BY: Dr. Peter A. Barone, Esq.
To describe a male victim’s experiences from a conflict theory perspective there must first be a basic understanding of the tents of conflict theory as apply to familial structure and domestic violence. The best method for the experiences of male victim of IPV to be accurately conveyed is via various studies and their findings (Creswell, 2009; Leedy and Ormrod, 2010). Straus (1980) advises there are several versions of conflict theory. The Marxist and Conflict Management versions address conflict resolution and when addressing the micro-level they deal with laws, and maintain the family as an important social institution. In these versions male dominance is maintained via formal and informal norms along with females being socialized into supporting the males’ position of dominance (Engel, 1993). There is also a political rebellion aspect of these versions which have a direct nexus to explaining the high rate of IPV perpetrated by females, or anyone who finds themselves in the subordinate position. The theory posits that if both men and women were able to maintain equality it would prevent a large amount of IPV (Straus, 1980).
There is a functionalist version of conflict theory which posits that conflict is necessary in society assisting in avoiding stagnation thus leading to social transformation. Dahrendorf (1958) posits resolutions are placed upon individuals by dominants via violence. Straus (1980) discusses the use of a Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) used to assess conflict which addresses ways to address conflict either by intellectual, verbal aggression, or violence which is in line with what is presented by Leary et al., (2006) dealing with frustration and aggression experienced in a conflict situation.
Conflict theory posits society exists in a state of continuous conflict due to people vying for a finite amount of resources, power, while striving to accomplish and maintain their self-interests. Conflict is intrinsic in various groups to include families (Straus, 2005 in
The basic tenets of conflict theory apply directly to the family units which possess power, money, goods, land, and freedom of choices all satisfying a person’s interests. In groups, and families, people may share interests with other members; however, they also possess their own distinct interests. With limited resources and struggles for control within a family, there is the propensity for the use of violence by the person who is dominant to maintain their status and protect their ability to secure their interests. The protecting of personal interests and the ability to use IPV is gender indifferent (Smithey and Straus, 2006).
The use of domination, fear, threats, psychological and physical violence has devastating effects (Straus, 1980). Feminist posit males being the constant aggressor using IPV to maintain their dominance (Collins, 1974). However, non-feminist conflict theory assumes an equality which includes dominance from a male or female having a desire to protect their interests; thus enhancing the propensity for IPV to subordinate their mate, keep their status quo, or reach a more equitable position by either partner occurring when subordinate victims rebel and move upward. This is human based, and not gender based (Blackwell and Piquero, 2005; Hines, 2007; Straus, 2006).
The literature shows, that from a male victim’s conflict theory perspective, the impact this conflict has is serious. The situation is seen as critical due to the total role transformation and a contradiction from societal role indoctrination of dominant male to the dominated victim. The literature describes the male victim experience being lost, hurt, betrayed, abused, degraded, humiliated, emasculated, ineffectual, frustrated and angry (Hines, 2007). Johnson (1995, 2006) describes males victims as mostly white, 40 years old, professionally employed full time, having a couple of years of college, with an income of $50,000.00. These descriptions show that males at all levels can be victimized. All of these factors lead the male to experience a serious questioning of his masculinity, doubting his dominant role and position as head of household, which has been socially created as an accepted image by society. These feelings create a need for a decision to comply, survive, or to take action to save his interest while taking the most conducive and viable path to regain power and control over achieving his goals and interests (Garcia, Soria, and Hurwirtz, 2007).
The male victim experiences a transformation of the basic dynamics and context of the environment into a conflicted situation feeling demoralized. These events cause the male victim to experience a real need to assess the existing conflict and its severity, which is based upon his perception, which has been created via past life experiences (Gibson, 1966, 1986). The assessment is the most crucial activity because the male will view things through the lenses of his socialization process and mind set of his socially accepted position. If the male victim perceives the need for maintaining control and accomplishment of his interests as paramount to his relationship with his partner that will guide his path. However, if the male victim believes he is in a situation where he is not financially, emotionally, psychologically, or physically able to move forward then that will also weigh heavily in his decision and course of action (Connell, 1987; Gibson, 1986). These are the same issues faced by female victims experiencing IPV and IPT (Hines, 2007).
Connell (1987) advises that via social norms and values many males have a large amount of pressure put upon them in the form of socially prescribed roles which require them to behave in prescribed manners and to preserve an elevated stance of invulnerability. Males have been indoctrinated with the mind-set that to be a real man requires one to be sturdy (Leary et al., 2006; Nisbett and Cohen, 1996). In addition, cultural norms and influences also play heavily into the decision making process Leary et al., 2006). Connell (1987) advised that some societies and cultures espouse that real men do not talk about feelings or emotions, nor do they ask for assistance for their problems, and this is even more the case as relates to issues with IPV and private family matters (Archer, 2006). These social values and norms create strong pressure and the mindsets of having to be strong, work through it, regain control and preserve his reputation and do this via whatever means necessary to include the use of aggression, force, or violence, which in many societies is seen as being acceptable actions for men. If the male feels like this can not be accomplished they become even more demoralized (Garcia et al., 2007).
The realization of experiencing pressure and depression from emasculation occurring over and over; along with the seriousness of the acts of IPV not ending, and the perception of no alternative to regain his socially pronounced status, the male could believe violence to be the only logical solution (Garcia et al., 2007). In accordance with conflict theory he is now experiencing what it is like to be the dominated one; however, in this position he can accept it; try to change things, or try to regain his position. If the victimization is more than he can stand, he can attempt to use whatever means possible to become dominant again and allow for him to obtain his self-interests. Straus (2006) advises society creates an inequality existing amid partners which increases the probability of the occurrence of IPV due to the dominance existing in the relationship by one of the partners. Everyone has conflicting self-interests to a degree and these self-interests necessitate maintenance via their position to be maintained via the use of force if the situation necessitates it.
In intimate partner conflicted situations, the role of perception can not be underestimated, Gibson (1986) advises that a key aspect of interpretation of all actions is the perception of the actions by the viewing person via their individual lenses. Once the receiver processes the information through their lenses they then assign meaning and value to what they perceive. Via this process they decide what action they need to take (Gibson, 1966, 1986). A perceived conflict by the male victim can create complacency, acquiescence, limited resistance, or to defiance, rebellion leading to hostility. An even worse situation is when the male perceives conflict which is not acknowledged by the female due to her being in the dominant position and seeing things as being the way she wants them. This ignoring of the existing conflict is very likely to create a very high level of hostility (McDonald and Leary, 2005; Strauss, 2006).
The male victim’s perspective here places the issue at being close to irresolvable due to the non-acknowledgement of the issue. The problem now is with no issue, there can be no conflict to resolve, thus creating an irresolvable conflict for the male leading to great disrespect, frustration, and the need to use whatever means to regain power and control to resolve the conflict to place things back to where they were prior to the conflict arising (Finkel and Campbell, 2001). If the conflicted situation rises to this level there is a good chance that the IPV can translates into Intimate Partner Homicide (IPH) (Starr, Hobart, and Fawcett, 2004). This situation is based on the experience of the male victim and his perception of the reality of the circumstances and ignoring by the female aggressor (Hines and Douglas, 2008; Langlands and Ward, 2009; Twenge, Catanese, & Baumeister, 2003). It appears from the literature that male victims experience a plethora of situations, feelings, and emotions.
References
Archer, J. (2006). Cross-cultural differences in physical aggression between partners: A social-role analysis. Personality and Social Psychological Review. 10(2), 133-153.
Akers, R.L., & Sellers, C.S. (2009). Criminological theories: Introduction, evaluation, and empirical investigations.
Bergen, R.K., Edleson, J.E., & Renzetti, C.M. (2005). Violence against women: Classic papers. Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Bernard, T. (1984). Control criticisms of strain theories. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 21, 353-372.
Bernburg, J. (2002). Anomie, social change and crime. The British Journal of Criminology, 42, 729-742.
Bitektine, A. (2008) Prospective case study design: qualitative method for deductive theory testing. Organizational Research Methods, 11(1): 160-180.
Blackwell, B.S., Piquero, A.R. (2005). On the relationships between gender, power
control, self-control, and crime. Journal of Criminal Justice 33(1), 1-17. doi:
10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2004.10.001
Bogdan, R., and Taylor, S.J. (1975). Introduction to qualitative research methods : A
phenomenological approach to the social sciences.
Bordens, K.S., & Abbott, B.B. (2008). Research design and methods a process approach
(8thed.).
Bottwell, B.B., & Beaver, K.M. (2010). The international transmission of low self-control. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 47, 174-209.
Briody, L. M. (2001). “A test of general strain theory.” Criminology, 39, 9-36.
Buker, H. (2011). Formation of self-control: Gottfredson and Hirschi's general theory of
crime and beyond. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 16(3), 265-276
Burgess, R.L., & Akers, R.L. (1966b). A differential association reinforcement theory of
criminal behavior.
Busch, A., &
Buston, K., Parry-Jones, W.,
Qualitative research. British Journal of Psychiatry 38(4), 197-199.
Caelli, K., Ray, L., & Mill, J. (2003). “Clear as mud”: Toward greater clarity in generic
qualitative research. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 2(2), 1-13.
Chamlin, M.B., & Cochran, J.K. (1995). Assessing Messner and Rosenfeld’s institutional
anomie theory: A partial test. Criminology, 33(3), 411-429. doi: 10.111/j.1745-9125
Carney, M.M., Buttell, F., & Dutton, D.G. (2007). Women who perpetrate intimate
partner violence: A review of the literature with recommendations for treatment Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12(1), 108-115.
Chappell, A.T., & Picquero, A.R. (2004). Applying social learning theory. Deviant Behavior, 25,
89-108.
Clinard, Marshall B. (1968) Sociology of Deviant Behavior
Cloward, R. (1959). (1960). Delinquency and opportunity. NY: Free Press.
Cloward, R., & Ohlin, L. (1960). Delinquency and opportunity,
Cohen, A. (1955). Delinquency boys,
Cohen, A. (1965). “The sociology of the deviant act: Anomie theory and beyond.” American Sociological Review, 30, 5-14.
Collins, R. (1974). Conflict sociology.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender and power: Society, the person and sexual politics. Allen & Unwin, Sydney.
Creswell, J. W. (2009). Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods
approaches (3rd ed.).
Darendorf, R. (1958). Toward a theory of social conflict. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 2, 170-183.
DeKeseredy, W.S., & Schwartz, M.D. (2003). Backlash and whiplash: A critique of statistics
Denscombe, M. (2008). Communities of practice: A research paradigm for the missed methods approach. Journal of Mixed Methods Research, 2, 270-283.
Denzin, N.K. & Lincoln, Y.S. (2005). The Sage handbook of qualitative research (3rd ed.).
Douglas, E.M., & Straus, M.A. (2003). Corporal punishment experienced university students in 17 countries nd its relation to assault and injury of dating partners. Paper presented at the European Society of Criminology,
Dunnaway, G.R., Cullen, F.T.,
qualitative data collection and transcription. Qualitative Health Research, 10,703- 708.
Engel, C.C. (1993). Posttraumatic stress disorder symptoms and precombat sexual and physical abuse in desert storm veterans. The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease, 1, 683-688.
Finkel, E.J., &
An interdependence analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 263-277.
Garcia, L., Soria, C., & Hurwitz, E.L. (2007). Homicides and intimate partner violence:
A literature review. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 8(4), 370-383.
Gibson, J. J. (1966). The senses considered as perceptual systems.
Gibson, James J. (1986). The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception.
Hines, D.A. (2007). Post traumatic stress symptoms among men who sustain partner violence: An international multistate study of university students. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 8(4), 225-239.
Hines, D.A., and Douglas, E. M. (2008). Symptoms of post traumatic stress disorder in men who sustain intimate partner violence: A study of help seeking and community samples. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 12(2).
Johnson, M.P. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence: Two forms of
violence against women. Journal of Marriage and Family, 57, 283-294.
Johnson, M.P. (2006). Conflict and control: Gender symmetry and asymmetry in domestic
violence. Violence Against Women, 12(11), 1003-1018.
Kaufman, J.M. (2009). Gendered responses to serious strain: The argument for a general strain theory of deviance. Justice Quarterly, 26(3), 410-444. doi: 10.1080/07418820802427866
Kobayashi, E., Vazsonyi, A. T., Chen, P., & Sharp, S. (2010). A culturally nuanced test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s “General Theory:” Dimensionality and generalizability in Japan and the United States. International Criminal Justice Review, 20(2), 112-131.
King, G., Koehane, R.O., & Verrba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific Inference in Qualitative Research.
Kinn, S. & Curzio, J. (2005). Integrating qualitative and quantitative research methods.
Journal of Research in Nursing, 10(3), 317–336.
Kimmel, M.S. (2002). Gender symmetry in domestic violence: A substantive and
methodological research review. Violence Against Women, Special Issue: Women’s Use of Violence in Intimate Relationships, 8(11), 1332-1363.
Kleck, G., and Chiricos, T. (2002). “Unemployment and property crime: A target-specific
assessment of opportunity and motivation as mediating factors,” Criminology, 40, 649-680.
Kornhauser, R.R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency,
Krohn, M.D. (1999). Social learning theory: The continuing development of a
perspective. Theoretical Criminology, 3, 462-476.
Krohn, M.D., Akers, R.L., Radosevich, M.J., & Lanza-Kaduce, L. (1982). Norm qualities
and adolescent drinking and drug behavior. Journal of Drug Issues, 12, 343-359.
Krohn, M.D., Skinner, W.F., Massey, J.L, & Akers, R.L. (1985). Social learning theory and adolescent cigarette smoking: A longitudinal study. Social Problem, 32, 455-473.
Krug, E. G., Dahlberg, L. L., Mercy, J. A., Zwi, A. G., & Lozano, R. (Eds.) (2002).
World report on violence and health.
Leary, M.R., Twenge, J.M., & Quinlivan, E. (2006). Interpersonal rejection as a determinant of anger and aggression. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(2), 111-132.
Leedy, P.D. & Ormond, J.E. (2010). Practical research design planning and design (10th
ed.).
McDonald, G., & Leary, M.R. (2005). Why does social exclusion hurt? The relationship between social and physical pain. Psychological Bulletin, 131, 202-223.
Nisbett, R.E., & Cohen, D. (1996). Culture of honor: The psychology of violence in the South.
Smithey, M., & Straus, M.A. (2004). Primary prevention of intimate partner violence. Crime Prevention, 68, 239-276.
Starr, K.,
Straus, M. (1980). Victims and aggressors in martial violence. American Behavioral Scientist, 23, 681-704.
Straus, M. A. (2005). Reflections on measuring intra-family conflict and violence, pp. 195-197. In Violence Against Women: Classic Papers, edited by R.K. Bergen, J. L. Edleson, and C. M. Renzetti.
Twenge, J.M., Cantanese, K.R., & Baumiester, R.F. (2003). Social exclusion and the
deconstructed state: Time perception, meaningless, lethargy, lack of emotion, and
self-awareness. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 409-423.
