Domestic violence: Social-cultural perspectives

Domestic furiousness Social-cultural perspectivesDomestic forcefulness has been a serious sociable problem in umteen families, not al champion in the United States and United Kingdoms, but across the world. As per the 2003 surveys of the Centers for distemper Control, internal problems or home abandon had affected at to the lowest degree 32 million Americans (Bancroft, LT, Jay, GS. 2003). Research studies digest also shown that different countries receive various ways of dealing with the family hysteria, its public aw atomic number 18ness, perception and docu manpowertation are every(prenominal) prone to variations from State to State. Actu everyy, the initial use of the concept Domestic power can be traced back to 1977 when it was first identified as serious and maturation phenomena, following a series of researches (Archer, J.2000, Waits, K., 1985). These are a few manifestations that municipal violence has been a critical issue in many societies. It thitherfore be or still deserves to be given extra attention. This report delves into the same, in attempt to find out, compile and discuss on issues surrounding national violence from different perspectives, and perhaps shed more(prenominal) light on the numerous cases of violence and loving turbulences in homes and families.IntroductionThe concept Domestic violence take a shit also comm sole(prenominal) been referred to as spousal abuse, domestic abuse, intimate partner violence, or child abuse depending on who is victimized or affected in a way by the violence at home (Johnson, M., 2000). Reading through with(predicate) the work of Bancroft and Jay, spousal, child or domestic abuse is the act or the behavior of violence a take a crapst a child, or a spouse. It is a raging conflict that may exist within a analogyship perceived as very intimate, the cases of violence in families, marriages, surrounded by friends, in dating and all the intimate family relationships categorically enclos ed (Bancroft, LT, Jay, GS, 2003).According to the U.S Office on Violence against Women, domestic violence had been defined as a pattern of abusive conduct in any relationship that is used by one partner to gain or maintain power and authority over the other and control over an intimate partner (Johnson, M., 2000).In the year 2004, the Spanish Measures of Integral security department against sexual urge Violence contended that gender violence is the violence directed at women from the very fact of being a woman. This had been one of the most controversial and brute(a) sense of gender inequality ever witnessed in the history of domestic violence (Waits, K.1985).Intimate partner violence (IPV) assumes many patterns of abuse. Among such things that research studies hold back categorized as behaviors of violence are assault, insults, beating in any form i.e. kicking, slapping or hitting with anything, shoving, sexual abuses, emotional and psychological torture, economic deprivation, maltreatments, thraldom and many alike (Waits, K.1985).According to Robertson and his research counterparts, domestic violence get down been attributed to a number of possible causes, ranging from alcoholism to mental illnesses (Robertson, KP, Murachver,TM., 2009).Aim and ObjectiveThe aim of this paper is to discuss at length issues of domestic violence from different cordial-cultural perspectives. The paper seeks to address the mush fashioning challenges surrounding social demographics i.e. families and homes across the societal divides. Its objective is to give a succinct elaboration on what many researchers hold to be right or wrong about the domestic violence. It investigates into the previous research findings and methods that had been active to pee-pee whether the spousal, child or family abuses could be brought to a permanent end, or the society have to live with and appreciate the violence as part of tone.Literature refreshUnited States as a point of reference is the one State that researches have shown to contribute a greater magnitude of long lasting domestic violence. Prolonged account of legal precedents pertaining to spousal abuses and relationship conflicts were common trends in the United States (Waits, K.1985).Similar cases have continuously been observed in the rest of the societies of the world. This implies that domestic violence have been a worldwide socio-cultural fiasco, not narrowed to the United States alone (Waits, K.1985).Many research studies have found that the most affected by the domestic violence are women. To begin with, the research conducted by Robertson and Murachver revealed that women were the first victims of all domestic chaos in every society. They emphasize many women were being battered, assaulted, insulted, sexually abused, emotionally and psychologically tortured by family affairs, and all manners of family violence (Robertson, KP, Murachver, TM. 2009).Backing up the claims of these researchers was Bancroft a nd his research colleagues. They too emphasized that nevertheless though domestic violence affected all the members of families, including children and the spouses, women were face with the most staid domestic challenges resulting from the social conflicts and violence (Bancroft, LT, Jay, GS, 2003).The arguments and assertions of these researchers were however met by stern resistance from the National Institute of referee whose research findings pointed out that both women and men were affected equally by domestic violence, and that to some result or in some cases, men were faced with most challenges than could be compared to their wives and children (Waits, K., 1985, The Criminal Justice Response to Battering). The findings of the National Institute of Justice further contended men from a few families were also battered, assaulted and insulted by women, and so, judge had to prevail when handling domestic issues (Wait, K., 1985).However, the Centers of Disease Control and Prev ention (CDCP) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) further refuted the findings of National Institute of Justice (NIJ), arguing that young-begetting(prenominal) and effeminate spousal assaults could not be rated similarly as the research studies of the NIJ posited (Wait, K., 1985).The CDCP and BJS studies held there was more violence of men against women, men assaulting women, and not otherwise.Debates surrounding domestic violence were becoming controversial and highly contested. Archer Jefferson and other conflict resolution researchers also had their own stand. They opposed the assumption of gender equity or gender neutrality in domestic violence as held by some research scholars and civil rights movements (Archer, J., 2000)Pertinent to domestic violence characterized by controversial debates and arguments, there were also emerging gender movements whose major aims were to defend themselves against the claims on who between men and women vio after-hoursd the family peace accords the most. The first of such movements was a womens movement that branch in 1970s (Bancroft, LT, Jay, GS, 2003).This movement was concerned with womens rights which held that men were ruthlessly abusing their wives. This move was later to be countered by the masculine movements commencing from1990s. Modern attention given to domestic chaos put into consideration factors that could have led to commencement of the gender conflicts and domestic fiascos (Bancroft, LT, Jay, GS, 2003).Survey estimates have, too, indicated that in every 1000 females, approximately 240 were victims of domestic assaults as compared to only 76 in every 1000 men going through the same domestic traumas (Robertson, KP, Murachver, TM. 2009). Nevertheless, some anonymous reports released in 1997 revealed that a hefty number of men who suffer from the wraths and brutalities of women fail to say so, therefore living no substantial evidence that could be used to approve to what extent men suffer the domest ic violence concomitant to women The reports, however, noted that there were no certified proves that men under-reported their cases than women or the vise versa (Robertson, KP, Murachver, TM. 2009).The reports were though more categorical on the case of female reportage of domestic violence, admitting that a significant fate of women were likely to accept they were being abused by their partners. This, according to reports, had been one of the challenges face up men, the fear to admit for safeguarding the perception of the masculine gender (Robertson, KP, Murachver, TM. 2009)Research MethodologiesAmong the most commonly used and criticized research methodology in investigating gender domestic violence was the use of Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) survey tool. CTS was found in 1970 as a tool used in measuring the extent of domestic and gender conflicts through surveys and compilation of data. This research methodology was, however, met with stern criticisms and dissatisfaction by ot her research bodies like the U.S National Institute of Justice (NIJ), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDCP) and the Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) (Waits, K., 1985).The above highlighted research organs commonly contended that the use of CTS in research was not effective in a number of ways. It did not measure critical domestic violence aspects such as coercion, control, sexual assaults by ex-partners or partners, factors contributing to the domestic and gender violence (Waits, K., 1985). For such concrete assertions against the use of CTS, other research methodologies have been preferred in investigating issues of domestic violence. Such methodologies as filling of questionnaires, field researches, desk research, and interviews have commonly been utilized.Results and FindingsThe major findings concerning domestic violence is that women are globally the most victimized, though a number of other researches claim otherwise. Like-wisely, a significant percentage of men have fallen victims of gender violence. Debates as to whether it is women or men that suffer the consequences of domestic violence the most is still unsettled, with both genders pointing accusing fingers on who should be accused of violating the family piece accords almost always.Causes of domestic violence so highlighted indicate that alcoholism plays a significant usance in instigating family violence, making the male gender to be the first culprit to be accused of the assaults and insults in the families. This follows the general notion that a better percentage of men are drunkards as compared to women. Other factors contributing towards the same are misunderstandings, mental illnesses, poverty, communication conflicts and cultural diversities (Robertson, KP., Murchver ,TM., 2009, Attributes and attributions associated with female and male partner violence).Discussions and ConclusionThe so called domestic violence has no boundaries or limits. It can possibly take place in any family at any era. This, as Robertson and Murachver confirms, is very true in the cases of psychological abuses. subsequently all, the violence doesnt need to go physical or get aggressive through attacks, and family skirmishes. Many psychological researchers have incessantly pointed out that the psychological change of abuses in families present more severe consequences than could be compared to the equally consequential physical and aggressive domestic violence (Archer. 2000).Emotional abuses though minimal as the many surveys on domestic matters indicate, they leave prolonged and long lasting tensions (Robinson, KP, Murachver,TM, 2009). In conclusion, domestic violence may be regarded as part and parcel of life that both men and women should learn how to manage, appreciate and live with.ukessaysessaysclassics Essays romish Social Lifeukessaysessaysclassics Essays roman letters Social LifeWhat can the decoration and layout of the Pompeian house discern us about roman letters social life?The eruption of Mt. Vesuvius in 79AD, and the subsequent destruction of Pompeii, and its near neighbour, Herculaneum offers us a unique glimpse into Roman life at the end of the first century AD. at that place are, however, certain problems that must be understood before a discussion of Roman social life can be attempted.Pompeii was not a Roman city in the sense that it had not been founded by Roman citizens. At the epoch of its destruction it was already very old and had been inhabited by many generations of people from disparate backgrounds that came together to form their own uniquely structured society. From the first second century BC it is possible to identify four separate and distinct concepts of urban organisation within the city. It should further be noted that only a relatively small part of the city has been excavated to this point, and so any argument from archaeology will always be incomplete. The literary sources are even more problematic, Anci ent authors rarely mention Pompeii before the first century BC and even after this date the sources are far from extensive. The writings of Varro (C.116-27BC), Vitruvius (fl.20-10BC) and Pliny the young (C.62-110AD) are our main sources.Archaeologists working at Pompeii, and indeed elsewhere, have tended to be classically trained scholars. The tendency of such scholars has been to interpret their finds in ways that are analogous to the Latin textual tradition. This is to say that scholars tend to assume that a given get on in a given house must have been for an activity typically mentioned in one the sources. From the time of the very first excavations at Pompeii, a similarity was seen between the ideal plan of a Roman house set out in Vitruvius, and the floor plans of the many houses being unearthed. Terms deriving from Varros language study and Pliny the Youngers descriptions of his own country villas have also been applied to the floor plans at Pompeii. It is indeed common prac tice to label a room with a Latin term as presently as it is excavated. As a result of this, perhaps natural tendency, the archaeological remains have been interpreted in combination with textual references, and plans of Pompeian houses are general labelled with such terms. Some modern scholars even translate the Latin terms into the assumed appropriate modern equivalent. The implication of this is that we are given the flavour that we are far better informed than we in reality are, as to the nature of the activity that occurred in any given room in a Pompeian house.Some of the terminology used by ancient authors, and followed by modern scholars, was undoubtedly used by Pompeians, but any assignment of labels to rooms should be treated with a due amount of caution. Amongst other problems, this assumes that the involvement of rooms did not change over time and that individualistic rooms served only one function, such as they prominently do in the modern world.Relatively recently Wallace-Hardrill has offered a very convincing description of the social structure of Roman houses, demonstrating that the entire space of the house was arranged to present the identity and status of the owner to the surrounding community. This may seem an obvious point, but in relation to the question, it is a vital one to note. The social function of a house determined both the layout of the rooms and the choice of decoration within each room. There are two especially characteristic elements to this social function, namely the different use made of space depending on the type of visitor to the house, and the significance of the excessive dimensions and the wasted space as an example of conspicuous consumption.Ancient authors present us with an image of clients waiting in the atrium for an audience with a wealthy friend as a yard-stick of the social status of that patron. He would receive more important guests in smaller rooms closer to the intimate of the house. Often more sec luded rooms were used if the discussions were considered private. Close friends would come to dinner in dining areas that were specifically and deliberately located at the rear of the garden peristyle. A social pecking coiffe was thus easily established, corresponding to the increasing access given to the interior of the house. It is evident that architects took great pains when designing the peristyles of Pompeian houses, to ensure that a guest would receive the most comprehensive impression of the size of the patrons home. An example of the way this was achieved was to locate the largest and most impressive rooms around the peristyle courts so that all would be visible, along with the garden, as a guest was taken to the patron.The number of reply rooms, and indeed the total number of rooms, played a significant role in determining the rank of the household and the social status of the patron within the social hierarchy of the city. A wealthy homeowner would have a home large eno ugh to receive guests in different areas depending on their numbers, social status, time of the day, season etc. This ability to choose the location of reception was key in establishing ones social status.Although the amount of money spent on a persons house was not always directly proportional to the individuals wealth, some relationship is certain, as today, it was the most expensive item in the family budget. In order to purchase a large and impressive dwelling, one that would indicate high social rank, considerable amounts of money were required. There were also ancillary costs to consider, high social status was implied from having a large number of slaves and household attendants all of whom had to be housed themselves.A measure of the importance of an impressive house in determining social status of the senatorial class is indicated by the amount of debt Cicero incurred in order to obtain his house on the Palatine. The character of Trimalchio in Petronius Satyricon is also no t unaware of the importance of a grand house. With his expensive and extensive house he can hope to be held in high esteem. In the description of the house all of the rooms are on a grand scale. Trimalchio relates that when Scaurus came to township he preferred to stay with Trimalchio rather than in his own house by the sea. By spending large sums of money, Trimalchio can hope to raise his social status among the wealthy elite such thinking can no doubt be applied to any town within the Roman Empire, and sure to Pompeii.Quite naturally, the preceding discussion only applies to the wealthy and socially prominent. They were the only rank in Pompeian society who needed (or could afford) large atria to receive clients, or large dining rooms to entertain friends. It should be noted the Pompeian society, an indeed Roman society as a whole, was competitive and there was relatively extensive up mobility, or at least the desire sue such. The social elites created a model for their less we althy and powerful contemporise through their activities and particularly through the style in which they lived, at least when they placed themselves on ostentatious open display, as was the purpose of a grand house.Decoration, as well as size and general layout, was also used as a means of indicating, or attaining a certain social status. Thus both architecture and interior design were employed in the competition for social status in Pompeian society. The natural side effects of this were stylistic developments in the various arts and crafts employed in interior dcor, especially in painting. It has been argued that room function can be determined from the decorative schemes and that the more elaborate decoration was in rooms that were most likely to be seen by visitors whilst probably broadly true, as Wallace-Hadrill has shown, arguments based on the premise of a precise relationship between archaeological remains at Pompeii and the surviving textual source tradition are often trap ped in circular arguments.The extensive nature of the decorations in the Pompeian house, and indeed in houses throughout the Roman world, tell us much about the social life of the inhabitants. The fact that Pompeian houses were extensively decorated, and particularly those areas through which visitors would pass, or in which they would stay for extended periods, such as reception rooms and dining rooms, tells us that visitors were common. Houses, therefore, performed a very significant social function. Not only were they areas in which to live, they were also designed and decorated to present the owner in the best possible light, to indicate to the world his wealth and social standing.The Interpretation of individual rooms is, as already mentioned, problematic. Archaeologists and classical historians tend to interpret the Pompeian house without any consideration of the contents of a given room at the time of the eruption. Whilst it is obvious that some fixtures, such as cooking hear ths, shrines, water-catchment areas and garden colonnades provide a good indication of room use, no systematic evaluation of room contents at Pompeii has ever been made. With this in mind, it should be recognised that an understanding of the social significance of decoration in the Pompeian house can never be complete as decoration surely implies the contents of any given room and not just the wall decoration.One final point that should be made is that decorating a part of a house for the purposes of social display was not a specifically, or even an originally Roman idea. In classic cities of the classical period the houses of the rich were more elaborately constructed and better furnished and decorated then those belonging to people from a lower social level. A wealthy visitor to an Athenian house of the fifth or fourth century no doubt expected certain standards of decoration in the room where the symposium took place. The decorative style of Roman elite houses drew its inspiratio n from that of the Classical and Hellenistic period, but soon developed in the competitive climate of the late Republic and early Empire.The Pompeian house, therefore, served a number of functions. It was somewhere for an individual and his family to live in the first instance. But it also performed a significant social function as a place to receive and impress clients. Its size and exterior adornments were an open display of wealth and social standing, making a claim to be from a particular social class (even if not born into it), and the decoration, both interior and exterior all served to reinforce this impression. The more elaborate the decoration, the greater the social status of the owner.BibliographyP.M.Allison, Pompeian Households An Analysis of the Material Culture (Los Angeles 2004)A.Boethius J.B.Ward-Perkins, Etruscan and Roman Architecture (Middlesex 1970)A. Cooley, M.G.L. Cooley, Pompeii (London 2004)M.W.Frederiksen, Caesar, Cicero and the Problem of Debt, JRS, 56, 19 66, 128-141M. Grahame, Private and Public in the Roman House Investigating the Social holy order of the Casa del Fauno in R.Laurence A.Wallace-Hadrill, Domestic Space in the Roman World Pompeii and Beyond (Michigan 1997)M.Grant, Cities of Vesuvius Pompeii and Herculaneum (London 1971)W.M.Jongman, Pompeii (Amsterdam 1988)A.McKay, Houses, Villas and Palaces in the Roman World (Southampton 1977)M.C.Van Binneke, Some Remarks on the Functions of Houses and Rooms in the Insula V at Herculaneum. Mededelingen van het Nederlands Instituut te Rome, Antiquity 50, 1991, 136-144A.Wallice-Hadrill, The Social Structure of Roman Houses, PBSR, 56, 1988, 43-97A.Wallice-Hadrill, Houses and Society in Pompeii and Herculaneum (Princeton 1994)P. Zanker, Pompeii Public and Private (London 1998)