Miller and Wellford (in Cardarelli, 1997) asserted that the victim and society generally accepted the reasons that perpetrators offered for the abuse. Abusers typically claimed diminished control over their actions (Mullender, 1996). The abusers' reasons include that s/he was provoked, that the victim did something to upset him/her and that alcohol; drugs and uncontrollable anger are to blame.
Within the field of domestic violence, various theories exist to explain the aetiology of domestic violence. Wiehe (1994), Jenkins (1990) and Hague and Malos (1993) have divided the theories into different categories: pathological theories, social learning theories, socio-economic and power imbalance theories. These theories have been used to explain male perpetrated violence.
The researcher contends however that many of these theories could also provide explanations for why women abused their husbands, as husband abuse and wife abuse are both components of domestic violence. However, at this stage, too little is known about husband abuse to postulate with any certainty, the reasons for the violence.
3.2.1 Pathological/Personality theories
The pathological theories postulated that the abuser possessed a pathological condition that led to behaviour that was deviant from the social norms. The
abuser is presumed to be suffering from a mental illness or to possess certain personality traits that led to the person being aggressive. The pathological theories also asserted that the perpetrator may have a low threshold for stress, frustration or anger or might possess poor impulse, which limits his/her ability to control their violent behaviour (Jenkins, 1990). Individual pathology theories also highlighted self-image problems and substance abuse as explanations for violent behaviour (Miller and Wellford (in Cardarelli, 1997). Alternatively, the medico-biological model explained that the abuser has an addiction to the violence. In this model aggression is linked to chemical imbalances, biological drives or medical conditions within the perpetrator (Jenkins, 1990). The victim was seen as helping to cause the abuse.
Mullender (1996) criticised pathological theories for excusing violent behaviours on the basis that because there was something wrong with the perpetrator s/he was not fully responsible for the behaviour. In this way the abuser was easily forgiven. If one really did not have control over one's behaviour, then this would be evident in a variety of circumstances with a variety of people. Abusers were often able to direct their blows to parts of the body that will not show the abuse.
The author found that these pathological theories did not account for how abusive behaviours were directed at their intimat.e partners only and usually in private. Such behaviours on the part of the abuser indicate rather that s/he is in control of the abuse. Whereas it was accepted that alcohol was a precipitating factor in domestic violence, the study conducted by Dobash and Dobash showed that in only 25% of violent relationships alcohol was found to be a factor and it was very important in only a few cases (Miller and WeIIford, in Cardarelli, 1997). Padayachee and Pillay (1993) supported this by stating that in their experience many abusers did not abuse substances. Also many alcoholics were not abusive. The authors contended that alcohol and drugs provided the abuser with an excuse for his/her behaviour. The abuser frequently claimed having no memory of the abuse and thereby did not have to take responsibility
for the abuse. Mullender (1996) stressed that domestic violence was too prevalent to be attributed to individual deviance.
3.2.2 Social learning theories
Social learning theories speculated that by witnessing or experiencing violence within their families of origin aggressive behaviours were learnt (Hague and Malos, 1993). The family, which was seen as the primary institution for the socialisation of children, exerted a tremendous influence on the development of aggression and violent behaviour among its members (Sathiparsad, 1991). This created a cycle of violence, which reproduced itself because violence was learned as an appropriate way to deal with problems. The study conducted by Straus, GeUes and Steinmetz was often quoted in support of this arguement (Renzetti, in Cardarelli, 1997). Their study showed that individuals who both witnessed and experienced parental violence were five to nine times more likely to be violent toward their own partners. The sub-cultural model, also a part of the social learning theories, focused on sub-cultures to which people belonged.
People, who lived in neighbourhoods where there were gangs for example, or those who belonged to certain professions such as the police or army, were said to learn to use violence as a way of life. The theory suggested that by removing children from violent families or sub-cultures, re-educating the perpetrators and parents the cycle of violence could be broken.
Criticisms against the social learning theory have been on the basis that other research studies (such as those conducted by 0' Leary in 1993 and Demaris in 1990) have not been able to replicate the findings of the Straus, GeUes and Steinmetz study cited above. These studies have found no association or a weak association between witnessing and/or experiencing violence as a child and becoming an abuser (Renzetti, in Cardarelli, 1997). Many abusers have grown up in homes that could be labeled as non-violent (Mullender, 1996). The converse is also true. Many individuals, who grew up in violent homes, were not
violent in their intimate adult relationships. Therefore some other factor must have contributed to people displaying violent behaviour in their current relationships. Mullender (1996) pointed out that in any given situation people always have choices and by implication needed to accept the responsibility for the consequences of the choices that they made. People were not programmed like machines. The author stressed that one's childhood was not a determinant of what one's adult life will be like. Mullender (1996) added that those who did grow up in violent homes might have more of a motivation to avoid it later in life.
3.2.3 Socio-economic theories
Socio-economic explanations emphasised that stress caused by lack of access to resources in the working class or low-income families led to violence (Hague and Malos, 1993). Within the middle-class families, the pressures were said to be related to stressful careers and financial pressures. Mullender (1996) added
,
that by implication more affluent communities would not abuse and when the stresses or pressures have lifted, the violence would cease. This was clearly not the case. Domestic violence occurred across all social strata and seemed to be independent of stresses, even though it may be rarely reported amongst the more affluent communities (FAMSA, 1997). Mullender (1996) pointed out that the pattern in domestic violence was that once violence had begun, it usually escalated over time, and did not, as the socio-economic theorists suggested, dissipate with a reduction of stressors.
3.2.4 Power imbalances
The role of power imbalances in the aetiology of family violence has been given considerable attention in research (Renzetti, in Cardarelli, 1997). Feminist theory focused on the abuser using force and power to control the victim. It postulated that the abuser obtained rewards from an abusive episode in that he felt strong and macho, got his way and that his partner thereafter catered to him
in an attempt to prevent further violence. Renzetti (in Cardarelli, 1997) found this theory limited in that it did not explain why only a minority of men were abusive, when there were so many rewards for being violent. The feminist theory also did not explain violence in homosexual relationships. It did not seem to believe either that women in heterosexual relationships could be violent. The theory was useful however in its emphasis on domestic violence as an act by which to exercise power and control. In her study of violence in homosexual relationships, Renzetti (1992) found that the goals of domestic violence highlighted by the feminist theory for heterosexual couples in her study were the same for the homosexual couples. The abuser wanted to exercise control over her partner. This could be extrapolated to include heterosexual couples where the perpetrator was the woman. The abusive wife used the violence to exercise her control and power over her husband. Renzetti (in Cardarelli, 1997) quoted other studies such as those conducted by Straus, which have shown that the partner with the most power is the abuser and used violence as an expression of this power.
Cardarelli (1997) highlighted the difficulty with using a uni-dimensional model of explaining domestic Violence, was that it emphasised one dimension while failing to explain other complex issues associated with violence between intimate partners. He concurred that the current trend was in developing an integrated theoretical model to explain the genesis and persistence of domestic violence. Miller and Wellford (in Cardarelli, 1997) explained the ecological model, which stressed the need to focus on multiple variables in family violence from the individual to society. Miller and Wellford (in Cardarelli, 1997) quoted Stith and Rosen and Riggs and 0' Leary, who also proposed an integrated or multilevel theory. Such theories focused on the individual characteristics and experiences of abusers (personality, biological and developmental characteristics), social factors (economic, political, social and community in which the abuser was socialised and lived) and the cultural conditions (the morals and values of individuals and groups to which they belonged). The value
of an integrated model was that it would increase social scientists' ability to include a range of factors to understand domestic violence and to use multifaceted strategies to respond to the patterns of violence. This would therefore allow a more holistic approach to addressing the issue of domestic violence.