Domestic violence: causes, effects, and intervention strategies

¶ … theories listed, the relative deprivation theory and the general strain theory best explain domestic violence, as well as the high rate of recidivism, despite punishment. However, we should mention in the very beginning that each theory listed best explains a certain category of people, generally divided by income and level of education. The two I have selected are a match for the highest percentage of women batterers.

The relative deprivation theory believes that domestic violence occurs when there is a significant difference in the achievements of each of the members of the couple. In general, in my opinion, these tend to be professional achievements and the theory is best exemplified by those couples where the husband is unemployed or having a job that is not satisfying, while the wife is earning much more than him and is the one contributing most to the family budget.

The relative deprivation theory was actually discussed when referring to the differences between the poor and rich classes and was created as an explanation for rising crime rates in different urban areas. When apply to such a level, the theory includes not only income differences, but also issues such as racial discrimination, inequality of chances, etc.

Let's discuss how this theory works to explain domestic violence. There are two levels of frustration we should consider on behalf of the batterer. First of all, there is the family level I have already mentioned: the woman has a more successful career and earns more money. There are several reasons for the man to feel frustrated. One of them is related to pride. The man has always perceived himself as the provider for the family. In this case, not only does the fact that he no longer provides count, but, additionally, he is provided for.

On the other hand, there is still a general perception in these kind of families that the man needs to have a successful career, as a sine qua non-condition. For the woman, this is not a necessity: she may have a professional career, but it is not part of her 'must job description'.

The elements I have provided in the previous paragraphs form the necessary causality for domestic violence. Indeed, they are enough to "form negative self-feelings and hostility"

. Before turning into domestic violence, the negative self-feelings are likely to pass through alcoholism and deviatory behavior. As for hostility, this obviously contributes straight away at producing a negative climate in the household. From this to actual violence there is but one single step.

The general strain theory is also an excellent explanatory theory in our case, as it "helps identify micro- or individual-level influences of strain"

. I need to emphasize the fact that, in my personal opinion, the theories that explain the formation of violent behavior, leading to domestic violence, on a personal and individual level are best. I will detail in the last paragraphs why I think they apply better than the social theories in this case.

The general strain theory, developed by Robert Agnew, relates criminal behavior to "negative affective states"

. The sources of strain are numerous and we may acknowledge that we come across them in every aspect of our lives. These include failing to achieve certain goals (socially and professionally, in my opinion, and closely linked to the previous theory I have presented), a strong differentiation between one's expectations and his actual achievements (a significant source of stress: where I should be and where I actually am) and the removal of positively values stimuli

(in the case of a household, this may be the loss of a child, moving to a new neighborhood, losing one's job).

These are some of the causal elements. According to Agnew and his theory, these are the base onto which feelings of depression and anger are formed. Stress and strain work hand in hand to turn one's personality to a violent one, with direct manifestations in the household.

In my opinion, the general strain theory is quite similar to the relative deprivation theory in terms of the consequences, being linked by a single key concept: frustration. Frustration generally leads afterwards to anger and, here from, to violent behavior. The difference between the two theories is related to the causality. In the first case, we are discussing a deplorable social condition and frustration is being built on grounds of underachievement, sometimes compared to the spouse. In the second case, we are not necessarily referring to underachievement, at least not on an individual level, but to external factors that have changed the life and variables of the individual. He feels estranged and resorts to violence as a form of cowardly refusal. The individual could have also taken a different route and turned to social violence and criminal acts, as the theory aims to discuss.

I should give an explanation on why I chose these two theories instead of the social-related ones. Of course, many of the theoreticians sustain the fact that domestic violence is being learned early on in school or witnessed in one's family. Patricia Anne Harmon is only one of them, following an experiment with a group of middle and upper income batterers. In my opinion, the normal reaction to witnessing domestic violence in one's childhood should be exactly opposite to learning and applying it later on in one's own family.