This theme includes the more ambiguous areas with regards to domestic violence that were brought up by men. The difficulty of providing ‘evidence’ for psychological or verbal abuse compared to physical violence was the reasoning behind Afshin’s uncertainty.
Afshin: Lack of evidence. You might have people that you know depending on the situation you might have someone that really doesn’t think that is domestic violence.
He also mentioned that the perception of an individual on what is domestic violence may vary from one situation to another. The subjectivity of domestic abuse has important implications in the context of migration. For instance, abusers from a particular cultural setting may perceive verbal abuse in the forms of verbal
aggression, insults and threats as justifiable or may not even consider them as abusive behaviours. This ideation seems to be more prominent in non-physical abuse.
Essentially, determining any type of abuse other than physical aspect was assumed to be complicated. O'Leary (1999) argued that psychological aggression can be
measured reliably however the author also admitted that reaching a consensus on a specific level of psychological aggression that is regarded as psychological abuse in a legal or mental health context, is quite difficult due to the commonality of
psychological aggression, even in happy partners.
Abusers can misuse this notion of lack of ‘evidence’ in psychological and financial abuse to deny any wrongdoings. Women could be potentially blamed for slander and smearing their reputation because non-physical abuse is either more difficult to prove or not seen as ‘real’ abuse. As it was reflected by men, most perceived physical violence as indefensible however there was a degree of tolerance for non-physical abuse which was viewed as less severe. This is a hierarchy of
domestic abuse with physical violence on top but as we move down the hierarchy, the perceived severity of abuse decreases and its subjectivity increases which in turn increases the justification of abuse.
Some researchers have criticised the current approaches to psychological abuse. Follingstad (2007) argues that the subjective nature of psychological abuse has been an obstacle for its adequate definition and validation. This reflects what I called ‘the grey area’. It is important to recognise that psychological abuse does not occur in a vacuum and it may never be properly measured however a more holistic and savvy
approach to human nature may improve our understanding of this aspect of domestic violence.
As it was discussed earlier in this chapter, almost all the men perceived domestic abuse as multifaceted. However, when it came to what was considered domestic violence, they had an easier time distinguishing and condemning physical abuse than the other types. Towns and Adams (2016) argued that ambiguity occurs when there is more than one interpretation of a violent incident. Ambiguity about violence and responsibility is a controlling strategy against women who are subjected to violence from their intimate partners and ex-partners. For example the perpetrator would dispute the victim’s version of a violent act (ambiguity about responsibility) and uses language as a tool to silence or manipulate the discussion of violence. Offenders often use techniques of neutralisation (e.g. denying any responsibility or injury to the victim) or victim-blaming (holding the victim responsible for the violence she endured) shift responsibility for the violence away from themselves (Halket et al., 2014; Towns & Adams, 2016).
There was more justification for verbal aggressiveness (saying ‘hurtful things’) in the heat of the moment. Hamed and Afshin did not necessarily perceive that as abuse but as something relatively normal in an argument with your spouse
Hamed: If you are angry you may say things that are hurtful, that’s one thing but if you are angry and you raise your hand and hit someone that’s next level. You have problems.
Afshin: Depending on how you would define domestic violence, I have friends who might define domestic violence as two couples shouting at each other or man being sort of you know aggressive in a vocal way towards a woman that he is in a relationship with. If you define it as that then I think there is more leeway for I guess “domestic violence” to sometimes maybe in certain circumstance be semi-justifiable. I could see that. As far as physical violence no.
However, if this anger transformed itself into physical aggression then that was completely unacceptable. Basically, Hamed viewed physical violence as far worse than verbal abuse. Afshin also explained that our definition (Iranians) of domestic violence might differ from other individuals (non-Iranians) and if it is defined as interpersonal shouting or verbal aggressiveness then there can be some justification for ‘domestic violence’ but not for physical violence. Normalisation of verbal aggression and seeing domestic violence by a subjective lens has important implications. According to Afshin and Hamed, verbal aggression was more justifiable and less likely to be seen as domestic violence compared to physical aggression. Although most participants demonstrated a multifaceted understanding of domestic violence, there was more subjectivity toward non-physical abuse than physical abuse. This implies that if an action (e.g. saying “hurtful things”) is not physical aggression then it may not be domestic violence and therefore, is more likely to be used against a partner. From the men’s perspective they are not abusing anyone, they are merely “arguing” with their partners, in which some ‘insults’ are uttered. The assumed subjectivity of non-physical abuse is used to dismiss them as not serious.
Literature has shown that language and behaviour of perpetrators have serious impacts on victims (Halket et al., 2014; Towns & Adams, 2016). An act (either physical violence or coercive behaviour) conveys messages regarding the value of the victim (e.g. the deserving victim) and violence transpires within the context of these acts. A simple put down by the perpetrator can seem unimportant but in a complexity of hostile language has detrimental impacts on victims’ self-confidence. Ultimately language shapes the social reality, and vice versa therefore, language moderates the relationship between violence and interpretations of the real world. Men’s dominance and their use of violent language can affect women’s understanding of reality and the way they interpret the world (Towns & Adams, 2016).
A number of participants such as Afshin defined domestic violence as a multifaceted issue but they also argued that it was sometimes difficult to determine what was seen as domestic violence.
Afshin: Then I think it would get into more of a grey area when we talk about things that have to do with say “verbal abuse” or the abuse of power or money. Certain things that can happen in a relationship which lie outside of physical violence but maybe yeah I could consider domestic violence. He expressed a degree of uncertainty and referred to a ‘grey area’ while talking about the other types of abuse which were outside the realm of physical violence.
Psychological aggression is significantly more likely to occur in intimate relationships than physical violence (Follingstad, 2007) therefore investigating these two in a parallel way has been problematic due to significant differences in their frequency and the way they are projected. “Abuse” was originally referred to any employment of physical force against a partner in an intimate relationship. Adopting a parallel approach to psychological aggression has led to labelling any type of psychological aggression as “abuse” (Follingstad, 2007).
It is indicated that measuring and to some extent providing evidence for non- physical abuse might be more difficult than physical abuse. However, this theme showed that some men can exploit this characteristic with little to no consequences. For example financial abuse is actually a powerful tool in cultures wherein men are the main providers. Men’s control of their family’s financial means (their financial power) can easily be employed to force women into submission. Considering women’s financial dependence on their husbands and the heavy burden of showing proof for mental abuse, they have little defence against this type of abuse.