Study Notes on Negotiating Hegemonic Masculinity in Batterer Intervention Programs

INTRODUCTION TO NEGOTIATING HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY IN A BATTERER INTERVENTION PROGRAM

Authors and Affiliation

  • Douglas P. Schrock
  • Irene Padavic
  • Florida State University

Overview

  • Domestic violence is a significant factor in women's continued subordination, prompting significant scholarly and activist efforts to create and evaluate interventions.
  • This study analyzes the processes of masculinity construction within a batterer intervention program (BIP) over three years of fieldwork.

Key Findings

  • Facilitators were successful in some areas: promoting responsibility, egalitarian language, anger control, and nonviolence.
  • Participants resisted understanding victims’ perspectives, took on emotional vulnerability, and defined themselves as hardworking men entitled to patriarchal dividends.
  • The authors argue the analysis sheds light on hegemonic masculinity construction and evaluates the effectiveness of such intervention programs.

Keywords

  • Hegemonic masculinity
  • Batterer intervention programs
  • Intimate partner violence
  • Social interaction

THE ORIGIN AND EVOLUTION OF BATTERER INTERVENTION PROGRAMS (BIPs)

Historical Context

  • In the 1970s, shelter workers and pro-feminist men grew frustrated with repeat offenders of domestic violence, leading to the creation of BIPs.
  • Initial understandings framed men’s violence as a means of asserting control over women, prompting program designers to aim for a change in batterers’ masculinities.

Legal and Societal Responses

  • Activist pressures resulted in legal reforms mandating the arrest of batterers (Mirchandani, 2006).
  • Courts began requiring participation in BIPs rather than imposing lengthy jail sentences, despite limited evidence of effectiveness.

Curriculum of BIPs

  • The Duluth Model is the most prevalent curriculum which aims to transition participants from patriarchal authoritarianism to pro-feminism.
  • Programs incorporate other methods such as anger management and skill-building, focusing on communication and conflict resolution. However, recent data question these programs’ effectiveness, raising concerns over their actual impact on batterers' violence.

EVALUATION OF BATTERER INTERVENTION PROGRAMS

Research Overview

  • Numerous studies over 25 years have assessed men's violence reduction through BIPs. Early research claimed success but lacked control groups or used biased metrics (Hamberger and Hastings, 1993).

Types of Evaluation Designs

  1. Quasi-experimental designs comparing program completers to dropouts or control groups.
  2. Experimental designs comparing randomly assigned groups to community service or probation.

Meta-Analysis Findings

  • Feder and Wilson (2005) concluded program completion did not lower violence probabilities according to victims’ feedback.
  • Contrarily, BIPs may create false hope regarding batterers’ ability to change, inadvertently increasing risks for victims of rebattery.
  • A dichotomy exists where victims reported feeling safer post-treatment, yet many returned to their abusers (Austin and Dankwort, 1999; Fisher and Gondolf, 1988).

Critiques of BIPs

  • Some researchers contest the feminist principles underpinning BIPs, arguing they misrepresent domestic violence dynamics (Cavanaugh and Gelles, 2005; Dutton and Corvo, 2006).
  • Anderson (2005) critiques the simplistic gender symmetry model arguing gender needs to be viewed as an interactional construct, not just a binary variable.

INSPECTION OF INTERACTIONS IN BIPs

Lack of Research

  • There is limited knowledge regarding the dynamics within BIPs. Miller et al. (2005) provide insights into men’s perceptions, noting participants often perceived the program as punitive.

Our Study's Framework

  • The current analysis aims to explore how masculinity is constructed in BIPs through various interactions and whether these align with pro-feminist principles.

Mediating Masculinity and Violence

  • Masculinity plays a critical role in domestic violence; traditional notions of manhood are intertwined with entitlement and control over women, which can precipitate aggression.
  • Emotional suppression is notably featured; violent men tend to repress their emotions more than non-violent counterparts.

HEGEMONIC MASCULINITY DEFINED

Definition

  • Hegemonic masculinity is described as the most honored way of being a man, manifesting as a cultural ideal and a local construct in intimate interactions (Connell and Messerschmidt, 2005).

Research Focus on Hegemonic Masculinity

  • Prior studies largely emphasize cultural ideals and media portrayals. Comparatively less research investigates local construction through interpersonal interactions.
  • Dellinger (2004) observed how different contexts define hegemonic masculinity, as seen in varied professional environments.

Current Study’s Contribution

  • The study further explores the interactional processes leading to locally constructed hegemonic masculinity within the BIP context.

RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODOLOGY

Study Site

  • The observed program operated in a family-services center in a midsized southeastern city. Participation was mandating for men convicted of domestic violence-related crimes.
  • Program participants had the choice between six-month BIP attendance or a jail sentence of 30 to 45 days.

Participant Demographics

  • Participants primarily consisted of working-class men, with a diverse racial representation including African American (approximately 50%), white (40%), and Latino (10%).

Research Approach

Data Collection Techniques
  • The researcher observed over 100 meetings, starting with a one-way mirror setup to capture reactions without participant awareness, later transitioning into group participation for more vivid interactional data.
Analysis Procedures
  • The data analysis was concurrent with collection, developing grounded theories about micropolitical tactics used within BIPs, defining how masculinity was negotiated.

FINDINGS AND INTERPRETATIONS

Interactional Rituals in Masculinity Construction

  1. Enforcing Pseudo Responsibility and Egalitarianism
       - Participants were required to adhere to specific language about their violence and victims during check-ins. E.g., instead of generalizing responsibility, saying things like "I hit and kicked Peg" was mandated to instill a sense of personal accountability.
  2. Resisting Vulnerability and Empathy
       - Most participants avoided emotional discussions, often redirecting conversation away from their feelings or those of their victims, reinforcing emotional invulnerability and detachment.
  3. Asserting Breadwinning
       - Men often aligned their masculinity with professional success; check-ins frequently included tales of work-related achievements, which participants used to gain deference and secure their status as hardworking men deserving of respect.
  4. Submitting to Rational Control
       - Men often framed their aggression within a framework of rational decision-making, emphasizing self-control and recognizing it as a means to manipulate situations to their favor rather than addressing underlying issues.

DISCUSSION ON BIPS' EFFECTIVENESS

Limits of Current BIPs

  • The ineffective outcomes of BIPs stem from the failure to achieve original objectives: To promote genuine accountability and foster pro-feminist masculinity while minimizing traditional views of manliness that link with violence.
  • The dominant traits within the group’s masculinity—emotionally stoic and entitled—are characteristics associated with aggression, thereby raising concerns about the overall impact of such programs.

Recommendations for Change

  1. Directly addressing masculinity within these groups to mitigate its insidious influence.
  2. Training facilitators to better recognize and remediate interactional tendencies that promote harmful masculinity.
  3. Comparative research examining varying BIP efficacy could yield valuable insights for improving such programs in practice.

CONCLUSION

  • Understanding how hegemonic masculinity is negotiated provides invaluable insights into interactional dynamics within BIPs.
  • This analysis serves not only to critique existing programs but also to inform future directions towards transforming masculine identities conducive to non-violence.