Reasons for domestic violence sociology

Running head: EVALUATING SOCIAL PROBLEMS 2

EVALUATING SOCIAL PROBLEMS 2

Domestic Abuse

Introduction

Begin with an introduction of your topic, your social problem. Define it, describe why it is a social problem, and give some background information about it (in relation to the US). Give a thesis…something like: In this essay, I will discuss domestic violence from the major sociological perspectives – functionalism, conflict, and interactionism – in order to …

Functionalism propounds social order and cohesion as opposed to conflict; unlike symbolic interaction, functionalism focuses on a more macro-sociological point of view. Functionalists view societies as embodiments of entities, such as schools, churches, and governments. In the view of functionalists, culture, and society are informed by the entities thereof; functionalists acknowledge the function of various entities that exist in societies and the roles they play in shaping roles, duties, social obligations and responsibilities and by extension maintaining social order. Source?

Functionalism asserts that everything that functions in society serves a purpose and works harmoniously with others to attain an equilibrium (Ktepi, 2016). As such, they could be viewed as being pieces of a puzzle; with each part having its distinct role; a role played to sustain some sort of an equilibrium (Demerath, 1996). According to functionalism, income disparities between the rich and the poor, and varied socioeconomic statuses that exist in societies should not be viewed as factors that can potentially breed conflicts but should rather be celebrated for giving societies a structural form. Functionalism explains that attempts to redistribute resources or power only tips existing equilibrium, disrupts harmony and leads to anarchy (Ktepi, 2016). When individuals hold the view that marriage equality portents negatively on the institution of marriage, usually, they frame the world in a functionalist view.

Functionalism gives domestic violence a clean bill of health. In societies that celebrate men and suppress women’s call for equality, any actions that are geared towards earning women equal rights and freedoms as men, when viewed through the lens of functionalism, can only come off as troubling (Barrett, 2017). Efforts to maintain the status quo by having women remain in their ‘rightful’ place may, therefore, seem justified. Functionalists see societies as entities composed of individuals who have their place and staying in it, sometimes to the point of authoritarianism, a functionalist in the pre-industrialization era could have remarked that women should not be allowed to work because society functions with women overseeing domestic activities and men run the economic and political aspects of societies. Functionalists, in past centuries, relegated women to childbearing and domestic chores. In societies where women content with overly constricted space for self-expression and growth, any efforts in the line of career growth over domestic activities could have earned the fury of men and justifiably so because such actions go against the norm. This is a viable argument, with the language that it is “justifiable.” While functionalists argue that change disrupts the stability of society, they also argue that when change happens the other institutions must adjust to bring society back to equilibrium. Dysfunctions may occur, though, as those changes are taking place. Thus, as women take on different roles, violence towards them may occur.

Conflict Theory

Conflict theory explains that societies are made up of institutions that compete for power and influence. Conflict theory as advanced by Karl Marx stemmed from clashes between workers and the factory owners. The theory has been used to explain wars and violence. Omer and Jabeen (2016) observe that conflict theory observes that everything is caused by a struggle between those in power and those who lack power. The theory encourages social change, and its proponents believed that the strong prey on the weak.

Conflict Theorists believe that the wealthy scheme and plot ways to ensure that the status quo remain whereas the less privileged seek to deconstruct the status quo. The powerful, therefore, express no reservation on suppressing the poor and powerless. Unlike functionalism, the theory explains that social order is a function of domination. In the view of Karl Max, power lies in the hands of those with political, economic and social resources. The effect of the power imbalance between those who wield tremendous power and those with less power often lead to a power struggle (Omer & Jabeen, 2016). Those who are in a better position often undertake to defend their standing; a move that often, perpetuate the power struggles that pit the less privileged against the bourgeoisie.

Aside from being used to explain wars and violence, conflict theory can also be used to shed light on other social phenomena such as domestic violence. Conflict theory explains that domination and struggle often exist between the powerful and the suppressed. In the case of a domestic situation, violent man may wish to have his way; he may never wish to have his authority in the family challenged. Anyone who threatens his position as the head could, therefore, earn his wrath. When a man feels that he is being disrespected by his children or wife, he may resort to violence to reassert himself as the authority and the figurehead in the family. Unimpressed with being dominated over, the woman would have the urge to push back. She would perhaps defy the directives from her spouse, she could even ignore his requests and as such raise tension that would give way to physical and verbal assaults.

Be sure to discuss modern conflict theory here as well. (Consider the works of Mills and Berger.)

Symbolic Interactionism

Symbolic interactionism is a sociological viewpoint that focuses on micro-sociology. It’s a theory about small-scale social development where different individuals assign different meanings to the same object. According to a symbolic interactionist, society is built on everyday interactions between individuals. Culture is, therefore, shaped and perpetuated through individuals' interaction with others (Powell, 2013).

An example, a symbolic interactionist might argue that humans learn to behave through interactions with their elders and their peers. Elders in the pre-historic times, for instance, taught the young about their way of life through word of mouth. They impressed upon the youth, the need to observe certain values as well as the reasoning that underpins shunning certain behavior. However, in the contemporary setting, conversations among teenagers, which is basically a form of interaction, can revolve around the most sought out musicians, the; most popular cloth line etc. Such conversation establishes value and assigns a value to objects of discussion and as a result, inform ways in which people assign value to objects.

Functionalist might argue that the function of the film industry and other forms of mass media provide entertainment and to teach people what is acceptable behavior, symbolic interactionism, on the other hand, could adopt a different view. They could explain that reality is based on the interpretations individuals get from social interactions. For instance, when an individual exhibits deviant behavior, a symbolic interactionist would explore the help of peer groups to help correct such deviant behavior (Kwok Kuen, 2012). Guides from the peer groups would discourage deviant behavior while at the same time encouraging conforming behavior.

As such, symbolic interactionism focuses on the meaning of a “small-scale” interactions. The example of a person whose deviant behavior calls for corrective measures also reaffirms the fact that individuals assign meaning to certain “symbols” i.e. they interact with other people, and create a frame of references, i.e. “lens” through which they perceive the world (Powell, 2013). A conforming behavior that could be viewed as ideal could then be observed by many. A person who goes against the behavior may attract scorns and insults. Being a micro-level approach, symbolic interactions explains interactions that occur at an interpersonal level and explores the meaning people give to objects, things, and symbols.

Domestic violence, to a certain degree, stems from symbolic interactions. In societies where men are socialized to be brutal and violent, children and teens become exposed to attacks on women. If such transgressions against women go unpunished and at the same time, and with no word of condemnation from individuals and groups, then the behavior becomes reinforced and normalized. Young boys transitioning to adulthood would then learn that it is normal to assault women in marriages in the name of instilling discipline.

Domestic violence is invariably exacerbated when the aggressor enjoys the protection of culture while the victim takes the back seat and lays low. In most cases, the victims, and particularly in the case of spousal violence, have rigged notions that they play second fiddle to men. In the victims’ perspective’ challenging violence from men could therefore only go so far, stall from the get-go if interventions were to be sought. And so, when victims suffer in silence without even a word to the authorities, then the aggressor get incentivized to perpetuate assaults and the vice ends up permeating societies. Women in the Middle East have, for a long time borne the biggest brunt of gender socialization that put men on pedestals while drowning the voice of the female gender and ignoring their plight.

How a Christian Worldview might approach reasoning for domestic violence as well as

the hope of alleviating the social problem.

A victim who braves domestic violence may have a reasoning that would likely differ from those who view occurrences from the standpoints of functionalists and conflict theorists. Even when faced with physical abuse, a Christian would seek to establish the extent of forgiveness that Jesus would go to while in a similar predicament. The desire to be Christlike in forgiveness and humility would inform tolerance that a victim would exercise (David, 2008). The Christian notion of forgiveness requires believers to forgive unconditionally and to let go of their rage and frustrations. Borrowing from the biblical teachings, a victim may be obliged to extend a hand of grace and forgiveness to her abuser just the same way Jesus forgave the Romans who crucified him on the cross and the masses who called for his death. The fact that Jesus even remembered the thief on the cross next to him, a victim of domestic violence with a Christian point of view may have even greater incentive to forgive the actions of an aggressor.

Whereas ordinarily the reactions to domestic violence and any other form of violence may; rage, vengeance, emotional trauma, or worse apathy. The notion of true forgiveness form people who espouse Christian teachings and values would most likely downplay violence and react to it with a significant sense of calm and clear mindedness (David, 2008). Coming from an understanding that when people project emotional fury towards others, they become irrational and lose focus and as such predispose themselves to more violence, a Christian may not be willing to go that route and another reason to forgive, to some, forgiveness gives a person the opportunity to step outside a situation, so that they can to look at it rationally, and with compassion, and understanding (David, 2008).

Holding onto unforgiveness is detrimental to a victim of domestic violence and any other victim of any other transgression out there because it perpetuates an ongoing hurt on a victim. Individuals do not operate at full potential while holding onto anger, bitterness, and victimhood; and by understanding that the decision to hold onto these things is both strange and self-defeating, a person who espouses Christian teaching may see it wise to forgive and forget about the suffering they have endured at the hands of aggressors. To them, forgiveness means letting go of entitlement and hurt.

How would the Christian perspective explain what causes domestic violence (e.g. sin, lack of love)? How might Christians offer help to those experiencing domestic violence?

Conclusion

Functionalism, conflict theory, and symbolic interactionism all have varied explanations of how societies work. Functionalism justifies the existences of vices in societies. It normalizes the existence of gender disparity in education and employment by affirming that individuals have specific places they hold in societies. In cultures where women are considered inferior to men, functionalism could easily be used to justifies roles of childbearing and domestic chores as a preserve for the female gender. Conflict theory, on the other hand, explains that one group will always dominate the other and that the aspect of domination inherently exists in societies. It also

Functionalism does argue that deviance is functional, because it confirms social norms and further unites society…but it’s in the context of uniting society against acts of deviance such as domestic violence that is agreed up in US society as “wrong.”

highlights the concept of power struggle that sometimes consumes lives, results in displacement of humanity and loss of livelihoods as a common phenomenon that stems from having powerful people who are hellbent on retaining their influence on the masses and the masses on, the opposite side of the spectrum with the determination to tap into the power and influence under the grip of the most powerful people in societies so that they could have such powers redistributed.

Unlike the conflict theory and the functionalism theory, symbolic interaction is based on the interaction of people and the way they assign meaning to objects based on their interaction with such objects. Individuals who live in societies where human rights are respected and women enjoy similar rights as men would less likely report cases of domestic violence. In such societies, men are socialized to handle divergent views with increased levels of civility. However, in societies where women play second fiddle to men, and the avenues for recourse are also choked, men tend to abuse their spouse with little to no consequences.

References

Barrett, L. F. (2017). Functionalism cannot save the classical view of emotion. Social Cognitive & Affective Neuroscience, 12(1), 34-36. doi:10.1093/scan/nsw156

Demerath, N.J. (1996). Who Now Debates Functionalism? From "System, Change and Conflict" to "Culture, Choice, and Praxis". Sociological Forum, (2), 333.

Ktepi, B. M. (2016). Functionalism. Salem Press Encyclopedia,

Kwok Kuen TSANG1, g. (2012). Emotion Management of Teaching: Conflict Theory and Symbolic Interactionism. New Horizons in Education, 60(2), 83-94.

Omer, S., & Jabeen, S. s. (2016). Exploring Karl Marx Conflict Theory in Education: Are Pakistani Private Schools Maintaining Status Quo? Bulletin of Education & Research, 38(2), 195-202.

Powell, J. L. (2013). Symbolic Interactionism. Hauppauge, New York: Nova Science Publishers, Inc.

David, K. (2008). Assuaging Rage: Remorse, Repentance, And Forgiveness in The Classical World. Phoenix, (3/4), 243.