Creating Dialogical Space in Working with Domestic Violence. Justine van Lawick 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 1
Triggers of violence • Cluster A is injustice : betrayal, a child, animal or vulnerable person is maltreated, your partner has an affair (jealousy) • Cluster B is disrespect : violent behaviour, unwished touching, attacks, scolding, pestering, disqualifying, shame, humiliation, in traffic: dangerous driving, bumper sticking, • Cluster C is neglect : not getting attention, being misjudged, ignored, not being seen, heard, understood. Being abandoned. • Cluster D is powerlessness : opposition, objection, nagging, blaming, unjust reproaches, your wishes are not met, victim behaviour, bureaucracy, authoritarian behaviour 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 2
Tremblay, 2000 Two year old children use violent behaviour regularly, they bite, kick, pull hairs, beat with objects. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 3
Recent Survey Domestic Violence in the Netherlands 2007- 2010 • H.C.J. van der Veen (Ministerie van Justitie, WODC) • S. Bogaerts (Universiteit van Tilburg, Intervict) 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 4
• ≥ 9% of Dutch population victim of serious forms of domestic violence in the last 5 years • ≥ 40% reports light incidents of domestic violence • 50% of Dutch population reports no experiences with domestic violence. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 5
Men, women, perpetrators, victims • 60% of the victims are women, 40% are men. • 83% of reports to the police concern male perpetrators, 17 % female • Self report survey: 60% women report violent behaviour towards the partner, 40% men report violent behaviour. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 6
Perpetrators and victims • 2/3 of perpetrators also victim • 1/3 of victims also perpetrator • Significant statistic correlation between positions of victim and perpetrator. • Offering systemic treatment seems to be indicated 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 7
Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus) • Self reports on conflict behavior in couples • 78 questions, 50% I did….against my partner and 50% my partner did…..against me. • From scolding to injure and using weapons • Research and meta-research in USA and UK (Archer, 2000. metastudy 60.000 couples) shows that women can be as violent as men in couple conflicts 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 8
Criminal Statistics • Criminal statistics from police (80% of perpetrators are men) do differ a lot from outcomes of research with the ‘ Conflict Tactics Scale ’ research. • Hypothesis: Different outcomes, different groups 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 9
Couple dynamics M. Johnson (1995/2000) • Intimate terrorism • Violent resistance • Mutual violent control • Situational couple violence 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 10
Definition Intimate terrorism: CONTROL When a person uses his/her physical or psychological power to threaten or hurt the other person in order to create fear and to have his/her own way against the wish of the other person 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 11
Definition 2 • Situational Couple violence: LOSS OF CONTROL When conflicts escalate and walk out of hand, not intentional 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 12
Perpetrator treatments Perpetrator treatments that are based on the hypothesis: violence is acted out by men who wish to dominate and oppress women is not effective in diminishing recidivism meta-analyses: Babcock & LaTaillade (2000) Babcock, Green & Robie (2004) Feder & Wilson (2005) 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 13
VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IS MORE CONNECTED TO THE EXPERIENCE OF POWERLESSNESS THEN TO POWER 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 14
The dichotomy perpetrator versus victim • Therapists tend to identify with victims • Victims are supported, perpetrators are punished • Violence problems in families are so complex that perpetrators often are victims as well and victims can also be perpetrators. • Searching for guilt closes down and amplifies violent behaviour, asking for responsibility opens up useful resources 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 15
Why couple, family and network therapy? 1. Most partners and families do not want the relationships to stop but want the violence to stop 2. In systemic therapy the destructive dynamic and vulnerabilities can be in the center of treatment. 3. There is space for complexity and multiplicity of voices 4. Power, gender, meanings, history, fears and longings connected to the escalating conflicts can be reflected on, this opens up a dialogical space where existing resources can be reached 5. CHILDREN in the centre 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 16
Always systemic therapy? • When assessment shows a high frequency of severe violence with a controlling, intimidating partner and a scared, fearful partner, safety has to be organized before family therapy starts 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 17
Profiles of couple dynamics Complementary dynamic • One is intimidating the other, one is dominant and in power, the other is scared and sub ordinate, master and slave. • When the ‘ slave ’ is opposing, the ‘ master ’ will enlarge the control, violence and intimidation till the opposing partner gives in. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 18
complementary 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 19
Symmetrical dynamic A dual fighting couple, they match each other, power competition, ongoing ‘ war ’ , psychological and physical . Some couples switch from complementary to symmetrical styles. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 20
4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 21
Spiral of violence • Romantic illusions • Perceiving differences • Trying to restore the ideal image by corrections: trying to change the other persons behavior. First violence? • Corrections do not lead to change but are perceived as reproaches and attack. • The dynamic of attack and defend add to the destruction of the romantic myth • Feelings of betrayal and grieve about loss of romantic ideal • Increasing doubt about the relationship, fight flight and freeze reactions, dysfunctional patterns, fear of loosing the relationship. Violent behavior more frequent and more severe. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 22
Escalation Primitive rage, panic Increase of brain Blood pressure Angry, Stress scared hormones Irritated, alert Heart beat stress Fast breathing Reflective brain 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 23
Escalating language • Try to convince the other • Not listening • Hearing a reproach in everything the other says • Attack and defend • Involving other incidents and other persons • Generalizing • Black and white, always and never • Stereotyping, caricaturizing • The other as an enemy 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 24
De-escalating language • Trying to understand the other • Asking more about the experiences and thoughts of the other • Empathizing • Accepting differences in feeling, thinking and opinions • Limiting the discussion to the actual topic • Searching for compromise • Nuance en relativize • Accepting different subjective truths 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 25
CALMING DOWN PROGRAM 1. Focus on responsibility. Avoid talking about causes, guilt, history and other important topics (these are postponed to late sessions) General education about research and the large group they are part of can help. 2. Ask for the commitment of both partners to co-operate in the non violence program 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 26
3. Explain the effect of physical aggressive arousal. • Ask for exact body sensations as the most clear and important signals of agitation • Explain the effect of the chemical changes (high adrenaline, blood pressure etcetera) in the body that influences the brain: biased and narrowed cognition, from the reflective tot the primitive brain. ( stress makes stupid) 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 27
4.Explain the calming down program • When you sense things are going in the wrong (violent) direction, take the responsibility to calm down, communicate you need to calm down. • The partner has to agree with this and also stop the escalation. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 28
5. Reflect together on how they can make this program a failure and let them think about solutions. • telling the other one to calm down or take a time out • Not accepting a time out of the other person • go away for a long time • involve children • avoiding any contact (punishment?) after a time out • Starting to blame directly after a calm-down session 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 29
Destructive cycles • Blame and blame • Blame and retrieve • Retrieve and retrieve 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 30
4-4-2013 4-4-2013 CMA Felix & J van Lawick v.Lawick 2013 31
Personal history 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 32
Dialogical assessment Complexity in stead of simplicity Contextualising violence: Individual resources: (dis)abilities, talents, personality, gender, belief systems Gender and Power: differences in power; beliefs about men and women, boys and girls Family: relationships, children, history, old parents, illnesses Financial resources: Debts, housing, (im)possibilities Culture: inclusion or exclusion 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 33
Quality at the gate! To be able to do dialogicl assessment where all voices can be heard we need quality at the gate, preferably networkmeetings. 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 34
Recommend
More recommend
