The Role of Alcohol in Intimate Partner Violence: Causal Behaviour or Excusing Behaviour?
| Author | Aliraza Javaid |
Introduction
The aim of this study is to understand the experiences of professionals dealing with alcohol and intimate partner violence; these professionals hypothesize about their heterosexual, rather than lesbian or gay, clients. It is, of course, impossible from a study of 12 professionals to determine the relationship between substance abuse and partner violence. The aim of this study, though, is to carefully and rigorously examine the professionals’ experiences of dealing with alcohol and intimate partner violence, as there has been a lack of social research on this area of study, more specifically, in the North East region within the United Kingdom. However, international concern about the issue of intimate partner violence still continues to grow. This includes some consideration of a link between violent behaviour and alcohol—the nature of which has not been clearly defined. The connection between intimate partner violence and alcohol is certainly intricate and mediated by significant economic, etiologic, and social factors. This research gives an in-depth analysis into several aspects regarding intimate partner violence and alcohol. It is identified that this research cannot address all relevant issues, but an attempt has been made to achieve a balanced account of current knowledge and thinking. Due to the small sample size in this study (n=12), the results cannot be generalised; but the purpose of this research is to generate fine-grained, meaningful, in-depth qualitative data to explore specific details that the professionals choose to impart.
Feminist theory is used as a foundation in this research to discuss the themes of power and control in support of the research findings. Feminist theory within intimate partner violence stresses power and gender inequality within opposite-sex relationships. It focuses on societal messages that allow men’s use of aggression and violence throughout life, and the gender roles that expect how women and men ought to behave in their intimate relationships (Pence & Paymar, 1993). It sees the root causes of intimate partner violence as the outcome of living a society that condones aggressive behaviours committed by males, whilst socialising females to be non-violent. The research findings presented demonstrate that men are the offenders while women are the victims. Therefore, feminist theory is most appropriate to use in this research when critically examining intimate partner violence and alcohol collectively. However, it must be stressed that men can also become victims of intimate partner violence (Walklate, 2004). This research will focus particularly on alcohol and its association with intimate partner violence.
Literature Review
Though a large amount of the literature conveys the perception of a direct cause between alcohol use and violent behaviour, most studies are speculative since few differentiate between the precise quantity and occurrence of alcohol use at the time of violent behaviour. Most studies rely on self-classifications and self-reports rather than objective measures of the use of alcohol, such as blood tests or saliva (Loseke, 2005). Another problem is defining and conceptualising the use of alcohol because phrases and words that have different meanings are usually used interchangeably; for instance, abuse, alcohol use, alcoholism, excessive use, dependency, over-use, and so on (Loseke, 2005). Domestic violence is a worldwide phenomenon affecting entire societies indirectly and directly. However, after decades of research, no single definition satisfactorily explains this phenomenon. Current unofficial and official definitions of domestic violence have a tendency to interconnect with other types of violence, confusing understanding and producing ambiguity. This can affect the validity and reliability of research and produce shortfalls in practices and policies aimed at challenging domestic violence. Therefore, defining ‘domestic violence’ is extremely difficult, especially when culturally there are different interpretations and ideas of what constitutes intimate partner violence. Thinking within the sphere of the 21st century, the Home Office stipulates a common definition of domestic violence: “Any incident of threatening behaviour, violence or abuse (psychological, physical, sexual, financial or emotional) between adults who are or have been intimate partners or family members, regardless of gender or sexuality” (Home Office, 2005). Given the complexity surrounding the definition of domestic violence, it seems appropriate to use the phrase ‘intimate partner violence’ throughout this paper. In doing so, it includes all relationship types.
Statistically, intimate partner violence is common in sexual relationships with or without substance use disorders, though the number of intimate partner violence cases is higher in sexual relationships wherein one partner has an alcohol or other substance use disorder (Miller & Carroll, 2006). In this study, the authors argue that, “67% of persons who victimize an intimate partner […] use alcohol compared to 38% who victimized an acquaintance or 31% who victimized a stranger” (p.103). Moreover, clinicians infrequently deal with intimate partner violence as part of alcohol abuse treatment, regardless of its high occurrence in intimate partner violence cases (Miller & Carroll, 2006). When clinicians do, they may use unsuitable or inappropriate models of intervention for the intimate partner violence, for example, giving separate referrals for the male and female, or they may presume that the male is invariably the perpetrator of violence when this is not always the case (Miller & Carroll, 2006). However, feminist practitioners have stated that batterers and victims should be treated separately, but I argue that this is inappropriate, because by using restorative justice as an approach, it can focus on the needs of both the victims and the offenders instead of punishing the offender and satisfying abstract legal principles. Rather, the victims take an active role in the process, whilst the perpetrators are encouraged to take responsibility for their actions. Restorative justice involves both the victim and perpetrator and focuses on their personal needs.
Other research found that heavy alcohol use and associated problems are well-established risk factors for intimate partner violence, and many females who are the victims of such a phenomenon ascribe male violence to alcohol consumption (O’Leary & Schumacher, 2003; Eckhardt, 2007). Older research demonstrates that males consume alcohol for ‘Dutch Courage’ to cope with marital problems, but they frequently say that they ‘did not know what they were doing’ or ‘cannot remember doing it’ because they were drunk when committing violence under the influence of alcohol (Freeman, 1979:138). Thus, they are able to transfer the blame for executing violence from themselves and onto the effects of alcohol (Freeman, 1979). This implies that alcohol may facilitate particular violent actions but is not necessarily the direct, underling cause for intimate partner violence.
Although research on intimate partner violence shows a high rate of co-occurrence of alcohol and violence use by one or both partners, alcohol did not appear to be a direct cause of the violence (Leonard et al., 2003). A husband’s heavy premarital drinking was predictive of severe violence within relationships that were high in conflict, but not in low-conflict relationships (Leonard & Quigley, 1999). Again, this is consistent with the view of alcohol as a facilitator instead of an instigator of intimate partner violence. A husband’s drinking was more likely to happen in examples of severe physical violence rather than in examples of moderate verbal aggression or physical violence (Leonard & Quigley, 1999). Among couples who had suffered both physical and verbal aggression, the husband’s drinking was more likely in examples of physical violence than in examples of verbal aggression (Leonard & Quigley, 1999).
There has been research arguing that men consume alcohol as a form of self-medication, which is an effort to reduce or neutralise the rage they have within, however, the opposite occurs wherein alcohol eliminates control mechanisms, facilitating violence (Fleming, 1979). Although this is an interesting argument and seems logical, one must be aware of Fleming’s low sample size—this means his results cannot be generalised to all cases involving alcohol, a small subset of cases requires interpretation with caution. However, given this evidence, it can be seen that when alcohol is predominant in intimate partner violence cases, it may ‘trigger’ violence but it is not solely the direct cause of intimate partner violence, which seems to be, more often than not, deeper-rooted and intricate. Fleming (1979:291) quotes that, “By pleading drunkenness, wife beaters and their families can deceive themselves as to what is really going on.” It may be inferred that alcohol is one of many factors that usually facilitates situations in which intimate partner violence develops. In addition, alcohol might be used as an excuse for violent behaviour and it may trigger arguments that fuel violence, but contrary to conventional beliefs, it is usually not a direct cause of violent behaviour. Therefore, it does not help to fully explain intimate partner violence.
There are three main types of intimate partner violence and their association to gender differs (Johnson, 2007). Johnson’s work around the relative role of power and control in different ‘typologies’ of intimate partner violence is based within the nature of the control context of the relationship wherein the violence occurs. In his terms, intimate terrorism is violence ingrained in a relationship context of general coercive control. Intimate terrorism is the violence to which feminist theories refer, wherein one partner utilises violence and other...
To continue reading
Request your trial