CHAPTER FOUR: METHODOLOGY
CHAPTER 5: ANALYSIS
5.3 Myths Regarding Domestic Violence
experienced was that his wife accused him of having extra-marital affairs. At the time of the study the couple had been separated for one week. Eric was optimistic about reconciliation. He did not want to divorce and strongly believed that they could resolve their problems.
A summary of the status of each participant's marriage is reflected in the table below.
NAME OF DURATION OF SEPARATED DURATION OF
PARTICIPANT MARRIAGE SEPARATION
Mark 5 yrs YES 3 months
Sipho 22 yrs NO -
Andrew 18 yrs YES 18 months
Peter 12 yrs YES 12 months
Junaid 8 yrs YES 18 months
Siva 25 yrs NO -
Chris 4 yrs YES 6 months
Aslam 15 yrs YES 12 months
Ravi 10 yrs NO -
Anil 26 yrs NO -
Eric 3 yrs YES 3 weeks
TABLE 5.1
PARTICIPANTS' MARITAL CIRCUMSTANCES N = 11
the victim and rationalise the abuse. These authors, together with Roberts (in Roberts, 1996), Browne (in Cardarelli, 1997) and Angless (in Gray, 1998) highlighted some of the commonly held myths. These included that victims of domestic violence deserved the abuse and "asked for it" in some way, that alcohol, drugs and stress caused abuse, that abuse only happened to poor, uneducated and black women and his father beat his mother so he beats his wife. It is interesting to note that the last myth highlighted was an example of the social learning theory used to explain why spousal abuse occurs. This theory has been discussed in chapter two. This statement is a myth not only because it postulated that children who grew up in violent homes became abusive adults, but also because it is assumed that only women were abused within domestic relationships. The same is true for the second last myths mentioned above. In analysing the data, the researcher identified that some of the participants of the study believed two of these myths: that drinking/drugging caused abuse and that the victim provoked the abuse.
The first myth related to alcohol and drugs being the cause of abuse. This was strongly evident in Eric's account of his experiences. As indicated by the following account, he believed that his wife's abusive behaviour was related to her drinking:
"You know, when she's not drinking, we're fine. Even if she has a few drinks, things are okay. Its only when she's had too much (to drink), that she gets aggressive... Orif she wants money for beers and I don't have any, then we fight... I really think once she sorts out the drinking, everything will work out."
This was supported by Browne (in Cardarelli, 1997) who found that victims typically reported that the abusive episodes increased with heavy drinking or drugging. Angless (in Gray, 1998) and Padayachee and Pillay (1993) explained that alcohol and drugs was a precipitating factor in domestic violence in the
sense that these substances made a person lose their inhibitions. However alcohol and drugs did not cause the abusive behaviour. These authors have pointed out that many chemically dependant people were in fact not abusers and only a small percentage of abusers were actually substance abusers. This was further supported by the study conducted by Dobash and Dobash in which alcohol abuse was a factor in only 25% of the cases (Miller and Wellford, in Cardarelli, 1997). The study in turn provided support for the contention that substance abuse was not the cause for domestic violence as it was a factor in only one participant's experience. Eric was surprised to learn that all of the other participants' wives did not take any drugs. He found it difficult to explain what made those women abusive. Browne (in Cardarelli, 1997) explained that belief in this myth helped the survivors cope as it gave them hope that the abuse would stop. The victims tended to believe that the abuse would stop if the use of alcohol or other drugs ceased.
Many of the participants felt responsible for the abuse, which pointed to the second myth that emerged in the study. Anil, like many of the other research participants and victims of abuse in general, believed that his actions had in some way provoked the abusive episodes. He accepted blame for the abuse in the relationship and felt that perhaps if he had behaved differently, his wife might not have abused him. This was consistent with Fleming (1979), Mullender (1996) and Gardner (1996) who observed that victims often internalised the blame for the abuse and frequently felt guilty about provoking the abuse. Anil reflected on this:
'I don't know if it's me. Maybe it's me. I mean that's always what she says. 'You're to blame!' 'You are useless! If it wasn't for you, I'd be liVing fine.' I don't know. Maybe I do make her mad. Maybe it's my fault. But what should I do? Maybe I could have done things differently. I don't know."
The self-doubt and confusion about whether he had indeed provoked the abuse was clear. Many authors such as Fleming (1979), Renzetti (1992), Wiehe (1994) and FAMSA (1997) have emphasised that perpetrators went to great lengths to make the victims feel that they were responsible for the abuse. The victim and society at large tended to blame the victim for provoking the abuse in some way (Mafokane, 1997). The authors added that the reality was that victims often went to great lengths to pacify the abuser and tried in various ways not to provoke an abusive episode. This was consistent with the research participants, who spOke of their desperate attempts to avoid upsetting or challenging their wives. An example of such behaviour was Andrew who had no contact with his family for many years and even avoided the neighbourhood they lived in. As Mullender (1996) and Ferraro (in Cardarelli, 1997) pointed out however, victims realised after some time that regardless of their attempts, they could not prevent further abuse.