The Case of India
In India, one in three women has experienced some form of domestic violence defined as ‘harassing, harming, injuring or endangering a person to coerce them’ by the Protection of women from domestic violence act, 2005. In theory, the act imposes protection for women against domestic violence. Even still there are many factors which come into play during its application. At 18, I had a boyfriend (Joe), and he hit me for no reason other than that I was socialising with my friends. He ordered me to take his permission before spending time with any friend, be it male or female. I did not follow his order due to which he resorted to aggression. I was a possession to him, over which he believed to have complete control. Possessiveness and aggression are considered to be a masculine trait in society owing to which I too justified his action. Here, possessiveness is taken to be the feeling of ownership over another person. I believed that I had done wrong by not informing him. I had seen men in my family act in similar ways towards their wives or girlfriends and so I gave him another chance. I believed this was a one-time thing but then he hit me again. I left him after this and did not tell anyone about this instance. I was very ashamed of the situation at first but then I told my friends and family about it and they all said two things. First, I should not go to the police and second, I was at fault for ‘enticing’ him into hurting me. By not following the rules laid out by him for me, I was portraying deviance. I did not abide by the social norm of following the rules laid out by your ‘possessor’(usually male) who in this case was Joe. What is interesting to see here is what caused this instance and why was this condoned by my friends and family. Is it because of gendered differences? For the sake of coherence, masculinity is taken to be in the hegemonic sense to perpetuate patriarchy as well as the internal stratification of masculinity. Here gender means “a system of classification by which individuals are sorted and socialized into masculine or feminine roles, based on their sex category. The system is often binary and entails a hierarchy.” Therefore, this paper will aim to answer the question: To what extent does gender condone domestic violence in India?
Institutions are gendered as it creates a division in terms of accepted behaviour and power in institutions such as family, state and labour market. Owing to this, people create gendered identities. Biology might also play a role in creating gendered differences. Due to the inconsistent conceptualisations of biology in gender and sex, this paper will be focusing on how socialisation within gendered institutions creates gendered identities. To answer the aforementioned question, the paper will first focus on how Joe was doing gender by portraying masculine traits such as possessiveness. He did not deviate from the male expectation of not showing his emotions and chose to succumb to aggression to restore his masculinity. Then it will delve into understanding why I was ashamed of the situation and how societal norms condone such domestic violence in India. In the end, it will focus on how culture, ethnicity and gender intersect to form gendered factors that influence domestic violence.
Internalized Socialisation
To understand why Joe was aggressive we need to focus on two main aspects – internalized socialisation and societal norms. Here internalized socialisation means the acceptance of gender norms and roles established through socialisation within the society. This will showcase how societal norms shape the way one displays gender. For Joe, entitled possessiveness is grounded in what is considered to be masculine. Engels delves deep into the subject by taking the example of a father who is a white man and how his possessive sense bleeds into different aspects of his life. The findings of his paper apply to men from different ethnicities and cultures. Men show similar perceptions of possessiveness by trying to force their will upon women and children. This is ingrained in the societal norm of how a man must act. Entitled possessiveness goes a step further when some men start to think of women as their property. The idea of such possessiveness can be seen as essentializing some cultures such as that of India. This notion helps in understanding why in some cultures, women are perceived to belong to their husbands or father. Ergo, this starts to be internalised by women. They accept entitled possessiveness to be a male trait which will have to be endured. Joe showcased similar traits, by being possessive, he was doing what his gender is expected to do. By imposing restrictions, he was displaying his dominance. Another aspect which has an influence is emotional vulnerability. As argued by Pollack, men are usually encouraged by society to avoid emotional intimacy. They wear a mask of masculinity and try to communicate differently. Pascoe shows that males do not take well to their masculinity being threatened. They would try to incriminate someone else or resort to aggression to protect their masculinity. This was the case with Joe. He felt threatened by my disregard for his restrictions and consequently, he resorted to hostility rather than expressing his thoughts.
Doing Gender Within Society
Zimmerman argues that we are held accountable to perform gender. It is something we do,
not something we are. To further understand that Joe was doing gender, it is helpful to look at it through Risman’s structural lens. David and Risman proposed that there are three dimensions of social structure. The individual, the interactional and the institutional dimension. At the Individual level, the individual internalises a male or female identity through socialisation. The interactional level is when they do gender concerning others. It is done by abiding by stereotypes and cultural expectations. The Institutional dimension looks at organisations as inherently gendered but with cultural notions embedded within. By looking through these dimensions we can understand that because of socialisation at the individual level, Joe expected me to ‘do gender’ at the interactional level. Consequently, at the institutional level, it was in my favour not to take legal action owing to cultural influence. We will delve into all these levels in great detail moving forward.
Weitzman’s sex role socialization theory states that children internalize gendered behaviour as
they are rewarded for it. In light of this, men and women internalize how their gender must act and form their identity. So was the case of Joe. He internalized the norms and adapted to his ‘sex role’. Therefore, at the interactional dimension, he expected me to follow my sex role. Zimmerman highlights the importance of performing gender. The ‘sex role’ is constructed through societal expectations. One has to perform his sex role to be accepted as the associated gender with that sex in society. What constitutes to be appropriate is not ubiquitous. The constraint is embossed by the culture, social mores and societal structure. Crenshaw unveils the intersection between one factor of oppression and inequality (gender) with other factors such as ethnicity, culture, race, etc. It is these factors which help create gendered identities, through which societal expectations of sex roles are shaped. It is the restrictions and expectations imposed by the societal structure which ultimately aid in imposing inequalities. In India, where traditionally the woman is seen as belonging to a man, the societal stereotype for women is to be submissive. Joe expected me to follow this stereotype and when I did not, he got angry. By not following my sex role, I went against societal expectations. His authority came into question and hence his masculinity was threatened. Men negotiate their masculinity in certain sectors of life but then come back to traditional gender roles at home. They do so mostly out of necessity but still strive to stay as true as possible to their masculinity. When their masculinity is threatened, they do not take well to it and try to compensate for it by portraying extreme male sex roles. Aggression is accepted as a male sex role in India and thus is expected in such situations to a certain extent. This brings us to perhaps the most interesting aspect: Why is such a situation condoned? Why did my friends and family ask me not to take any legal action?
The Case of India
To answer this, we need to go beyond gender, class and ethnicity. It is important to understand the historical, psychological and sociological mechanisms which aid in the creation of such inequalities. In India, family is considered to be one of the most important institutions. Marriage is taken to be sacramental, consequently, divorce is stigmatized within society. What creates inequality is that women’s social status is derived from their husbands. Divorced women are looked down upon and terms such as selfish are associated with them. This goes against the role of women as nurturing and kind. Historically, there existed practices, such as that of ‘sati’, where a woman would sacrifice herself if her husband died. It was seen as the greatest act of devotion for a woman to burn alive beside her husband’s dead body. This practice is illegal now, but the patriarchal notions persist in the Indian culture. The laws which persist have cultural logic and patriarchy hidden behind them. At the institutional level, organizations are embedded with cultural logic.Acker uses the term ‘gendered institutions’, such that gender is embedded within every sector of life. Laws cannot be studied without looking at their societal implications. The legal institution is gendered, be it legal reasoning or the laws themselves. Laws to protect women are very important and useful in theory, but their application in gendered societies is different. Societies differentiate people based on their gender. At the institutional level, the application of laws is underlined by the cultural logic of gender. Even though legally an act might be wrong, the aftermath of going through with the legal proceeding can be brutal for a woman. Such was the case for South Indian girls who were raped and society pitied the men facing assault charges. The women were said to be copying the western culture of wearing revealing clothes due to which it was seen as natural for the men to have committed the crime. In such a societal structure, going through criminal proceedings might lead to legal justice, but that does not translate to societal justice. In my case, if I had decided to proceed with legal proceedings, then I would have been the one blamed for the occurrence because I did not perform my sex role. This is why I felt ashamed to tell anyone because I too believed that by not performing my role, I had done something wrong. Hence, I would have been judged if I told someone. The culture, familial structure and history of India, and especially the society that I live in helped condone this occurrence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, this paper has shown how domestic violence is condoned in India. At the individual level, owing to sex roles, Joe justified his action by doing what his gender is expected to do. He expected me to do the same, but I deviated from my role. In doing so, I threatened his masculinity by not abiding by the societal expectation of being subordinate. Hence, to restore his masculinity, he chose to be aggressive rather than communicate his emotion on the interactional dimension. This is condoned in the institutional dimension of Indian society due to its historical and cultural factors. Needless to say, owing to the diversity of cultures and religions in India, the societal norms might be more or less restrictive. Even still the findings of the paper could be to some extent generalisable because the history of India has induced and ingrained patriarchy to an extreme level in all institutions. Therefore, gender disparity has increased and societal acceptance of deviance in gender roles has been limited. Thus, condoning domestic violence.
Bibliography
Acker, Joan. “HIERARCHIES, JOBS, BODIES:: A Theory of Gendered Organizations.” Gender & Society 4, no. 2 (June 1990): 139–58. https://doi.org/10.1177/089124390004002002.
Arya, S., and Allen Joshua George. “Trivialization of Aggression Against Women in India: An Exploration of Life Writings and Societal Perception.” Frontiers in Psychology 13 (2022). https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2022.923753.
Barmaki, Reza. “Erving Goffman’s View of ‘Deviance’: ‘Self’ and ‘Society’ as the Sources of Deviancy and Conformity.” Deviant Behavior 42, no. 2 (February 1, 2021): 147–61. https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2019.1658845.
Broschart, Kay Richards, and Lenore J. Weitzman. “Sex Role Socialization: A Focus on Women.” Contemporary Sociology 9, no. 6 (November 1980): 838. https://doi.org/10.2307/2065307.
Crenshaw, Kimberle. “Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color.” Stanford Law Review 43, no. 6 (July 1991): 1241. https://doi.org/10.2307/1229039.
“Dear Society, Can We End All Stigmas And Normalise Divorce?” Accessed November 30, 2022. https://www.shethepeople.tv/top-stories/opinion/normalise-divorce/.
Deutsch, Francine M., and Susan E. Saxon. “Traditional Ideologies, Nontraditional Lives.” Sex Roles 38, no. 5 (March 1, 1998): 331–62. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018749620033.
“Dr. William Pollack – Author of Real Boys.” Accessed November 26, 2022. http://www.williampollack.com/real_boys_book.html.
Engles, Tim. “Possessive White Male Nostalgia: Louis Begley’s About Schmidt,” 2018. https://works.bepress.com/tim_engles/48/.
Finley, Lucinda. “Breaking Women’s Silence in Law: The Dilemma of the Gendered Nature of Legal Reasoning.” Faculty Scholarship Series, January 1, 1989. https://openyls.law.yale.edu/handle/20.500.13051/3460.
Gulseren Kozak-Isik, “Discussion Sessions” Sciences Po, 2022.
“India Code: Section Details.” Accessed November 25, 2022. https://www.indiacode.nic.in/show-data?actid=AC_CEN_13_14_00008_200543_1517807325788&orderno=3.
“India: Still Blaming Victims for Violence against Women.” Accessed December 1, 2022. https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/india-still-blaming-victims-violence-against-women.
Jordan-Young, Rebecca M. Brain Storm: The Flaws in the Science of Sex Differences. Harvard University Press, 2011. https://doi.org/10.2307/j.ctvjf9w21.
Kashgar. “The Practice of Sati (Widow Burning).” Kashgar. Accessed November 30, 2022. https://kashgar.com.au/blogs/history/the-practice-of-sati-widow-burning.
Kimmel, Michael S. The Gendered Society. Oxford University Press, 2000.
Marta Dominguez Folgueras. Lectures on “Significant topics in Sociology” Sciences Po, 2022.
Murnen, Sarah K., Carrie Wright, and Gretchen Kaluzny. “If ‘Boys Will Be Boys,’ Then Girls Will Be Victims? A Meta-Analytic Review of the Research That Relates Masculine Ideology to Sexual Aggression.” Sex Roles 46, no. 11 (June 1, 2002): 359–75. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020488928736.
Näre, Lena. “Sri Lankan Men Working as Cleaners and Carers: Negotiating Masculinity in Naples.” Men and Masculinities 13, no. 1 (October 2010): 65–86. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X10382881.
Oransky, Matthew, and Jeanne Marecek. “‘I’m Not Going to Be a Girl: Masculinity and Emotions in Boys’ Friendships and Peer Groups.” Journal of Adolescent Research 24, no. 2 (March 2009): 218–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/0743558408329951.
Pascoe, C. J. “‘Dude, You’Re a Fag’: Adolescent Masculinity and the Fag Discourse.” Sexualities 8, no. 3 (July 2005): 329–46. https://doi.org/10.1177/1363460705053337.
“Possessive.” Accessed December 11, 2022. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/possessive.
Risman, Barbara J. “Gender As a Social Structure: Theory Wrestling with Activism.” Gender & Society 18, no. 4 (August 2004): 429–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243204265349.
Risman, Barbara J, and Georgiann Davis. “From Sex Roles to Gender Structure.” Current Sociology 61, no. 5–6 (September 2013): 733–55. https://doi.org/10.1177/0011392113479315.
Sonawat, Reeta. “Understanding Families in India: A Reflection of Societal Changes.” Psicologia: Teoria e Pesquisa 17 (August 2001): 177–86. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0102-37722001000200010.
Suri, Shoba, Mona, and Debosmita Sarkar. “Domestic Violence and Women’s Health in India: Insights from NFHS-4,” January 14, 2022. https://policycommons.net/artifacts/2211508/domestic-violence-and-womens-health-in-india/2968335/.
West, Candace, and Don H. Zimmerman. “Doing Gender.” Gender & Society 1, no. 2 (June 1987): 125–51. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243287001002002.
Women’s Web: For Women Who Do. “Why ‘Who’s Your Husband Or Father?’ Is The First Thing I’m Asked As A North-Eastern Indian Woman!,” April 7, 2019. https://www.womensweb.in/2019/04/does-a-w
UnScripted 