On agents of power and support:

On agents of power and support:

Case studies regarding NGO and State institution discourses on intimate partner violence in the context of LGBT identities

Thomas Wilkinson

Department of Cultural Sciences

Master’s Thesis in Gendering Practices (30 hec)

Spring 2017

Supervisor: Olga Sasunkevich

Faculty of Arts

University of Gothenburg

Abstract

The topic of intimate partner violence in contemporary discourse offers theoretical discussions, suggestions for policy reform, and movements for activism across many fields in the current context. However, it appears that LGBT perspectives are often ignored in such discussions. Moving outside of the normative frameworks of which to approach violence in close relationships, this study aims to investigate how perceptions on cases of intimate partner violence experienced by LGBT individuals are situated across the discourse of NGO and police institutions, with the further intent to outline the implications that such findings have on the level and nature of support for LGBT individuals who experience such realities.

Adopting the framework of an intersectional ‘Queer reading’, this study shall engage with the ignored area of LGBT specific issues within the area of intimate partner violence through two separate case studies concerning an LGBT rights organisation and a municipal police division, with the intent to investigate and identify approaches towards bodies’ conceptualisation, processing, and support mechanisms of vulnerable individuals that experience violence in close relationships.

Key words: LGBT, intimate partner violence, queer methodology, normativity

Table of contents

List of abbreviations

Introduction

Study focus and research questions

Disposition

Chapter I:

Perpetration, masculinities, bio-power –

Existing theoretical discourses on LGBT intimate violence

Intimate partner violence 05

Previous understandings 06

Alternative understandings of IPV 07

Chosen definition for this study 08

Sexual health as an LGBT-aligned issue 09

HIV: Stigmatisation, assimilation and violence 10

Summary 11

Theoretical frameworks

Gender, intersectionality, and ‘queer reading’ as frameworks of non-

normativity 13

Power/knowledge, bio-power and discourse 16

Pathology and medicalisation 17

Subject formation, subjectification and marginalisation 18 Masculinity studies

“A violent man”: Masculinities and shame 19 Internalised homophobia and heterosexism 20

Heteronormativity and sexual health 21

Perpetration and victimhood 22

Summary 24

Chapter II:

Presentation of results from the larger qualitative study

Method and approach 25

Data selection and theoretical sampling 26

Qualitative interviews as data collection 28

Interview process and data analysis 29

Case Study (i): Police institution case on LGBT perspectives to IPV 30

Interview background 30

Definitions of IPV 32

Social and cultural perspectives regarding IPV 33

Masculinities 34

Shame: ‘In patriarchy, there is no shame’ 35

Vulnerability 36

LGBT identities as vulnerable cases 37

Police’s perception on approaches to LGBT cases of IPV 39

Summary 40

Case Study (ii): NGO and practitioner case on LGBT perspectives to IPV 41

Interview background 42

Definition of IPV and forms of violence 43

Neglect 44

Non-binary children and the right to identification 44 Mis/identification of LGBT individuals by support professionals 45 Gender identification within partner relationships 47 Pathologisation and assimilation of LGBT identities with HIV 48

Resistance to pathologised discourse 49

Institutional blindness of LGBT issues 50

“If they leave, they have nothing”: support for refugee and migrants 51

“Shame”: Internalised homophobia in refugee and migrant encounters 51

Summary 52

Larger remarks on the overall research 53

Chapter III:

Reflections on the overall study

On the researcher as ‘knowledge producer’ 57

On qualitative methods in pursuit toward ‘emancipatory’ research 58 Concluding thoughts and suggestions for further research 59

Appendices

Case study (i)

1.1. Presentation: ‘Violence in close relationships – challenges today’ 61 1.2. Public information leaflet: ‘Your rights’ 63 1.3. Public information leaflet: ‘Is domestic violence a part of your life?’ 64 Case study (ii)

2.1. Presentation: ‘An LGBTQ perspective on intimate partner violence’ 65

Reference list

List of abbreviations

HIV (‘Human Immunodeficiency Virus’)

IPV (‘Intimate Partner Violence’) The chosen term to describe particular acts and/or broader cycles of violence based within the framework of intimate or close relationships, whether on romantic, familial or community based levels. The particular wording of this term allows for

‘violence’ to be understood as acts harming an individual – beyond singularly physical, emotional or psychological means – in the framework of an abuse of power in a close relationship

LGBT (‘Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans’) Umbrella term to describe those who define themselves within queer or non-binary identity groups

MSM (‘Men who have sex with men’)

PrEP/PEP (‘Pre-exposure Prophylaxis’/’Post-exposure Prophylaxis’) Medication used for the prevention/treatment of the HIV virus

STI (‘Sexually transmitted disease/s’)

WSW (‘Women who have sex with women’)

Introduction

Domestic violence, partner violence, violence in close relationships; the list of referents in place to describe abuses of power within intimate settings are numerous – each containing particular nuances and varied possibilities of understanding – yet the incorporation of non-normative perspectives within such discussions appears to move at a much slower rate, if at all. Of research existing in the field with particular focus upon lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender (LGBT) and queer cases and cycles of intimate partner violence (IPV), the striking lack – or even non-existence – of similarly focused studies and research occupations is echoed almost consistently.

Moving the focus of this reality to structures of support, which must be seen as the embodiment of change and the logical response to cases reporting abuse of power, it is vital to question how those at risk of exclusion are to be approached and protected on a societal level. Large strands of discussion are active, often focusing upon outreach and rehabilitation procedures to prevent repeat offences or cycles of violence. Such debate affirms an understanding of IPV as a reality experienced through borders through focusing on legal classifications of cases across international contexts. Regarding the current climate, and in relation to the context of this study, particularly active involvement in the issue is being seen across the Nordic states.

Late 2016 saw proposals from the Swedish government’s Sexual Offences Committee via the report titled ‘Enhanced Protection of Sexual Integrity’ (SOU, 2016:60), aiming to re-define categorisations of sexual offences as a form of violence within Swedish law through replacing the legal term ‘rape’ with ‘sexual abuse’, reconsidering

‘location’ as a factor within cases – i.e. ‘virtual’/internet based accounts receiving the

same classification as physical accounts, and allowing public authorities to centralise

sexual offence cases (Government Offices of Sweden, 2016). These changes span

from sexual assault to cases of rape and gross misconduct to minors, all of which may

be classified as accounts of intimate partner based violence. In Iceland, efforts to re-

address IPV response cases were held the municipal police, with an initiative to

address them as ‘public’ and not ‘private’, as previously classified, including further

prioritisation of preventative and rehabilitative measures. In Finland, local authorities

in the capital region installed real-time advertisement boards to display 48-hour

campaigns against intimate partner based violence, responsive to particular areas in

Helsinki in which such crimes are reported the most.

The illustrated examples demonstrate that, at its core, attitudes toward support are rested in the conceptions of IPV by various support bodies, and such discourses and action are shown to be in motion. However, as appears vivid in the previous cases, the default position that occupies such discussions presents and discusses intimate violence in broad, standardised contexts. These are often concerned with accounts of physical violence committed by men within the home, with women as the victims. What is missing in these efforts is the discussion to reach non-normatively based perspectives, or – ideally – with such identities within the frameworks of the approach. Gaps in the existing research present an initial explication of the issue at hand; the lack of focus offered to discussions regarding violence in intimate LGBT relationships in academia seems to reflect a far broader issue, perhaps one of discursive obtuseness at the exposure of non-normative confrontation. However, such is the case that this reality presents a grounding justification for why a study focused on LGBT issues is of such importance. Furthermore, a debate of this kind is of paramount importance within the field of gender studies – as a discipline sat within the cultural and social sciences – as the larger discussion itself can be said to hold roots in the constructs of gender theory across the interdisciplinary formations in its field. The frameworks of oppression, normalisation, and subjectification can be credited here. Taking from queer perspectives of critical analysis within qualitative research, this study aims to address this partnership and entrench such relations.

Study focus and research questions

“Researchers have long recognised that many types of intimate partner violence exist and that these are not mutually exclusive, yet few analyses have accounted for the confounding effects of this multidimensionality.”

(Kishor, 2015:e4)

As stated, the most striking shortcoming illustrated in the current discussions

on violence in close relationships is the lack of focus on the experiences of violence

for LGBT identities, and the non-normative settings in which such cases occupy. The

concept of ‘multidimensionality’, as introduced by Kishor (2015), is of striking utility

when readdressing perceptions of partner violence as it stands across discourses, and

in further efforts to address cases of intimate violence present in the experiences of

LGBT individuals, as is to be situated as currently deficient in this study. Researchers

appear to be aware of the lack of attention to LGBT issues in this area when aiming to

identify observations, relations and comparisons between the reports of intimate partner violence between same-sex and heterosexual couples; focus upon same-sex reports appear to be a relatively modern occupation and data available rarely offers adequately sized samples (Pattavina et al, 2007). However, within the last 10 years, there does exist a solid and growing collection of studies and data to encourage reflective discourse and provoke further investigation (Ard & Makadon, 2011; Duke et al., 2009; Murray et al., 2009; Turchik et al., 2016).

This particular study therefore comes in to creation at an opportune moment.

Incitement to engage in non-normative approaches to the topic of intimate violence is in motion. This is a progression that need be sustained, and it is from this climate that this research shall depart from. The study shall therefore engage in an explication of the current literature regarding definitions of intimate violence, a discussion to highlight forms of violence that particularly affect LGBT individuals, and an exploration of discursive perceptions toward vulnerable identities involved with intimate violence from two different bodies of support.

Surrounding current discussions that lack perspectives and focus toward the specific experiences of LGBT identities, the following study aims to investigate the topic of LGBT experiences of intimate violence through the discursive perspectives existing across NGO and state based bodies of support based in Iceland and Sweden.

The following research questions have been the groundwork of this study’s approach:

How are perspectives on LGBT cases of intimate violence situated across the settings of NGO and police institutions in a Nordic context?

To what extent is inclusion of LGBT specific issues dependent on the understanding of what constitutes intimate violence by support bodies?

The means of investigation shall approach the research questions of this study

through an analysis across two case studies concerning NGO and police institution

discourses on LGBT experiences with IPV. Through the methodological perspectives

of intersectional analysis and queer reading, the study shall address and outline

relevant theoretical frameworks in order to understand the roles of power across

support settings. Both cases include primary data collected via open, semi-structured

qualitative interviews with a member of a police division and a member of an LGBT

rights organisation, as well as further materials acquired from publications and

presentations by the respective bodies in their field.

This particular study aims to benefit the current literature by detaching the discussion of IPV outside of normative means, as well as by providing analysis on perspectives to be utilised in further research on LGBT issues. As claimed by Warner, queer perspectives “shake up society, and in doing so bring about, true, emancipatory change” – ergo, “it is time for such research” (Warner, 2008:335). An emancipatory approach thus allows for future research to adopt these findings for further study.

Disposition

The following study has been categorised in to three distinct chapters. Following a theoretical discussion of relating concepts to the topic, the study shall engage in a presentation of analysis findings, followed by a reflective chapter in which research questions are to meet data findings, and further recommendations are to be given.

Chapter I: Perpetration, masculinities, bio-power – Existing theoretical discourses on LGBT intimate violence

In this initial section of the study, the key terms that are essential to the topic of analysis shall be defined and outlined in relation to larger research. A review of existing literature, complete with a full theoretical background of intersectional analysis and queer methodology shall introduce grounding theoretical frameworks with the aim to provide justification for the purpose and utility of the study.

Chapter II: Presentation of results from the larger qualitative study

The observatory part of the study shall begin with a discussion of the chosen type of qualitative type – case studies. The following studies are to be introduced and situated, followed by a presentation of analysed data from qualitative interviews, informational leaflets, studies and presentations by the respective support bodies.

Chapter III: Reflections on the overall study

Having presented the analysed data, the final part of the study shall outline and reflect

on the data results and the implications that these are to hold across the field. The

researcher’s own identity shall be situated in relation to the study, and in knowledge

production in general. The study shall finally present a summary of the salient points

that further stand as critical suggestions for occupations further research.

Chapter I:

Perpetration, masculinities, bio-power –

Existing theoretical discourses on LGBT intimate violence

Existing literature

In service of the aim to investigate understandings regarding intimate violence and its implications on perceptions of LGBT cases by support professionals, it is necessary to outline findings in existing research on relevant concepts and theories.

The grounding case here is that, evidently, LGBT and heterosexual individuals both experience intimate violence. Beyond this, the argument aims to state that cases and cycles of violence within the frameworks of these intimate settings are of different form and nature, and thus at risk of perpetrating cycles of exclusion if not identified as such. The outline of the current state of affairs has introduced some primary understandings of the context in which the chosen field of this study is situated. A continuation of analysis regarding the existing literature across the topics of intimate violence and sexual health shall be given to aid greater clarity toward the overall study, with the further intent to identify deficits in current research.

Intimate partner violence

As presented in the introduction of this study, there are multiple terms used to

denote violence in close relationships. Moving beyond the term ‘domestic violence’,

the term IPV has been selected due to its wider function to evoke a broader, more

definitive scope to cases of violence in close relationships and avoid various shortcomings arising through previously accepted terms that may exclude LGBT identities. However, this means not to render other terms incompatible, nor reduce the possibility for broader definitions to be formed. Following the study’s aim to investigate the understandings of IPV by bodies of power and support, it is necessary to provide a broad discussion of discourse surrounding the field with the aim to identify and eliminate definitions that appear to limit or confine the field of discourse of which this study is to take at the core of its approach.

Previous understandings

Acts of violence within partner settings have, throughout recent history, most notably been understood under the term ‘domestic violence’. The particular use of this term denotes acts of physical injury by one household member to another in a private setting, most usually in the framework of a partner relationship. The term makes overwhelming reference to cases of females exposed to violence, as well as to the counterpart of male actors of violence. However, as interdisciplinary discussions have progressed, the term has found itself to be exposed to reformed terminology.

One primary alternative is in discussions of ‘intimate partner violence’. The World Health Organisation presents multiple definitions of IPV, most of which are entirely situated within frameworks regarding violence against women (WHO, 2012; 2016).

The publication titled ‘Understanding and addressing violence against women’ uses the definition of “physical, sexual, and emotional abuse and controlling behaviours by an intimate partner” (WHO, 2012:1). The WHO’s full-scope report on violence and health offers an approach from a less gendered setting, defining intimate partner violence as “behaviour within an intimate relationship that causes physical, psychological or sexual harm to those in the relationship”, with reference to social and community based factors that are of presence in IPV cases (2002:§4).

Despite being hugely relevant to the work of actors on a global level, many of

which are focused on gender based violence, the confinement of this topic to gendered

means is not sufficient as a basis for this research. Literature regarding IPV is, in this

case, produced through gender-segregated means and is approached and defined by

gender-specific perspectives. This stands at odds with a non-normative perspective

chosen for this research and, to support this reason, the use of this particular definition

is not seen as applicable to this study as it confirms the naturalisation of IPV as that mainly concerned with females as ‘victims’, often with inexplicit support of heteronormative frameworks in which to situate such accounts.

Alternative understandings of IPV

Due to these limitations, it is necessary to identify and adopt a wider range of perspectives. An alternative approach to broaden inclusivity understands the process of IPV as “a systematic abuse of power and control that takes place within particular relationships” (Leicester City Council, 2014:§3.4). The use of the term ‘particular relationships’ is striking to this study, as it is able to denote Kishor’s (2015) requirement for awareness of multidimensionality of identities and relationship settings where violence is based, and more directly to the settings in which LGBT individuals experience acts or cycles of violence. This perspective toward (and subsequent definition of) intimate partner violence is anomalous in the sense that its scope is noticeably broader than previously chosen qualifications. The strategy states:

“(IPV) involves the misuse of power and is based on a range of control mechanisms which include: physical, sexual, psychological, social or economic abuse or neglect of an individual by a partner, ex-partner, carer or one or more family member … This is regardless of age, gender, sexual orientation, religious, cultural or political beliefs, ethnicity, disability, HIV status, class or location.”

‘Control mechanisms’ as ‘systematic abuse(s) of power’ illustrate a climate in which one individual exerts forms of power in order to oppress another within intimate contexts. Reference to ‘misuse’ of power is inclusive of the positioning of those committing acts of violence. This classification thus situates form, setting, actors, and targets of violence. The mention of social and economic abuse extends the understanding of IPV beyond that which is strictly physical, sexual or psychological, and challenges perspectives that fail to consider exterior factors such as identity or location. What appears equally as striking in this definition is the discussion regarding the actors of violence. The report goes as far to claim that acts of IPV may be committed by “a partner, ex-partner, carer or family member” (Leicester City Council, 2014:§3.4). This perspective is furthered in the same section of the report:

“(IPV) includes issues of forced marriage, female genital mutilation (FGM)

and other aspects of so called ‘honour’ based violence where family and

community members can act to control and punish perceived transgressions.”

(Leicester City Council, 2014:§3.4)

The shift in that which constitutes violence is most salient here. This definition situates acts based in intimate settings where one individual exercises certain forms of power in order to harm one other and extends the concept of acts or cycles of violence through intimacy with guardians, family, and community members. Forced marriage and FGM are used to demonstrate a further example of “so called ‘honour’ based violence”, aiming to demonstrate how close family relations within a community also count toward practices of violent behaviours (Leicester City Council, 2014:§3.4).

Chosen definition for this study

Specific importance resides in the choice of term used to describe cases of violence in close relationships. Discussions prior to contemporary understandings used the term ‘domestic violence’ to understand and approach abuse of power within a domestic setting as a key form of intimate violence. As discussed, the issue with the term ‘domestic’ arises when cases are encountered outside of enclosed, private settings. It would seem that the use of the term ‘domestic’ re/produces the societal assumption of intimate partner violence as that which happens behind closed doors.

To those who have experienced cases of IPV, and regarding the concept and positioning of ‘victimhood’ altogether, this discourse carries extended limited attitudes to shame, support and action. It is vital to state that violence can exist beyond such confinements, perhaps through mediums of online harassment, property vandalism and gaslighting within family, ex-partner and long-distance relationships. It is useful to utilise the work of Voldsom Kærlighed (2016), a Nordic youth-based educative project and outreach programme within Denmark’s IPV prevention organisation ‘Dialogue Against Violence’ (Author’s note: Dialog Mod Vold, 2016), giving examples of controlling a partner’s social media and damaging a partner’s belongings as demonstrations of violent tendencies, or potential forms of IPV.

As explored through this discussion, a wider definition of IPV is valuable in

its ability to include a far larger scope of abusive acts. This is vital when approaching

LGBT specific issues in the topic, as it may account for specific nuances of non-

normative abuses that have otherwise been overlooked. The distinctions addressed are

important in relation to this study as they identify and confront the binary ways in

which IPV has been previously understood. This study’s understanding of IPV

therefore adopts such a reading to accommodate for all possible cases. As this study addresses groups outside of normative perceptions regarding ‘victimhood’,

‘perpetration’ and ‘partnerships’, the agreed definition of the topic at hand must be broad in nature to avoid exclusivity. Understanding of IPV cases must be cautious to not re/produce such exclusive discourses and the default position of the ‘domestic’ as the setting of IPV must be challenged in order to deter from normative perspectives that have dominated and simultaneously led to the exclusion of certain identities that this study aims to include. The summary of existing literature shall continue by outlining the field of research on areas regarding sexual health, as this is presented as a specifically LGBT-aligned issue; one which, as shall be demonstrated, appears to be presented in literature without appropriate relation to non-normative analysis.

Sexual health as an LGBT-aligned issue

As the introductory discussion on current affairs shows, interdisciplinary approaches to IPV have focused on a large range of areas in which violence is exerted in intimate partnerships. One of the largest fields of discourse for LGBT individuals concerns areas of bodily health, particularly with HIV infection under sexual health.

HIV is a particular instance of discourse that refuses to detach from LGBT individuals, despite it being a reality faced regardless of orientation or gender identity, and further demonstrates exercising of ‘pathology’ – a term describing the process in which clinicalised discourse is used to structure understandings of certain identities as a defective or outside of the norm of governing conceptions of health. More related to the theme of violence, several research studies identify dominant trends between HIV infected individuals and violence in heterosexual partner settings (Kishor, 2015;

Roberts et al., 2016), focusing on types and forms of violence linked between the two

(Durevall & Lindskog, 2014). However, despite being of huge importance in the field,

this strand of research can only support this study in the sense that it demonstrates

deficiency in current research; non-normative approaches (with LGBT perspectives at

their core) are shown to be lacking, even in interdisciplinary settings. This shall be

explored through the discourse on HIV present in the current literature.

HIV: Stigmatisation, assimilation and violence

HIV is a hugely dominant factor within this topic as it can be seen as a catalyst to potential forms of violence (SIDA, 2005). LGBT individuals – MSM in particular – are statistically one of the most vulnerable identities regarding HIV contraction and are disproportionately affected by the disease (SIDA, 2005:22). According to a study by the United Nations, HIV is identified greatest amongst MSM and male same-sex partner couples; a figure that increases rapidly with intersections of youth, transgender identities, sex workers and those who inject drugs (UNAIDS, 2016:9; WHO, 2015:4).

These intersections of cultural-socio vectors of vulnerability put individuals at further risk due to stigmatisation and violence within these identity groups on a national, community, friendship or family based level (WHO, 2015:4).

HIV plays a particularly large role in individuals’ experience of violence in intimate settings. Within this locus exists the role of power positions and imbalances in a relationship setting. From an LGBT perspective, it has been identified that HIV+

MSM may face unique barriers to leaving abusive setting, such as: “limited financial resources, reliance on a partner for care, fear of facing future illness alone, and fear of dating and finding another partner” (Bartholemew et al., 2008:346). Furthermore, the use of manipulation is seen as a common form of violence. ’Outing’ processes involve threatening to reveal an individual’s HIV status (and/or sexual identity) to friends, family or colleagues. More specifically, LGBT individuals face a particular form of stigmatisation when ‘non-heterosexual’ and ‘HIV positive’ identities align as

“many HIV-positive victims of gay partner abuse feel that their HIV status contributes to their victimization” (Zierler et al. in Batholemew et al., 2008:346). This thus lays the ground for vulnerability, and potential violence by partners or intimate relatives.

This is a particularly distinct situation in which to study intimate partner violence, due to the intersections of oppression that constitute motivations for violent actions. For example, when focusing on these implications on prevention and support, statistics show that significantly high numbers of eligible individuals do not pursue with medication courses, despite this being in their health interests, on the grounds of perceptions of the drug as ‘risk compensation’ as a product miseducation, unknown eligibility and internalised negative association (Calabrese & Underhill, 2015:1961).

This particular claim presents social stigma as leading to marginalisation of those in

need of access to support, in this case through medication. Such choices consequently occupy an area met with force through stigmatisation and overtly sexualised rhetoric.

As shown in Calabrese & Underhill’s (2015:1961) study, users of PrEP medication are paired with promiscuity and ‘risk-taking’, which in turn acts as complying factors towards negative images of other individuals in similar identity circles (Calabrese &

Underhill, 2015:1961). Marginalisation via policing of identities has correlating effects on “reduce(d) willingness” to act in favour of one’s own wellbeing (Calabrese

& Underhill, 2015:1961). The nomenclature formed is therefore vital in particular individuals’ self-identification and their larger attitudes to change (Dean, 2014:225).

It has been demonstrated that HIV and LGBT identities face inherent pairing.

Such a relationship presents itself to be the main trope in which support bodies choose to primarily address LGBT issues. This is not an entirely negative process; HIV has been shown to disproportionately affect LGBT individuals, and HIV positive LGBT individuals are seen to experience greater vulnerability under vectors of oppression.

This demonstrates relevance to this study through particular forms of intimate violence that exist in such settings. The broad theme of emotional manipulation arises in such scenarios. Put simply, a partner may be unwilling to leave an abusive relationship on the grounds of dependence on their spouse or partner, or conversely, lack of support elsewhere; this final point situating the necessity for effectiveness and sensitivity of support networks that are the target of this study.

Summary

“The dogma of heteronormativity and the absolute division between male and female are some of the key factors that produce and reproduce discrimination, marginalization and negative attitudes to LGBT persons. If homosexuality is at all dealt with in Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights (SRHR) programmes it is often treated as a pathology or deviance”

The above extract, published in SIDA’s report on sexual orientation and

gender identity issues, situates issues often linked to this study area of which this

research aims to confront. A framework to engage in analysis without subjectifying

and appropriating LGBT topics is to be outlined in the beginning of the following

chapter, with a discussion on intersectionality as an epistemological and thus

methodological framework. Intimate partner violence has been offered a broad

definition in order to account for acts and cycles of violence that may otherwise be

missed by more refined terminologies. The use of the term ‘intimate partner violence’

has been shown to account for various types of violence committed within the relations of a couple, family or community setting, and involve a multiplicity of abuses of power by one individual over another more vulnerable. IPV has shown to be more present in lives of particularly vulnerable identities, and in particular forms.

Relating the topic of health to the focus of this study, it is clear to see how frameworks of power and control intersect an already sensitive setting. Despite the fact that ‘HIV today is not like yesterday’ (Folkhalsomyndigheten, 2015), the vectors of socio-economic positioning, gender identity, race, and sexuality most certainly oppress non-normative identities over others. This emerges in the literature through mentioning of systematic variation experienced by individuals on the grounds of

‘social characteristics’ that may lead to “inequitable access” (Calabrese & Underhill, 2015:1961). Methods of control regarding ‘outing’ of one’s HIV status and/or sexuality are both rested upon the acknowledgement of stigmatised identities in order to counteract resistance from a victim, or to pacify acts of violence. The literature shows that HIV can present an instance of particular vulnerability for LGBT individuals that must be approached from non-normative perspectives, especially when confronting the intersections of HIV positive and LGBT identities to the topic of violence in close relationships.

A resonant finding in the literature shows that exploration on IPV is often

situated in contexts of male to female violence, encapsulating the missing perspective

on gender issues that seem to ignore full scopes of violence; examples of this being

with same-sex and non-binary couples (Turchick et al., 2016). In the current climate,

it is strikingly obvious that discussions of IPV remain grounded in normative

perspectives. Contemporary debates, though recognising LGBT cases, do not

satisfactory establish a platform of inclusivity in which vulnerable individuals can

access support outside of normative means. The following chapter shall situate the

body of this study and its approach in relation to major theoretical frameworks.

Theoretical frameworks

The broad aim of this study is to approach the topic of intimate partner violence through the framework of LGBT identities, through case studies on support bodies’ approaches to the subject. Theoretical frameworks are essential in grounding the topic and situating the salient issues within a setting of pre-existing thought. These frameworks of theory do not stand in dispersed relational fragments, but instead should be approached with knowledge of their intersections and subsequent function to enrich one another when applied to further research. Establishing a framework of analysis requires certain epistemological categorisations. Lykke defines epistemology as responsible for the "setting up of criteria for the production of scientific knowledge and definitions of what science is” (Lykke, 2011:125). Postmodern perspectives thus view “science as discourse and narrative or … a ‘story-telling practice’” (Haraway in Lykke, 2011:131). This study bases itself upon the methodological frameworks of intersectionality, in alignment with queer perspectives to normative structures of power. This chapter shall explore these approaches, leading to an outline of theoretical frameworks to be adopted – these being power/knowledge, pathology, heteromasculinities, and constructions of ‘victimhood’ and ‘perpetration’ – in relation to the overarching concept of bio-power and its ability to provide theoretical context to challenges faced by LGBT identities under heteromasculine frameworks.

Gender, intersectionality, and ‘queer reading’ as frameworks of non-normativity

A positioning of this study’s chosen understanding of gender is required in

service of presenting frameworks of non-normative analysis. Gender occupies

discourse, and the overview of previous definitions of the topic at hand shows a

resonance of intimate violence as a gender-based phenomenon. Such a point of

departure is unsurprising as studies show that patterns differ in gendered subjections

to violence; studies show that men are more likely to experience stranger-based

violence, whereas women face a far higher likelihood of experiencing violence in

intimate partner settings (Nyberg, 2014:2). These statistics are vivid and present a

striking reality to violence in close relationships. However, as guided by the chosen

definition of IPV, this study aims to view cases that exist outside of the normative

understanding of partner violence, and in turn choses to problematise binary

tendencies that surround discursive conceptions of gender, instead favouring a

Butlerian understanding of subversion as a theoretical perspective. To contextualise, Butler (1988:519) presents gender as “a stylized repetition of acts” that carries an understanding of the biologically assumed counterpart as “sex-as-instrument-of- cultural-signification” (Butler, 2006:50). This positioning of a sex-gender dichotomy spurns the definition of a “bodily given on which the construct of gender is artificially imposed”, instead understanding the relation as a “cultural norm which governs the materialisation of bodies” (Butler, 1993:2-3). Gender is problematised on the grounds that it offers a framework based on essentialised binarisms, one limited in its capabilities as efforts to incorporate intersections of identity are invariably closing with “an embarrassed ‘etc.’ at the end of the list” (Butler, 2006:196). Butler argues:

“Through this horizontal trajectory of adjectives, these positions strive to encompass a situated subject, but invariably fail to be complete” (2006:196). This study is to adopt this perspective in aid of executing a non-normative analysis. To further incorporate this understanding of gender to the approach of this study, Haraway’s theoretical perspective of ‘situated knowledges’ fuses the intersectional approach to an epistemological framework, merging “synergies between poststructuralist, post- colonial and queerfeminist critiques of universalizing master narratives” to understand “mechanisms of subjugation” in the emphasis of Haraway’s

“epistemology of partial perspectives” (Lykke, 2011:135); such a position builds on

“a mobile multiplicity of critical localizations in the partial perspectives of different subjugated groups and not in any a priori defined and fixed categories” (Lykke, 2011:135).

Departing from this position, intimate partner violence must address identity across a broad framework in order to avoid the shortcomings of previous normative approaches. Intersectionality is an approach to be utilised for its resistance against inequalities that present themselves in discourse. In this sense, it is the conflict of various systems of power existing within identities that give meaning to the violence, and such frameworks therefore deter us from thinking about a single pattern of violence when approaching the topic (Ristock, 2011:41). For the sake of clarity, and in efforts against merely stating adherence to the concept without engagement, this term must be paired and grounded in its relation to non-normative perspectives.

Intersectionality concerns powers, or at least bodies of power allocated to and forced

upon certain identities within a given discursive setting. The imagined ‘intersection’ –

a term coined and illustrated by Crenshaw in the paper Mapping the Margins (1991) –

provides a basis in which to view the contact and conflict of identities that exist collectively across identity politics. Crenshaw argues that such forces exist under inextricably complex situations in discourse, dominated by the dominant vectors of power – e.g.: race, class, gender, and sexual orientation (Ristock, 2011:41). Similarly, queer theory offers a means in which such perspectives may be supported within research. In line with this study’s research questions, Browne & Nash (2010) claim:

“Queer can be usefully deployed to interrogate gay and lesbian lives, identities politics and practices as well as lesbian and gay research that invisiblises particular sexual/gendered lives”

This is not a simplistic and self-evident process, as a rigid outline of a queer method would in fact conflict with Kishor’s recommendation to respect the multidimensionality of the identities at hand. Warner (2008:334) situates this incoherence by claiming: “There is no one truth for sexual identity and sexuality, so it follows that there is no one method by which to generate answers on such topics”.

However, recommended heuristics have been identified to guide the method of this study. In order to approach the topic through a queer reading, this analysis shall aim to include awareness of subjectification in one’s analysis, and stressing one’s accountability to the identities at the core of research (Warner, 2008:335).

Furthermore, this study shall proceed to not only reflect on LGBT identities as

‘objects’ of research, but stress understanding of the researcher’s role as a knowledge producer. In order to achieve this, knowledge producers must consistently “ask questions of ourselves as researchers” and “integrate these questions in to our research” (Warner, 2008:335).

A queer reading involves reflection on procedures of analysis and subsequent

subjectification processes that perpetuate normative cycles of analysis. It is important

to merge the perspectives of queer reading and intersectionality in order to confront

normalised discourses that frequent this topic of this study. Similarly, Ristock situates

intersectionality as a framework grounded in feminist analysis, yet spurns the “simple

gender lens” analysis adhering to a power and control situation in which men are the

actors of violence and women are those exposed (Ristock, 2011:41). This approach,

guided via qualitative methods, allows for “queer theorisations of the fluid

construction of bodies and spaces” in order to highlight “difference, contestation of

rigid categories as well as addressing moments of disturbance, breaks and unfixity”

(Browne, 2010:235). Browne summarises: “(queer) research techniques enable possibilities of queer readings to a larger extent than has been the case in certain strands of applied social research, which rely on categories, tick boxes and questionnaires” (2010:235). This further accounts for this study’s open approach to data collection, via expert narratives, to be discussed in the analysis.

Power/knowledge, bio-power and discourse

“Discourse, being that which is beyond linguistics or dialogue, constitutes an entire social structure in which the discursive practice is to be understood as a social practice.“

Having outlined methodological considerations in which to approach IPV, the field of study must be situated in relation to preceding theoretical areas. Conceptions of power are encountered in various forms within the discussions of partner violence, spheres of normalisation, and treatment and support of vulnerable identities. A Foucauldian understanding presents power as an integral actor through the concept of knowledge, and equally present within the process of discourse formation and stabilisation. Such an approach is to be paired with a discussion on the concept of

‘bio-power’ and its relation to the nature of the study at hand.

According to Foucault (1977:140), discourse stands as an “enunciation” – as a product of expression – that reveals positions of power and thus forms of knowledge in its immediacy. Knowledge is produced under certain discourses, with hegemonic attitudes being indicative of a given time, and existing within given structures of power. As a result of this, discursive paradigms include that which a particular society holds to be true and established as norms in an unstable and non-hierarchical process.

More finely, this can be understood beyond knowledge to an “instance of hegemony”

(Diaz-Bone et al., 2007). To speak of a ‘governing’ discourse is to refer to the area in which certain discursive ‘truths’ – or objects of a chosen discourse – occupy and support. Categories of knowledge – ie: what can be spoken of – therefore rely on and are situated within governing discourses. Haraway illustrates the role of discourse to delineate a “material-semantic knot” as a basis for an individual’s experiences and knowledges (Diaz-Bone et al., 2007).

In addition to this discussion, it is important to introduce the specifically

embodied implications of power/knowledge within discourse in order to understand

relations between discourse and identity within this study. Bio-power, a term coined

by Foucault in volume 1 of The History of Sexuality (Rabinow, 1984:§2), describes the “explosion of numerous and diverse techniques for achieving the subjugation of bodies and the control of populations” (Foucault in Rabinow, 1984:262). Control of populations, in the framework of this study, relates to the means in which individuals are exposed to forces that manipulate bodily, mental, or sexual health autonomy. This is particularly relevant to the topic of IPV. Bio-power therefore denotes discursive power and bodily identity as two forms that come in to contact and proceed to form identities. In relation to this particular study, bio-power describes the role of dominating forces that shape the lived experiences of LGBT individuals under cases of intimate violence. This discussion shall continue with a short exploration of some of the salient concepts that fall within the theoretical construct of bio-power; these being through pathologisation, heteromasculinities, and perceptions of the

‘perpetrator’-‘victim’ subject identities.

Pathology and medicalisation

As introduced through the review of existing literature, the alignment of

sexual health with LGBT approaches to intimate violence demonstrates pathologised

cycles of understanding. This framework is to be explored and followed by a

discussion of its importance to this study as an instance of normativity that fails to

adequately treat IPV with LGBT sensitivity. Retaining a Foucauldian perspective,

pathology is explored in earlier writings on subject formation via medicalisation. The

Birth of the Clinic (1976) is occupied with an analysis of societal perceptions of

health, sickness and disease in relation to the phenomenon of the hospital clinic as a

place that embodies a society’s understanding of medical and psychological science

as a period of modernity that marks “the suzerainty of the gaze ... and the coherence

of pathological forms”; through this, the body is defined as “the space of origin and

of distribution of disease” (Foucault, 1976:3-4). The process of composing and

decomposing the ‘natural’ through pathological analysis is referred to as the “clinical

gaze” (Foucault, 1976:94) and it denotes subjectification situated in frameworks of

defection and abnormality. Individuals are not just categorised; their clinicalised

position within a given discourse is perpetuated throughout its own repetition. In line

with the purpose of this study, Foucault’s argument further accommodates the latent

claim that processes of pathology in discourse – identifying disease, defects, and

abnormality – are extended beyond medical professionals and shared by all of those

within a given discourse in order to form constructions of defective identities via the

“suzerainty of the gaze” (1976:4). Those with traits not pertaining to those of a healthy being are subjectified as pathological. Yeng (2008:11) posits this categorisation of the ‘abnormal’ as standing for “essentially defective”, or a type of malignant identity.

Subject formation, subjectification and marginalisation

The knowledge/power of governing discourses, including medicalisation, naturally prepares the ground for identity politics. ‘Bio-power’ is the term used to identify power exerted over individuals through discourse resulting in the governance of certain bodies. This is a process that is not always explicit or exclamatory. “The observing gaze refrains from intervening”, claims Foucault; “it is silent and gestureless” (Foucault, 1976:107). The construction and exclusion of particular bodies, cultures and beings is dependent on the discursive realm in which these identities exist. It is through this understanding that marginalisation can be approached; yet the silencing of certain identities is not to be understood outside of its placement in a system that simultaneously privileges others, so production of norms must be seen to posit privilege as a point in which one may speak. The ability to exert speech illustrates power certain identities hold in re/production of discourses. This is, evidently, a platform granted to certain identities over others. Particular discourses create certain forms of marginalisation – societies enact discrimination through framing and positioning of subjects as unconventional or defective. Furthermore, it must be stated that this is not a process of assumed immediacy. Societies often do not identify their marginalised groups. The process of marginalisation may result in ignorance as opposed to discrimination, ‘othering’ or pathologisation.

These are vital considerations to be adopted for this particular study,

especially in analyses across various discursive attitudes toward LGBT perspectives

to IPV support. This finding holds resonance to the outlined literature on intimate

violence, as marginalisation is seen through the suppression of LGBT specific

implications across acts and cycles of violence. Following this, the process of

pathologisation must be removed from isolation in order to relate to this study and

achieve the aim to avoid normative shortcomings. The earlier presentation of

medicalised discourse within the literature identified means to essentialise LGBT

identities with HIV that consequently dictate the perception and direction of support, and thus influence routes of activism and institutional procedures. This theoretical framework is therefore vital in order to establish a connection between the empirical findings of previous and new research, and to identify similar procedures within discourse of Nordic support bodies, in alignment with this study’s research questions.

Masculinity studies

Masculinity theory stands in stark relation to intimate violence, and this is of continued importance when addressing LGBT perspectives. Masculinities need not necessarily be defined in their relation to men, or through those situated positively due to patriarchal privilege, but hold equally as salient relation when viewed under queer readings of discourse. Research on men and masculinities, first grounded in critical sex role approaches and structural gender perspectives (Hearn et al., 2012:34), provides a platform in which to discuss the concepts of power, identity, and perpetration-victimhood structures. The chosen points of focus within the framework of masculinity theory are through the concept of shame and within LGBT experiences, in relation to the overarching concept of bio-power.

"A violent man”: Masculinities and shame

Gottzén (2015) uses the concept of shame to describe both causes and responses within cases of intimate partner violence enacted by men. Shame is a concept to be situated on multiple tiers, and this process therefore governs the individual internally and externally – on both a societal and individual level (Gottzén, 2015:159). In the setting of heterosexual partner relationships, Gottzén’s study shows that the intersections involved across IPV such as shame, heteronormativity and understandings or expectations of masculinity roles come to play with how men who act or have acted out violence towards women. Gottzén’s case, based in heterosexual relationship settings, offers valuable insights toward normalisation, subject formation and normative structures that can be applied when approaching data that is specifically occupied with LGBT cases of IPV.

One particular finding demonstrates the enactment of societal shaming to either rehabilitate or exclude ‘violent’ men. ‘Reintegrative’ and ‘disintegrative’

shaming present an individual’s ability to be accepted within a social sphere, or in

contrast, face ostracism as a product of their actions (Braithwaite in Gottzén, 2015:159). The former assumes positive responses to integration of the individual, often engaging in means to include them within a community without prejudice or stigmatisation. Disintegrative shaming involves resistance from a community that chooses not to allow the individual to become separated from their own action of violence. Most often, this process involves retention of the terms ‘perpetrator’ and

‘criminal’ in order to reduce an individual’s actions to a static identity trait.

Actors of violence show further exemplification of shame through repentance and remorse. An individual’s own reaction to their violent actions, in accordance with social understandings processes correlating to grievance, display a means for others to understand that the actor of violence has reflected upon and is shameful of their actions, potentially with intent to change and repulsion to repeat (Gottzén, 2015:171).

Repentance thus stands in accordance with the alignment of a ‘shameful’ individual who has processed, reflected upon and feels remorse for their actions. This can be considered as a precursor to the process of reintegrative shaming; one must express their desire to change their actions before being accepted into their social sphere.

Internalised homophobia and heterosexism

The theoretical framework of masculinities, in conjunction with bio-power, both act as intersecting conditions toward heteronormative frameworks that offer particular challenges to LGBT identities. When paired with heteronormativity, it is possible to address the spheres of masculinised perceptions toward particular social phenomena that dominate and control the lives of stigmatised individuals. These are to be discussed through the sub-themes of internalised homophobia and bodily health.

As heterosexual sexual partnerships are accepted as a norm in society, same- sex couples face multiple pressures in regards to their ability to conform to or deter from negative stigmatisation, whilst simultaneously facing such stigmatisation as a part of daily life. This can be approached through the self-perceptions held by men in same-sex relationships. Victimhood, to also be further discussed within the framework of perpetration, must here be related to masculinities and the self- identification enacted by men. The desire to disassociate oneself as a ‘victim’ within same-sex relationships is expressed across multiple studies (Cowburn, 2013; Cruz &

Firestone, 1998; Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011; Murray & Mobley, 2009), and further

specialised research has cited masculinity and heterosexism as strong indicators behind such denial (Nava & Mantecon, 2008). This is of stark relevance to this particular study, as the framework of masculinity within same-sex partnerships can be used to address how individuals are both perceived and perceive themselves in the framework of a non-normative partnership. Furthermore, this framework is useful when understanding experiences and treatment of LGBT identities on a broader scale.

One salient string of argumentation within literature on partner violence and heteronormativity provides a particular nuance in claiming that perpetrators within same-sex partnerships enact their violence out of heterosexist means, whether these be explicit or internalised. Byrne equates this to the internalised feelings of self-hatred, amounting to insecurity and anger at the perpetrator of violence’s own identity as an individual (1996:109 in Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011:112). This can be further addressed through perspectives held by victims of violence towards themselves. Kwong-Lai Poon (2011:107) posits the low self-esteem of gay men as a major contributing factor to cycles of violence due to “deflated” self-worth as a product of societal homophobia and heterosexism. This same concept is used to argue that a contributing factor towards why gay men remain in abusive relationships is due to similarly low self- esteem, causing them to “fear that they will be unable to find a ‘better’ partner”

(Farley, 1992:239 in Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011:107). Kwong-Lai Poon coins this process as the “facilitation” of violence that is responsible for the individual’s own victimisation (Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011:108).

It must be said that, despite adopting positions on roles of heterosexism over self-perception in the framework of this study, there is particular resentment in the wording of ‘facilitation of victimisation’. As the author identifies that a low self- image is inevitable as a product of an intolerant society, thus leading to a system that both invites and sustains cycles of violence, one could infer that violence imposed on these identities is somewhat inevitable or natural. This rhetoric shall not be pursued in this study, and all efforts to avoid careless stigmatisation shall be maintained.

Heteronormativity and sexual health

The subject of health, understood as inclusive of (and linked to) sexual health,

is a topic often paired with discourse on LGBT identities. Referring to the literature,

what is demonstrated through merging masculinities and heteronormativity is a case

in which the health of individuals is put at risk due to the fear of discrimination arising from identification with pathologised and discriminated identities. MSM may refuse to regularly receive HIV testing in order to maintain a heterosexual identity and potentially endorse the image of masculinity (Parent, Torrey & Michaels, 2015:466).

Parent, Torrey & Michaels’ study further identified a negative association between the masculine norm of heterosexual self-presentation and HIV testing (2015:469).

In addition to this, focusing the analysis toward heterosexism, it is possible to see a case of bio-power through the exclusion of sexual health processes. Parent, Torrey & Michaels (2015:466) discuss how the act of HIV testing is a product of the very process of bio-power, due to the signification of HIV as a ”gay disease”, or at least one “endemic” to MSM. This process is grounded in understandings of the high rate of MSM who test positive for the HIV virus and continues to police ways in which individuals, including those who do not openly identify as LGBT or MSM, choose to perform procedures of health. Thus the power of discourse here results in two diffusions of power – the production of a type of stigmatisation that posits certain bodies as stereotypically HIV positive (MSM in this case), as well as the potential risks that are made possible from avoiding regular health checks. In relation to the topic of IPV, these processes of subjectification govern the means in which support bodies define and approach LGBT individuals, as well as in the nature of the normative frameworks that govern heterosexual partnerships. This normative relation is of particular relevance to the study at hand when considering efforts of support.

Perpetration and victimhood

One theoretical framework already encountered through masculinity theory involves the discursive formation of ‘perpetrators’ and ‘victims’. The term

‘perpetrator’ generally refers to an individual responsible for committing a crime,

however common usage extends beyond this; perpetration may indicate a certain type

of crime that stretches beyond legality. The perpetrator of violence in an intimate

setting does more than break the law or commit a single act; they cross moral and

ethical boundaries of what is ‘right’, ‘good’ or ‘evil’. In the context of intimate

settings, the perpetrator of violence is vilified beyond the crime in which they have

enacted. The perpetrator is thus of a fixed and unchanging identity. To this end, the

subjectification of the ‘perpetrator’ demonstrates particular difficulties. As discussed,

Gottzén’s study situated across multiple IPV intervention programmes suggests that one of the largest concerns regarding partner violence is male participant’s categorisation as a ‘violent man’. This is shown primarily in the data though resistance to speak openly about abusive behaviours and patterns of violence; for example, Gottzén’s (2013) study reveals how actors of violence often hide their actions from others, including families and friends. ‘The concepts of victimisation’

and ‘perpetration’ thus rest on identities formed within and through particular discourses. It seems that those who experience cases of IPV in same sex partner settings find themselves existing under terminology that is further grounded in the normalised power structures of heteronormativity and gender binarism. This is both reflective of what it is to be an actor of violence and an individual exposed to violence. Kwong-Lai Poon highlights the limitation on discursive perspectives toward LGBT individuals due to the fact that “cultural assumption(s)” have “led to a general perception that violence takes place only in heterosexual relationships” (2011:103).

The term ‘perpetrator’ is contentious at least; it subjectifies and alienates, both from societal perspectives and through reflection by an individual on their own acts.

Beyond the formation of the subject, the nature of the term is extended when masculinities come into play. Gottzén’s (2015:167) study highlights the conflict arising when individuals who have committed violent acts reflect upon the discursive construct of the ‘violent man’, able to admit and discuss their own acts yet maintain that “violence against women is morally reprehensible” and “something extremely shameful”. This discursive attitude also faces extended tension on societal levels; “the woman batterer deviates from cultural norms of masculinity while paradoxically embodying male dominance through his control of women” (Gottzén, 2013:198).

Furthermore, the use of ‘victimhood’ and ‘perpetration’ as terminology across

discourses are inherently subjective. Self-identification comes into play here. Taking

from the same study (Kwong-Lai Poon, 2011), it is clear that gay men often don’t see

themselves as ‘victims’ in intimate relationships; furthermore, the potential conditions

that would fulfill these criteria are often on extreme grounds, meaning that an

individual is not aware of or able to accept their abuse under a structure of power in

an intimate relationship setting until “seriously physically hurt” (Bailey in Kwong-Lai

Poon, 2011). The striking issue here is the force of an individual’s own positioning

within their relationship setting. Kwong-Lai Poon (2011:123) argues that these results

affirm the decision to refuse to “simply rely on gay men’s perceptions of their own violent experience to determine which one is the victim and which the perpetrator”.

Summary

The analysis of theoretical frameworks must be placed within the setting of this study’s purpose, one that is focused on LGBT specific experiences of IPV in the larger framework of perceptions of support by bodies of power. An intersectional approach has been adopted in order to avoid normative tendencies and accommodate for a multidimensional perspective to the topic of violence in close relationships.

Queer reading is the structural process in which to support and form such a non- normative analysis. Masculinity theory has been outlined in its relation to research on violence, and a particular link has been identified concerning self-identification of violent acts as a component of actors’ shame in cases of violence in relationships.

Cases of violence, as shown through existing literature, seem to be situated between isolated accounts of violence and the conception of what it is to a ‘violent man’; “I’d seen a category before my very eyes that is doing this ... I haven’t been able to place myself there” quotes a participant within a study focused on men receiving treatment in an IPV prevention programme (Gottzén, 2015:167). This hesitation to accept one’s own actions due to their referent of identification as a ‘violent man’ have shown to be at least partly formed through the framework of shame, as well as ideals of masculinity. This is integral to the understandings within the study at hand, both in regards to actors of and those exposed to violence. In addition, the use of the

‘victim’-‘perpetrator’ trope has been explored and problematised in relation to the study area. Use of these terms in data findings invites further points of discussion, yet this study aims to instead make reference to those exposed to or engaging in acts or cycles of violence on a case relevant basis.

The theoretical discussions explored lay the ground for data produced specifically for this study. However, according to Boellstorff; “The relationship between theory and data can be viewed as a methodological problem … What counts as ‘method’ depends on the data it is to obtain and the theories it is to inform”

(2010:216). With this consideration in mind, the chosen theoretical frameworks shall

be referred to in relation to the methodological approaches adopted by this study

throughout the presentation of findings to be outlined in the following chapter.