at the same time exclude transgender and non-binary individuals. I would like to acknowledge that this is a narrow and limiting way of categorizing gender (and non-gender), one I do not support. However, due to my selected topic and the research material chosen for this thesis, I will, for the sake of feasibility, use the terms ‘men’ and ‘women’ in large parts of this thesis. This because in the statistics and the empirical material collected for this thesis, women are categorized and understood as one homogenous group without mutual differences. Hence, when I use the term ‘women’ in this thesis I will only refer to cisgender women. I will elaborate further on the impact of this categorization in the analysis and the discussion.
1.1.2 Men's violence against women (in intimate relationships)
Men’s violence against women has long been understood as a violation of human rights in international humanitarian discourse. Several analytical frameworks with their specific terminologies can be used to explain this phenomenon. I have actively chosen to use terms where the man is acknowledged as the perpetrator and hence the one responsible for the violence. I argue that the abusive man needs to be addressed and not made invisible which, in my opinion, is the case with terms such as ‘domestic violence’, ‘violence against women’, and ‘IPV (Intimate Partner Violence)’. I will thus avoid such terms when possible, even if in previous research they are widely used. Men’s violence against women is by the UN defined as:
Any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion, or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or private life. (UN, 1993)
When I use the terms men's violence against women (in intimate relationships), male-to-female violence, or men’s intimate partner violence I am referring to psychological abuse
interconnected with physical abuse as well as sexual abuse. I also include in this term, latent violence, material violence, economic abuse, and neglect.1 I will use (men’s) IPVAW
(Violence Against Women In Intimate Relationships), (men’s) IPV (Intimate Partner Violence) and, male-to-female violence interchangeably in this thesis.
1.1.3 The “battered woman”
[...] being a woman, battered or not, is not a personality trait; it is a social position. (Enander, 2008, p. 15)
With inspiration from Viveka Enander (2008), I have chosen not to use the term “battered woman” in singular. This is to avoid the stereotypicalisation of women being abused by an intimate partner. I agree with Enander’s (2008) reasoning that using “the battered woman” as an analytical term risks lumping together all abused women, seeing them as one homogenous group. This is also acknowledged by Margareta Hydén (2005), she argues that “a category such as ‘victim’ is never fixed. It is a product of culture and language and it means different things in different contexts and at different times” (Hydén, 2005, p. 170). The danger of reducing women subjected to IPV into a single category is that we miss how different power structures affect women's exposure to violence and their different experiences of the consequences of that violence. This goes in line with an intersectional critique of how “a woman” or “women” are understood as white and middle-class (Crenshaw 1989, 1991). The use of the singular term “a battered woman” contributes to creating a simplified public construction of the abused woman and her situation. Applying an intersectional perspective on women exposed to IPV by acknowledging this group of individuals as diverse and multifaceted, is crucial to reach an understanding of the women’s different contexts and thus, their different needs of support.
2. Aim, research problem, and importance
The main aim of this study is to, by conducting a qualitative literature study, identify and analyze the prevailing discourses in the work on women leaving abusive male partners conducted by Viveka Enander, Carin Holmberg, and Margareta Hydén. Men's VAW is a large area of research where several explanatory models are used to shed light both on why some
1 This extension of the understanding of men’s violence against women go in line with Roks – Riksförbundet för kvinno- och tjejjourer i Sverige (National Organisation for Women’s Shelters and Young Women's Shelters in Sweden) definition of the same (Roks, 2020). For a more detailed description of different kinds of VAW, visit https://agerakvinnojour.se/vad-ar-vald/.
men abuse their female partner and also why some women stay and why some women leave their abusive male partner. The researchers that have contributed to the existing research field on the latter are quite a few in a Swedish context, some of them have published multiple influential works and they often cross-reference each other. In the Swedish body of research, major contributions have been done by Hydén (1999, 2000, 2001, 2005) and Enander (2008, 2009, 2010), as well as Enander and Holmberg (2007, 2009, 2011). Their publications are well cited in other researcher's work (see for example Brännvall, 2016, Ekbrand, 2006 and Scheffer Lindgren & Renck, 2008). I aim to, using discourse analysis, explore the taken-for-granted ideas and discursive ‘truths’ presented by the researchers previously mentioned.
One can argue that a battle between different theories within the field of men’s IPV has been ongoing for years. Yet, a few theorists have been given an interpretative prerogative; Carin Holmberg, Viveka Enander, and Margareta Hydén. Therefore I argue that scrutinizing their research is highly relevant. I have been unable to find any similar Swedish studies, conducted on the same research material, thus this study seeks to narrow a knowledge gap with regards to the chosen subject, methodology, and theoretical framework. I argue that this overview of the work of three of the most influential researchers on the research field of the process(es) of leaving an abusive male partner, therefore will be a contribution to the existing body of research. I hope that this thesis will bring about new valuable insights to how this field of knowledge is constructed; what theoretical frameworks are used – and what those allow one to see, or to miss, as well as what discourses are shaping how we, in a Swedish context, think of women leaving, or not leaving, abusive men.
2.1 Research questions
1. What frameworks and analytical tools are used in the research by Viveka Enander, Carin Holmberg, and Margareta Hydén on women leaving their abusive partner
2. Which discourses are made visible in their work?
3. How is the woman leaving her violent male partner portrayed in their research?
2.2 Situatedness
The interdisciplinary field of gender studies is known for its critique against claiming to be objective whilst conducting research, instead, as a gender studies scholar, it is of great importance to be reflexive of one’s subjectivity. With that in mind, I would like to demonstrate
my situatedness within the topic chosen for this thesis. I argue that the research process should be understood as a dynamic process, which the researcher herself greatly influences based on her pre-understanding of the topic, her previous academic experience, and her position in society. Connecting with Donna Haraway’s (1988) term ‘situated knowledge’, I throughout this research process strived to be reflexive and thus aware of my social position and its impact on my research. Haraway (1988) claims that it is impossible to acquire knowledge objectively since knowledge cannot be obtained in a vacuum. Instead, the subject (i.e the researcher) always produces knowledge in terms of a story in which the researcher plays an active role. I support this standpoint and I am therefore trying to avoid what Haraway (1988) refers to as the ‘god trick’, meaning that the researcher conducts their research from an omniscient perspective by seeing everything from nowhere. This understanding of objective research resonates with a postmodern social constructionist research approach, i.e that there is no objective research; the researcher’s identity, values, politics, etc. will greatly influence hirs results.
I identify as a white, middle-class, cisgender woman. I am a gender studies student; I am also a feminist who in multiple ways is engaged in the Swedish women’s shelters and girl’s empowerment movement. My interest in questions regarding men’s violence against women is thus both academic and personal. That I reflect on my positionality is essential to give the reader an understanding of my potential biases and my way of interpreting the world. Besides, it is even more critical that I position myself as a feminist researcher since, as Nina Lykke (2010, p. 33) writes, “we cannot position ourselves ‘outside’ of the world we are analyzing and in which we act. Therefore, feminists cannot leave the category ‘women’ behind just like that”. The fact that I, as the researcher, both identify as a woman and as a feminist hence needs to be acknowledged to shape a process of reflexivity. Me being a feminist, also makes this thesis feminist.2 To me, that means that I share the belief that men’s violence against women is a part of a larger patriarchal structure in which men are seen as superior to women. I understand men’s VAW as a way for men to, on different levels, oppress, and control women.
3. Background and cultural context
I will here provide background and insert men’s violence against women in a cultural context. Although Sweden is well known for being a gender-equal country in many aspects, Sweden
2 Critique towards this kind of feminist positioning has been raised. It has been discussed that this challenges the researcher’s credibility, which, amongst others, Davis and Craven (2016) notes.
has one of the highest numbers of IPVAW out of the 28 EU member states. This is known as the Nordic Paradox (Wemrell et al., 2020).
3.1 Violence against women in a Swedish context
This section provides a background on men’s VAW in Sweden, and how IPV went from being considered “a family affair” to being acknowledged as a crime falling under public prosecution. In a Swedish context, the feminist movement grew rapidly during the late 1970s and onwards, this draw attention to questions regarding men’s violence against women. A new field of research emerged, and new (feminist) ways of theorizing men’s VAW gained influence (Steen, 2003). In the 1980s, an amendment of offenses of assault was made; from offenses of assault in a non-public place falling under private prosecution, it is now falling under public prosecution. According to Anne-Lie Steen (2003), this change in law, made men’s VAW shifting from a private concern to a societal one. During the 1980s, the women’s shelters movement grew stronger which further made the question live. In the last decades, men’s VAW has been high on the Swedish political agenda.
In 1995, Kvinnovåldskommisionen (The Commission on Violence Against Women) presented “Kvinnofrid” (Protection of Women’s Integrity)3, a state public report on men’s violence against women in Sweden (SOU 1995:60). One of its implications is that the severity of male-to-female IPVAW needs to be acknowledged, “[...] it is high time that violence against women should be regarded as a serious matter in society since it does constitute a serious problem” (SOU 1995:60, p. 449). In 1998, this report was followed by a government proposition, Protection of Women’s Integrity (Proposition 1997/98:55). This led to a broader population becoming aware of the widespread of men’s VAW, it also led to Swedish authorities, on both central and local levels, initiating projects to combat this issue (Steen, 2003). Since VAW became a priority in Swedish politics in the late 1990s, the Swedish government has declared itself the first feminist government in history. The government states that “women and men must have the same power to shape society and their own lives. This is a human right and a matter of democracy and justice”. One of the concrete aims of the government’s equality policy is ending men’s violence against women (The Swedish Government, 2020a).
3 In connection with Enander (2008), I argue that the Swedish word ‘kvinnofrid’ is complex to translate to English. I do, however, suggest that ‘women’s peace’ or ‘women’s integrity’ are the most relevant translations.
In 2019, 16 women were murdered by a man they were or had been, in an intimate relationship with. This according to official statistics from BRÅ – Brottsförebyggande rådet (The Swedish National Council for Crime). According to BRÅ (2020a), approximately 28,400 offenses of assault on women (age 18 or above) were reported in 2019. In 31% (or ~8,494) of those cases, the perpetrator was reported as the woman's partner.4 Also, a total of 1,720 reported cases of gross violation of a woman’s integrity were reported. A total of 4,720 sexual offenses against women (age 18 or above) were also reported in 2019. In 33% (or ~1,558) cases, the perpetrator was the woman’s intimate partner.5 One can, with these statistics in mind, easily conclude that men’s intimate partner violence towards women, still today, is an extensive (health) concern as well as a human rights issue to Swedish women.
3.2 Viveca Enander, Carin Holmberg and Margareta Hydén
Viveca Enander is a senior lecturer at The Department of Social Work, University of
Gothenburg. In 2008, she made her dissertation in social work, "Women Leaving Violent Men: Crossroads of Emotion, Cognition, and Action". Enander is a prominent researcher within the field of men’s violence against women. She specializes in violence towards women and violence in intimate partner relations Enander is also the coordinator of Gender and Sexuality in Social Work (GESS) and the research coordinator of The Västra Götaland Region Competence Centre on Intimate Partner Violence (GU, n.d).
Carin Holmberg is a feminist researcher, lecturer, and author. Holmberg has a Ph.D. in sociology from the University of Gothenburg, she specializes in men’s VAW, the connection between IPVAW and violence towards animals, and violence in LGBTQ6-relationships. Her dissertation from 1993, Det kallas kärlek: en socialpsykologisk studie om kvinnors underordning och mäns överordning bland unga jämställda par (It's called love: a social
4 In the statistics from BRÅ, the gender of the perpetrator is not disclosed in all types of statistics, hence the ‘intimate partner’ can be either male, female, non-binary or other. However, BRÅ, concludes that in 2018, 96% of all persons suspected for assault in an intimate relationship, were men (BRÅ 2020b). Further on, NCK states that being violent is strongly connected to the male gender and masculinity and that according to statistics, in an absolute majority of offences of assault on women, the perpetrator is a man (NCK 2020b).
5 According to a survey conducted by BRÅ, very few (3,9%) of the one’s being subjected to IPV have reported the offence(s), hence the unreported number of cases of (male-to-female) IPV is believed to be significant (BRÅ 2020b).
6 Since Holmberg (n.d), at her webpage, uses the term “lhbtq-personer” (LGBTQ people) I here use the same term. I would thus like to acknowledge that the most used umbrella term for the queer community of today is LGBTQIA*, which is the acronym for Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transsexual/Transgender, Queer/Questioning, Intersexual and Asexual or Allied. The asterisk (*) is added in order to respect and involve all people – indifferent of their own identification.
psychological study of the woman's subordination and the man's superordination among young, equal couples) has been widely acknowledged and is somewhat today a modern classic within feminist contexts (NCK, 2020d; Holmberg, n.d).
Margareta Hydén is a professor emeritus in social work at Linköping University. Hydén did her doctorate at Stockholm University, 1992 she defended her dissertation, Woman Battering as Marital Act – The Construction of a Violent Marriage. Her area of research is in the intersection between social work and criminology, her main focus is men’s VAW. Hydén is also a leading researcher for the researcher network, Responses to International Violence, and an advisory board member at the Centre for Narrative Research, University of East London (LiU, n.d).
4. Previous research
The research field on men’s violence against women has grown rapidly since the 1970s, primarily in the U.S and Europe, and is now a well-established area of research in Sweden as well as in other westernized countries (Ellsberg et al., 2000; Lövestad & Krantz, 2012). Research has been carried out within social, political, psychological, and historical contexts and men’s violence against women has been explained and theorized in several ways in the last decades. In Swedish feminist research on violence, the structural perspective on gender power has been the most influential (Steen, 2003).
In this chapter, I will summarize some of the previous research done on the field of men’s IPVAW. One can argue that previous research has been centered around four main questions; why is the man abusive towards his partner? How prevalent is men’s violence against women? Why is the woman staying in an abusive relationship? And finally, why is the woman leaving an abusive relationship? As a starting point, I will outline some research on the prevalence of men’s VAW.
4.1 The prevalence of men’s violence against women in Sweden
I argue that it is nearly impossible to discuss the research field of men’s violence against women in a Swedish context without starting by acknowledging Slagen Dam – Mäns våld emot kvinnor i jämställda Sverige: en omfångsundersökning (Captured Queen - men's violence against women in "equal" Sweden: a prevalence study) by Eva Lundgren, Gun Heimer, Ann-Marie
Kalliokoski and Jenny Westerstrand. When it was published in 2001, Captured Queen was the first Swedish inquiry of the prevalence of men's violence against women. The study shows that men’s violence against women is far from a marginalized problem concerning a small number of individuals, instead it is a structural problem that affects and shapes society. The authors conclude that 46% out of the 10,000 participating women had been abused by a man after turning 15years old. One of their most interesting findings was that there is no generic ‘wife-batterer’ and contrary to popular belief, a minority of abusive men have substance or alcohol abuse and/or are criminals (Lundgren et al. 2001).7 Gottzén (2019), presents the same conclusion, he argues that it is impossible to see on a man if he has been violent towards his partner, there are simply no significant attributes to look for. The abusive man looks like any man you meet on the street. Feminist researcher Mona Eliasson (1997) states that the abusive man is not different mentally either, most men carrying out VAW are not mentally ill, rather he is aware that the violence hurts the woman deeply. Even though research points to the contrary, men’s VAW is still explained as carried out by the foreign Other, a man from a non-Swedish culture (see for example Brännvall, 2016 and Gottzén, 2019).
After the eye-opening publication of Captured Queen (2001), two major prevalence studies have in recent years been carried out, both creating a more nuanced image of IPVAW. NCK – nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid (The National Centre for Knowledge on Men’s Violence Against Women) presented in 2014 a study in which 10,000 women and 10,000 men were questioned about their experience of violence. The result gives at hand that women were more probable to be subjected to violence by their partners. According to the study, 20 percent of the participating women had been victims of systematic and repeated psychological violence by either their current partner or an ex-partner. The authors also conclude that “the overall picture that emerges is thus that women are some more likely to have experienced severe violence, that women are much more likely to have been subjected to severe sexual violence and severe psychological violence as adults” (Andersson et al., 2014, p. 66). Another Swedish prevalence
7 Critique by, for example, Jerzy Sarnecki and Hanne Kjöller, was directed towards the study’s methodology and theorizing and thus its conclusions. The critique was mainly questioning researcher Eva Lundgren, both as a person and as a researcher. The study was also heavily criticised due to its radical feminist understanding of men’s VAW, the researcher’s understand and present VAW as a continuum where all types of violence, from controlling behaviour to rape and physical assault, is an expression for patriarchy. Thus even ‘moderate’ and temporal violence was in the study reported as systematic VAW, as opposed to previous research and the publics discursive understanding of men’s VAW (Nilsson, G. 2005. “Slagen Dam och tystnaden”, Nätverket: kulturforskning i
study has been conducted by Solveig Lövestad and Gunilla Krantz (2012). Their study on men’s and women’s exposure, and perpetration, of IPV, show that both men and women participating in the study perpetrate - and are victims of physical violence and controlling behavior. Although men reported the use of physical violence to a higher extent. Worth noting is that the motives behind the violent acts were not investigated, hence it cannot be excluded that women’s use of violence was in self-defense (Lövestad & Krantz, 2012).
4.2 Why is the man abusive towards his partner?
In the early 1970s, a new field of research began to emerge, with new ways of understanding and theorizing about violence in close relationships. Much research regarding VAW has since been carried out from a feminist standpoint. An influential, and ground-breaking book in the feminist research field on VAW was published in 1975 by radical feminist Susan Brownmiller. Brownmiller (1975) argues in Against Our Will: Men, Women, and Rape, that all men are capable of sexual violence, which keeps all women in fear of men. According to Brownmiller (1975), the patriarchy has made man the predator and the woman is his prey, thus all men are possible rapists and all women are possible victims. That idea is also articulated by researchers Emerson R. Dobash and Russel Dobash (1979). In their book, Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy, Dobash, and Dobash (1979) explain men’s VAW within marriage as a result of the patriarchy. They conclude that all (married) women are possible targets for men’s IPVAW since all men share a perception of women as subordinate.
Another feminist researcher, Eva Lundgren (2012), explains men’s VAW in relation to könsmaktsordningen (The Gender Power Order). The gender power order draws on the theoretical framework of the patriarchy, the term is used to illustrate how men have the great majority of power in all levels of society and how women, thus, is restrained and silenced through various practice such as master suppression techniques, and held back by traditional patriarchal structures such as ‘the glass ceiling’. One of the newer research publications is Det känsligare slaget by Professor Lucas Gottzén (2019). Gottzén (2019) has interviewed abusive men for several studies, in this book he analyses men’s VAW based on their narratives, he concludes that the men interviewed explain being violent against their partner because of various reasons, they hit her because they are frustrated, believed they are entitled to, are jealous, tries to maintain power in the relationship or have been drinking. Violence becomes a way for those men to take control of the situation, and the woman. Gottzén (2019) concludes
that masculinity and male norms form men’s self-image and their scope for action, changing masculinity norms and men’s attitudes towards violence are thus one of the keys to combating IPVAW.
4.3 Why is the woman staying?
Reasons to stay in an abusive relationship can vary greatly, from shame and guilt to economic dependence, religious beliefs, fear, prescribed gender roles, a will to keep the family intact, emotional dependence, and the cultural importance of marriage. Angela M. Moe (2007) has conducted a research study on abused American women living at a shelter. Her research shows difficulties finding housing and a job also played a major role in abused women not leaving or leaving and then going back to their abuser. Moe (2007, p. 684) concludes “all of them returned to their abusers for reasons such as having no money; being threatened, stalked, sabotaged, or harassed by their abusers; being encouraged by their families to reconcile; feeling guilty; being lonely, and still loving their partners”. Still loving their partner was also found by Moe (2007) and Ekselius (1982) as a reason for staying.
In 2019, No Visible Bruises: What We Don’t Know About Domestic Violence Can Kill Us, by Rachel Louise Snyder was published. In the book, written in an American context, which mostly focuses on the stories of female victims, Snyder (2019) concludes that IPVAW has reached epidemic levels within the U.S. Snyder (2019) interviews abusive men, amongst the abusers she identifies a pattern of expressing ones masculinity as dominance over the female partner. This, she argues, is due to the traditional gender roles of power, which must be challenged. According to Snyder (2019), victims of IPVAW stay with their abusive partner, not because they want to, but because the consequences of leaving might be worse than those of staying. Research shows that the violence tends to escalate if the woman tries to leave the abuser, hence staying is often a matter of survival (Lundgren, 2012; NCK, 2020c; Snyder, 2019; Widding Hedin, 1997). As shown by Lundgren et al. (2001), it is also relatively common that the violence continues also after the woman leaves. Snyder (2019), like Kirkwood (1993) draws on the complex process of leaving, “In so many cases […], we mistake what we see from the outside as her choosing to stay with an abuser, when in fact, it’s we who don’t recognize what a victim who is slowly and carefully leaving actually looks like”.
4.4 Why is the woman leaving?
The international research field on women leaving abusive male partners is extensive. In an international context, one author frequently cited is Catherine Kirkwood (1993), in Leaving Abusive Partners: From the Scars of Survival to the Wisdom for Change Kirkwood draws on previous feminist work to understand men’s VAW and the woman’s complex process of escaping the violence. Kirkwood (1993), using a structural theoretical approach on men’s VAW, argues that the leaving process can be dynamic in the sense that the woman leaves, just to reconnect with her abuser and then leaves again, she uses the metaphor of a spider web to demonstrate how the different elements of abuse (emotional, psychological and physical) gets entangled and constructs the experiences of abused women. The web, as I interpret Kirkwood (1993), is made up of power and control tactics that need to be understood in relation to each other. The process of leaving, therefore, should be seen as a process of disentanglement, in which the woman eventually frees herself from the web and hence the relationship. This process, Kirkwood (1993) argues, is fuelled by anger or fear:
Women described a strong sense of either anger or fear, accompanied by a need for self-preservation or the protection of their children. This energy is a personal resource upon which women draw to shift the balance of control, to regain the ability to act on their own needs and wishes, and, eventually, to leave the partner who is abusing them. (Kirkwood (1993, p. 66)
That the woman leaving is a process, rather than an event, is discussed by a great number of researchers (see for example Campbell Ulrich 2009; Cravens, Whiting & Aamar 2015; Goetting 1999). Khaw and Hardesty (2007) use the terms trajectories and turning points to theorize women’s leaving process(es). They view the process of leaving as stages which the woman needs to move through. A turning point is a transitional event, i.e what makes her move from one stage to another, whilst a trajectory is a pathway between turning points. The authors’ identity the following turning points:
The Realisation → Pushed to React → The Final Exit
‘The Realisation’ symbolizes that the woman accepts the relationship as abusive, this stage can take years to enter (Khaw and Hardesty, 2007). Numerous researchers have adopted theories of leaving as a process, most researchers argue that the process of leaving starts when the woman realizes, she is, in fact, the victim of abuse (see for example Goetting, 1999; Patzel, 2001). Previous research shows that it is common for abused women to live in denial and/or internalize the violence they are subjected to (see ‘Normalization Process’ in Chapter 5)’. The
‘Pushed to React’-phase can include the violence changing from emotional/verbal to physical, or the abuse getting more brutal. For women having children, a turning point can be that the violence is directed towards them or the insight that the children are suffering heavily from the abuse (see also Cravens, Whiting & Aamar, 2015 and Patzel, 2001). For most women in the study by Khaw and Hardesty (2007), ‘The Final Exit’ was the result of a major event, such as that the woman was abused in public or that she risks losing custody of her children. Khaw and Hardesty (2007), similar to Kirkwood (1993), conclude that leaving an abusive relationship can take years and be a complex process, they recognize that the woman might need to carry out multiple attempts of leaving before permanently being able to.
Although the Swedish research field is more limited, several studies, especially doctoral dissertations, on women escaping male IPVAW have been published since the beginning of the 2000s (see for example Agevall, 2012; Brännvall, 2016; Ekbrand 2006; Eriksson 2003). In their study, Maria Scheffer Lindgren and Barbro Renck (2008), in a Swedish context, examines abused women leaving a male partner. Like several international researchers, they conclude that leaving needs to be viewed as a process, although the process is seldom linear. The researchers state that for several of the interviewed women “[...] the final break up was simply a matter of life or death” (Scheffer Lindgren & Renck, 2008, p. 121). Scheffer Lindgren and Renck (2008) in line with Kirkwood (1993), found that fear was a major part of the process of leaving, they write “fear in a violent relationship is a powerful and permeating feeling, which is just as strong as love” (Scheffer Lindgren & Renck, 2008, p. 122). A conclusion is thus when the woman experiences fear to a higher extent than love, she is more likely to leave her abuser.
5. Theoretical Framework
Previous research and theory will provide the framework on which my analysis will be based. The following chapter elaborates on the theoretical framework and philosophical positioning.
5.1 The Normalization of Violence
Professor Eva Lundgren has been highly influential in the Nordic research field on violence against women. Lundgren (2012) adopts a feminist structuralist view on men’s violence against women, she argues that interpersonal power relations are related to overall power structures in society. Besides being a co-researcher of Captured Queen (2001), she has presented the theory
on Våldets normaliseringsprocess (The process of normalizing violence). According to Lundgren, the theory is to be used as a theoretical framework, it cannot be used to map out the concrete consequences of a man’s IPVAW for a specific woman. Rather, it should be seen as a model to illustrate how abused women little by little are worn down and eventually accept the violence she is subjected to. This, according to Lundgren (2012), happens when a shift of the woman's boundaries occurs, gradually her boundaries are erased, and her violent partner’s ‘truth’ becomes her ‘truth’. This is an ongoing process, in which the abusive man slowly reduces her existence by controlling and isolating her in multiple ways. This takes away the woman’s agency, her right to self-determination, her sense of self-worth. As the abuse systematically gets worse, which can take years, she starts to internalize his reality, in which she deserves to be abused. What makes the relationship between an abused woman and an abusive man even more complex is that he often alternates between being violent and unrelenting and being affectionate and loving. Lundgren (2012) writes that this is one of the most effective ways of ensuring that a woman subjected to male IPV, feels affectionate towards her abuser, and instead of understanding the abuse as acts of violence, understand it as acts of love.
The normalization theory is related to concepts and ideas from radical feminism. According to Lena Gemzöe (2004), radical feminism can be explained as the perception that women are oppressed because of their gender. This oppression speaks in men's control of women in the family, in men’s intimate partner violence towards women, and through men’s sexual abuse of women (including prostitution and pornography). Radical feminists argue that women as a group are subordinate to men as a group, this is often referred to as the patriarchy. In 2004, Lundgren was referred to as one of Sweden’s leading radical feminists in Svenska Dagbladet.8 The normalization theory has since Lundgren used it originally in the mid-1980’s been widely acknowledged, especially within Roks – Riksförbundet för kvinno- och tjejjourer i Sverige (The National Organisation for Women’s Shelters and Young Women's Shelters in Sweden). The Process of Normalising Violence is also adopted by NCK – Nationellt centrum för kvinnofrid (The National Centre for Knowledge on Men’s Violence Against Women), which is commissioned by the Swedish government “to increase the knowledge of men's violence
8 See ”Könskrig är genusforskarnas affärsidé” by Maria Abrahamsson. Published 15 December 2004, https://www.svd.se/konskrig-ar-genusforskarnas-affarside. Accessed 23 October 2020.
against women in Sweden”. Radical feminist theory in general, including the normalization theory, is also evident in Swedish national politics (see for example SOU 1995:60).
A common critique of the structural feminist perspective on men’s VAW is that it defines and consolidates the man as a perpetrator and the woman as a victim. This creates a static understanding of the power relationship between women and men, where men, in every aspect, are superior to women. Radical feminism emerged as a reaction to patriarchy, the ideology acknowledges women as a biological class to be subordinate to men as a biological class. Further, radical feminism understands men’s oppression against women as the one dominant
oppression and thus the reason behind men’s violence against women.
5.2 Neutralization of Violence
Most of the research on men’s VAW has a feminist perspective as a starting point, however within this perspective, there are, to simplify, two different orientations; there is both a structural understanding and a more relational understanding of men’s violence against women. The relational perspective on IPVAW and the social psychological perspective, both put the focus on factors in the relationship to explain the violence. This perspective has been acknowledged by, amongst others, Michael P. Johnson (2006). Johnson (2006) argue that there are four different types of IPVAW; intimate terrorism, violent resistance, situational couple violence, and mutual violent control:
In intimate terrorism, the individual is violent and controlling, the partner is not. In violent resistance, the individual is violent but not controlling; the partner is the violent and controlling one. In situational couple violence, although the individual is violent, neither the individual nor the partner is violent and controlling. In mutual violent control, the individual and the partner are violent and controlling. (Johnson, 2006, p. 1003)
Johnson (2006) mean that it is, therefore, crucial to define what type of IPVAW one is talking about, or researching, since it is impossible to explain violence by using a single theory. In two out of the four kinds of violence, both of the parties in the relationship are violent and/or controlling. Johnson (2006) thus understands violence as occurring between two individuals who can be both victim and perpetrator at the same time. However, Johnson (2006, p. 1003) concludes that the violence follows some patterns: “In heterosexual relationships, intimate
terrorism is perpetrated almost exclusively by men, whereas violent resistance is found almost exclusively among women. The other two types are gender symmetric”.
Tina Mattson (2013) has conducted an observational study in which she, during a year, has studied social workers working with IPV at a social service facility. Mattson (2013) focuses on the social worker's understanding of violence in intimate relationships. One of her findings is that the male social workers rejected a structural feminist understanding of violence, instead, they understood violence as marital conflicts. The female social workers, on the other hand, were more prone to use structural explanation models for IPV or combining a relational understanding with a structural understanding of violence, however, whilst stressing that also the woman in a heterosexual relationship can be the perpetrator. Mattson (2013) concludes that not using a structural understanding of violence makes violence invisible:
The social worker’s different approaches to feminist structural perspectives made them do different assessments of violence, and they had difficulty visualizing the violence. Under my observations at the Unit it became clear that the violence in various cases got "lost", as the social worker’s sometimes expressed it when they discussed their work. (Mattson, 2013, p.157)
Mattson’s (2013) main critique against applying a relational perspective on IPVAW is that its focus on men’s possible exposure to women’s violence neutralizes the violence – and thus ignores women’s experiences and situation. The emphasis on letting men, rather than women, define the violence shifted the focus from men’s violence to their vulnerability, making the abused woman invisible.
5.3 Intersectionality
According to Nina Lykke (2003), the concept of intersectionality emerged at the intersection of Black feminism, postcolonial theory, queer theory, and postmodern feminist theory. Intersectionality can be understood as a theoretical framework that offers a lens through which one can critically examine how various forms of power structures intersect and together create an interlocking system of oppression (Engstrand & Larsson, 2013). Using intersectionality as a theory, or methodology, it is crucial to understand gender as a social division that overlaps with other social divisions, such as class, race, and age, and thus creates interdependent power systems that subordinates and oppresses the individual (Crenshaw, 1989; Lykke, 2010).
I would like to acknowledge that the term intersectionality was coined by Kimberlé Crenshaw during the 1980s. Crenshaw originally used the term as a critique against white hegemonic feminism, she aimed to point out how Black women are multiply-burdened since they experience oppression based on sex and race. According to Crenshaw (1989), the intersectional experience of oppression is greater than the sum of racism and sexism. However, for this thesis, I will use
intersectionality as an analytical tool to make visible how ‘women’ are not a homogenous group. By including an intersectional perspective, I aim to make visible how the category ‘women’ is made up of individuals with different experiences and identities. Women subjected to violence thus do not have shared oppression, rather their different lived realities greatly affect their understanding of the violence, due to their skin color and other identity markers they face different obstacles. Crenshaw (1991) argues that support and other intervention strategies aimed at women subjected to IPVAW is based on the white middle-class woman’s experiences of exposure to violence, thus the relief efforts will have a limited effect on women not identifying as white and middle class.
I use the concept of intersectionality in my analysis of the work by Enander, Holmberg, and Hydén by exploring who might be missing in their material, I will also examine what happens with the binary understanding of women as a homogenous category when one includes other power orders, such as ethnicity, functionality, and social status.
6. Research Design and Methods
This thesis is an analytical and qualitative literature review of the content in various types of texts written by Carin Holmberg, Viveka Enander, and Margareta Hydén. In total 10 works on women leaving abusive male partners have been selected for the study. The research study will be constructed as a case study and will thus concentrate solely on the three authors' work on women leaving their violent male partners. A case study is, according to Martyn Denscombe (2007), an adequate choice of a method when one conducts in-depth research in a social setting, on, for example, experiences. A case study enables the researcher to, from a holistic point of view, examine an instance of a phenomenon, instead of studying a large spectrum. One must thus be aware of the critique against case studies. The method has been criticized for not providing enough answers on the prevalence of a phenomenon and hence making generalizations difficult. According to Denscombe (2007), that risks harming the study’s credibility. However, one can argue that parts of this study’s analysis can be adjusted and applied to comparable cases.
6.1 Social constructivism
This study adopts constructivism as its ontological standpoint; hence the thesis is, both methodologically and theoretically, carried out using social constructivism theories. The foundation of social constructivism is the belief that reality is socially constructed, there is no ‘real world’ out there since it is impossible to observe the world in an unbiased and objective way - instead, we create versions of reality. From a social constructivist perspective, the researcher does not seek objective truth, instead, she is interested in examining how and why something is depicted as ‘truth’. Social constructivism can hence be called the opposite of essentialism and positivism (Burr, 2015). Social constructivism9 can be thought of as a “critical stance toward taken-for-granted knowledge” (Burr, 2015, p. 2). To underline the foundation of social constructivism, Marianne Winther Jørgensen and Louise Phillips writes, “our knowledge of the world should not be treated as objective truth” (Winther Jørgensen and Phillips 2002, p. 13). The epistemology one adopts as a researcher is, for the sake of transparency, significant to acknowledge (Alvesson & Billing, 2009). If there is no objective truth, no fixed reality, or no essentialist explanations, not only reality - but also knowledge is socially constructed and thus relative. I view the epistemological understanding of knowledge as relational and I argue that knowledge is endured through people’s interaction, especially through language. Every researcher presenting their findings presents one way of viewing and explaining reality. Philosopher Richard Rorty (1982) explains how language creates meaning:
Truth cannot be out there - cannot exist independently of the human mind - because sentences cannot so exist, or be out there. The world is out there, but descriptions of the world are not. Only descriptions of the world can be true or false. The world on its own—unaided by the describing activities of human beings—cannot. (Rorty, 1982, p. 5)
A social constructivist researcher’s main interest is thus to explore what is understood as reality and truth, rather than to search for an ‘objective truth’. In this thesis, I will, in line with the social constructivist approach, use the research material as descriptions of the world. I will, per
9 Both Burr (2015) and Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) uses the term social constructionism instead of
social constructivism. The terms are often used interchangeably, and my interpretation is that their
understanding and usage of social constructionism is identical with other researchers understanding and usage of social constructivism. It can be noted that some researchers suggest that social constructivism focuses on the individual's construction of the world of, while social constructionists, instead of having an individual focus, have a social one (Young & Colin, 2004)
an interpretative outlook, also see my findings and results as exactly that, my findings, and my results, this since I cannot separate my lived reality from the analysis of the discourse.
6.2 Discourse analysis
The method of discourse analysis (DA) is grounded in social constructivism and according to Marianne Winther Jørgensen and Louise Phillips (2002), a social constructivist approach to knowledge is a prerequisite when doing discourse analysis, which is why I argue that the method is a suitable choice for this thesis. Conducting a discourse analysis, the researcher aims to examine statements and explore what patterns are to be found in the chosen material. I have analyzed my material from a discourse analytic perspective, where tools from discourse theory have been used. Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, p. 56) state that “[...] discourse is a form of social practice which both constitutes the social world and is constituted by other social practices”. Lykke (2010) discusses discourses in terms of shaped ‘realities’, she resonates that social realities are constructed by different discourses. The process of producing and reproducing norms, values, and ideas as ‘natural’ and ‘essential’ are, according to Lykke (2010) what constitutes and enforces discourses. Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, p. 9) argue that “changes in discourse are a means by which the social world is changed”. The relationship is thus dialectic, discourses both constitute and are constituted by the social world. Both Lykke (2010) and Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) thus understand discursive practices as created through social interaction, hence they are dynamic and by no means static.
Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002, p. 15) emphasize how language is an important factor no matter which discourse analytical approach one chooses, “discourse analytical approaches take as their starting point the claim of structuralist and poststructuralist linguistic philosophy, that our access to reality is always through language”. They mean that changes in society’s ‘larger’ discourses occur because of linguistic changes. This way of understanding discourses resonates with me, my analysis will therefore build on social constructionist ideas about how ‘truth’ is shaped by language (Wenneberg, 2001; Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002). A common critique of discourse analysis is that you as a researcher produce one of many possible ‘truths’ regarding your research object, it is, therefore, important to reflect on how you relate to the truth’ you produce. Your positioning will undoubtedly affect both the collection of the data and the results of the study (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).
6.1.2 Discourse theory
I will in the analysis include the concept of discursive struggle. The discursive struggle is a part of the poststructuralist discourse theory approach by Ernesto Laclau and Chantal Mouffe (2001). Discourse theory is closely related to social constructionism, it focuses on language and how language is inconsistent and thus unstable. However, since discourse theory does not offer any practical tools, I have turned to Winther Jørgensen and Phillips (2002) and their practical interpretation of the concept of discourse theory. A discursive struggle is the power struggle that takes place between discourses about the prevailing hegemony and which discourse has the power to define ‘reality’. The term is in this study used to scrutinize different
researcher’s models of explanations of why, and how, a woman leaves an abusive man, including how their language contributes to shaping discourses (Winther Jørgensen & Phillips, 2002).
6.3 Search strategy
For this literature review, I have scanned for relevant literature in several ways. I started by searching Google Scholar and UniSearch for the researcher’s names. From the results, I then began to sort out possibly pertinent material by title and abstract scanning. I then continued by reading through reference lists on the selected material, which helped me identify other articles and books that met my inclusion criteria (see below). The literature review was hence not systematic, on the contrary, I had to search wide to decrease the risk of missing relevant material. As a result, most texts were added through hand searches. I aimed to include a majority of the texts written on the subject by the three researchers, which also was of great importance to be able to answer my research questions, I, therefore, saw my process of searching for material as dynamic and went back to search for material as the study progressed. To gain structure in my search process, I decided to use a few inclusion and exclusion criteria. Those were used to sort out relevant material that would help me fulfill my aim with this thesis.
Figure 1
Inclusion criteria Exclusion criteria
Texts written (totally or in part) by Carin Holmberg, Viveka Enander, or Margareta Hydén - separately or together
Texts written by any other researcher
Full text available online or at the library at Linkoping University, at Stockholm
University, or any public library in Stockholm
Texts that are not fully available
Texts dealing specifically with women leaving their abusive male partner
General texts regarding men’s violence against women
Using the inclusion and exclusion criteria, I ended up with 10 different types of texts.10 Most of the texts are research articles whilst others are publications, dissertations, and chapters from books. I argue that the material I have chosen is most relevant to meet the aim of this thesis and to answer the research questions. To process and draw conclusions of the material, an analysis of the data was completed.
6.4 Limitations
With any research design comes a set of limitations. For this study, a qualitative study design was created as the study, as well as qualitative research in general, is constructionist as well as interpretive. According to Alan Bryman (2004), one can examine a study’s reliability to measure how replicable it is. As this study is hermeneutical, its results are based on individual interpretations made with a certain preconception, another researcher would in all probability
interpret the material differently. From a positivist perspective, it can thus be argued that the research design of this thesis fails to generate valid data. A common critique towards qualitative research is that it tends to be too subjective and impressionistic, leading to its results not being generalizable. However, Bryman (2004, p. 28) argues that “the findings of qualitative research are to generalize to theories rather than populations”. Thus, Bryman (2004) argue that qualitative research studies are valid even though they do not give us insights representative of a wider population. Instead, the method can provide rich and nuanced material to theorize.
When conducting qualitative research, all kinds of research data must be understood in relation to the context of their production. In line with the social constructivist perspective, I argue that no research data, nor any production of knowledge is to be seen as objective. I will, once again, emphasize the necessity of being transparent with one’s positionality. A critical approach, both to the empirical material and one's interpretation is fundamental to the study's reliability. Even though I as a researcher strive to continue to position myself and thus situate my awareness throughout this thesis, it is important to remember that I, as a researcher, am a subject. Therefore, I make no claims of this research being objective. I nevertheless argue that this study can contribute to some interesting insights.
I would also like to shine a light on the fact that English is my second language. Much of the empirical material consists of texts translated from Swedish to English by me. I am to hold accountable for any mistranslations leading to misinterpretations by me during the research process, or by the reader of this finished thesis.
6.5 Ethical considerations
All research studies need to take ethical concerns into account, although this thesis is conducted as a desk study using text material solely; no interviews or observations have been carried out. The ethical considerations necessary are significantly fewer when one conducts a text-based analysis instead of, for example, an interview study. Carrying out a text-based research study, however, comes with other ethical dilemmas. It is, for example, of great importance to differentiate biased and objective research material, which I have been particularly meticulous with. To ensure ethical issues are recognized in this study, I have followed established research practice as described in the ethical guidelines from Vetenskapsrådet (Swedish Research Council) and their report “Good Research Practice” (2017). I would like to acknowledge the
dilemma associated with analyzing an already vulnerable group, it is crucial to balance the value in knowledge against the risks in form of negative consequences for the group getting analyzed. However, as previously mentioned, this is a text study which means that I as a researcher will not be in contact with women exposed to abuse.
7. Results and Analysis
The following sections will present an analysis and a discussion of the findings from this study, based on its theoretical and methodological framework. The starting point is that the argumentation regarding women leaving abusive men is discursive, i.e the reasoning is based on different discourses that define the question in different ways. One can argue that there are two main standpoints used within research on men’s violence against women, most researchers focus on either socially or individually explanation models, using a structural respectively an individual understanding of VAW. Enander (2008, 2009, 2010), Holmberg and Enander (2007, 2008, 2011), and Hydén (1999, 2000, 2001, 2005) all use a feminist perspective on men’s violence, where gender inequalities are understood as the main reason behind VAW. However, they have different approaches to why men carry out violence and how abused women react to violence. One can thus argue that they represent two different discourses, a structural and a relational, where Enander and Holmberg represent the first and Hydén the latter discourse. Further, I aim to explore how those two discourses on men’s violence against women are expressed in the material and how the process(es) of leaving are explained and understood. For the sake of clarity, this chapter is divided into three different sections; Framework and Analytical Tools, The Process of Leaving, and The white Swedish woman suffering IPV.
7.1 Frameworks and analytical tools
Viveka Enander and Carin Holmberg can be said to be two of the most influential researchers in the field of women leaving abusive men. They have conducted several research studies together on women leaving their abusive partners. Their book, Hur går hon? Om att stödja misshandlade kvinnors uppbrottsprocesser (How is she leaving? About supporting abused women's outbreak processes) is well-recognized and used as educational material at various university programs and other social institutions. Besides the book they have written the article “Why Does She Leave? The Leaving Process(es) of Battered Women” (2008) and the text “Reflexioner kring motståndets dubbelhet, offrets existens och uppbrottets politiska
implikationer” (Reflections on the duality of resistance, the existence of the victim and the political implications of the break-up) (2007).
In their study “Why Does She Leave?: The Leaving Process(es) of Battered Women”, Enander and Holmberg (2008, p. 203) “touches on two different theoretical fields: men’s violence against women and exit processes”. As a part of their theoretical framework, the researchers use the Normalization theory by Lundgren, with a focus on the concept's resistance and internalization. In their study Holmberg and Enander (2008) explores the two strategies
adaption and resistance, both, they argue, used by women to cope with IPV. In their research
Holmberg and Enander (2008) conclude that most of their informants (10 women) used resistance as their main strategy for coping. They also concluded that a limited amount of women showed signs of adapting to the violent relationship, but this was rather few in relation to the ones resisting. “[…] the kind of adaptation described by Lundgren as women’s primary strategy for coping with violence was not reported at all by some informants (Enander & Holmberg, 2008, p. 209). However, an interesting finding was that this resistance did not protect the women from being wrecked by the violence. Holmberg and Enander (2008) conclude that there is no dichotomy between adaption and resistance:
Despite the fact that the informants all described some kind of resistance, they also described being broken down. This means that an abused woman may resist, but still stay in the relationship and be broken down by it.
(Holmberg & Enander, 2008, p. 2010)
Further, when analyzing their result, Enander and Holmberg (2008) find that the abused women interviewed did not adopt a structural understanding of the violence they were exposed to, instead, they found individual explanations as to why their partner was violent. Thus, neither women understanding the violence as structural or women fully adapting to the IPV was confirmed in the study. According to Mattson (2013), it is complex, on an individual level, to use a structural explanation model to violence. The lack of narratives regarding women adapting to the violence leads Enander and Holmberg (2008) to suggest a new theoretical term, meta-adaptation. Meta-adaption, they mean, can be used to understand how a woman can both resist and adapt within a violent relationship. Meta-adaption can thus be seen as a combination of the Normalization theory and the theory on Neutralization on Violence.
