Unravelling ‘complexity’: Keeping all women safe from violence
The phrase ‘complex forms of violence’ has been used to sequester certain types of violence to be addressed in a bespoke fashion. In today’s analysis, Laura Vidal (@lauraemilyvidal) of Good Shepherd Australia New Zealand (@GoodAdvocacy) and Sana Ashraf of The Harmony Alliance (@aus_harmony) consider the unintended consequences of framing certain forms of violence as complex by providing a background to diverse experiences of violence for women and their children. This post is the third in a series in response to the Senate Inquiry into Family, Domestic and Sexual Violence. Part one argues for the need for a multi-disciplinary response to family violence, while Part two explains how financial independence is critical to ensuring women’s safety.
‘Complex forms of Violence’ is terminology that was introduced with the Fourth National Action Plan to Reduce Violence against Women and their Children. Here, it refers to four specific manifestations of violence including female genital mutilation/cutting, forced marriage, dowry abuse and human trafficking. This framing has become part of dominant discourse and is prevalent at all levels of policy and program decision-making. Whilst it is important to recognise all forms and manifestations of violence, the framing of these experiences as ‘complex’ has the potential to create exclusionary and stigmatising approaches.
In both Good Shepherd’s and Harmony Alliance’s submissions to the Inquiry, we assert that all forms of violence against women and their children are complex—particularly with regard to motivations and combinations of techniques and strategies deployed by perpetrators. We further assert that gender inequality is at the heart of behaviours which drive violence and thus should also be at the heart of our strategies to prevent and protect, regardless of the way in which the violence manifests. Delineating certain forms of violence as ‘complex’ based on their association with non-mainstream cultures creates a false dichotomy, otherises certain communities, encourages harmful cultural stereotypes and disempowers victims and survivors experiencing these forms of violence.
‘Complexity’ can be used to set aside some forms of violence as too difficult to address. Photo by Fatality Duck on Unsplash
While we agree that we need to acknowledge various religious, cultural, communal and systemic contexts within which violence against women occurs, associating some of these contexts with ‘complexity’ while viewing others as the point of reference is counterproductive. On the one hand, it encourages racism in the wider community, while on the other it leaves women who are experiencing these forms of violence locked out of mainstream services and supports due to an absence of understanding. Moreover, a focus on cultural complexity derails the conversation and puts burden and blame on the victims/survivors and their communities. Hence, by referring to certain forms of violence as complex, the fourth action plan evades the responsibility to address structural barriers such as eligibility requirements to access supports that ensure women’s safety.
An emphasis on cultural complexity appears to address the issue of cultural specificity—requiring culturally responsive and tailored interventions—but in effect does exactly the opposite. Instead of helping mainstream services understand different cultural contexts in which violence against women takes place, it further mystifies certain cultures and enables dismissal of victims/survivors’ experiences based on an elusive concept of ‘complexity’. The fourth action plan—while delineating certain forms of violence as complex—fails to provide details on the ways in which these forms of violence present and/or how they fit along the broad spectrum of violence that women face—including the patterns of behaviour which may align with other mainstream understandings of violence.
The absence of definitional clarity is challenging as it has the potential to lead to a lack of culturally-responsive interventions when women come forward. We recognise and fully support the need for tailored responses addressing family and domestic violence amongst diverse groups of women. However, the responses must be co-designed, community-led, and be embedded in the wider understanding of gender-based violence that applies to the whole of the population.
As the Fourth Action Plan seeks to highlight four specific manifestations of violence, categorising them as complex, we begin by providing background to these forms of violence, and highlight some of the challenges this approach attracts with respect to practical responses. We also provide a reflection about a way forward for inclusive policy making that holistically addresses violence against women in all of its forms and for all communities.
Human Trafficking
In Australia, Human Trafficking is defined in the Commonwealth Criminal Code (1995) (Cth) as conduct or behaviour that facilitates exploitation through force, fraud, coercion, threats or deception.
Australia’s response to human trafficking has been in operation for over 20 years and the unintended consequences of the approach to addressing the issue as solely a criminal justice concern has been well documented. In particular, how it deals with the complexity of the breadth and depth of presentations—and its intersection with other forms of violence and abuse—requires us to exercise a high degree of caution with respect to how expanded framings of specific forms of human trafficking are also addressed within the context of family and domestic violence.
Research undertaken by Monash University and InTouch which mapped the experiences of women on temporary visas who experience family violence shows there is a connection between different manifestations of violence, for example in situations like servitude—seen in women migrating through marriage who are later deceived into situations akin to slavery. This example of human trafficking as a specific form of violence which is ‘complex’ requires much deeper consideration—including where along a holistic spectrum of violence it fits, what its intersections are, and how responses need to be carefully mapped and evidenced. The emphasis on the continuum of violence is key here, to ensure that the women who are impacted are not excluded from support through a lack of understanding or ‘ineligibility’, and that the system developed to respond is equipped to do so.
The fact that the Senate Inquiry is before us indicates that the current system responding to family violence is imperfect. Therefore, it is important to exercise caution in taking a system that already has weaknesses and applying it to an issue that may be similar, but, has its own specificity which needs addressing. Simply uplifting one response and applying it to another may have unintended consequences.
Female Genital Mutilation (FGM)
FGM, also called female circumcision or cutting, is defined by the World Health Organization (WHO) as ‘all procedures involving partial or total removal of the external female genitals, or injury to the female genital organs for non-therapeutic reasons’. It is practised in various parts of the world, but is most prevalent in African communities. FGM is globally recognised as a form of gender-based violence because the procedure is often performed on non-consenting young girls, and has serious ramifications for their sexual and reproductive health later in life. In some severe forms, it can also lead to debilitating physical harm or death. It is estimated that 53,000 women in Australia live with female genital mutilation.
All states and territories in Australia have passed criminal legislation prohibiting FGM/cutting, and these laws also apply extraterritorially, which prohibits an Australian resident from travelling overseas to undergo or perform the procedure. As a result, mandatory reporting and child protection procedures are in place to ensure monitoring and protection of young women who identify as at risk. The Australian Institute of Health and Welfare state that Australia’s approach to this issue is consistent with international policy and legislative expectations. However, practice on the ground suggests that there is greater work to do with respect to how the issue is framed, and thus, how women and girls at risk can seek assistance.
Victims/survivors of FGM need access to safe and culturally responsive primary and secondary healthcare, including sexual and reproductive health services. Dr Ogunsiji, a researcher at Western Sydney University, has identified midwives as those at the frontline of this issue—however, gaps in continuity of care remain. It can be argued that the framing of FGM/cutting as a complex cultural practice contributes the challenge women face, including harmful cultural stereotypes within the healthcare system and wider society. You can hear more about this on a recent webinar recorded by Harmony Alliance.
Forced Marriage
Good Shepherd has long advocated for the expansion of the definition of forced marriage, including the acknowledgement of the familial dynamics which are akin to those that present within traditional understanding of family and domestic violence. To date, forced marriage has been firmly planted in Australia’s response to modern slavery; it is criminalised under the same provisions as Human Trafficking, and primarily impacts young women from diverse communities.
The response to forced marriage has been questioned, particularly with respect to why victim/survivors are not coming forward—concluding that a criminal justice approach discourages victims from coming forward. This reluctance highlights a clear need for families and communities to be more openly engaged in conversations and educational processes around changing behaviours and norms. The current placement of the response outside of an integrated system which responds to familial violence in all of its complexity is failing women who find themselves at risk of/in a forced marriage. The Australian response to forced marriage shows the limits to our ability to employ holistic and intersectional approaches to violence prevention and response. Setting forced marriage aside from the domestic and family violence sector has resulted in women at risk not being able to receive the support they need, when they need it, and how they need it.
Good Shepherd have also called for mainstream family and domestic violence responses to be expanded to include those who are facing forced marriage. We have cautioned against the siloes which have been created with respect to providing support, and in particular we have emphasised the need to look beyond the law toward a holistic, preventative response inclusive of multiple systems. This is essential to ensuring that the central principle of safety and security is upheld.
Like the other examples that have already been discussed, to avoid the unintended consequences of exclusion and to promote more inclusive systems of response we must acknowledge all forms of violence exist along a continuum, rather than segmenting out those which may require a deeper and more nuanced understanding as outside the purview of our understanding of domestic and family violence.
Dowry Abuse
Marriage ceremonies around the world have a history of being transactional in nature. Most peoples and cultures around the world, including Western/Christian societies (see for example, Biblical references to dowry), have historically had some form of economic exchange associated with marriage. Dowry is a particular form of monetary and/or economic exchange that takes places at the time of and/or after marriage in many communities and cultures around the world. The practice of dowry has certain culturally specific manifestations in diverse communities present in Australia. These practices, like many other cultural practices, are prone to abuse and are used against vulnerable members of the society.
One particular form of such abuse is the gender-based dowry abuse, prevalent in South Asian communities, where the bride/bride’s family are forced to pay exorbitant amounts of money and gifts to the groom/groom’s family during and after the marriage. It is essentially a form of economic/financial abuse, and often happens in conjunction with other forms of family and domestic violence. Despite being associated with culturally-specific marriage rituals, dowry abuse is not more or less complex than other forms of economic and financial abuse in the context of gender-based violence.
Structural factors, such as migration policies and a lack of recognition of dowry abuse as a form of economic abuse in the federal Family Law Act (1975) (Cth) and State and Territory family violence legislation (with the exception of Victoria), add extra layers of complexity to many cases of dowry abuse, thereby resulting complexity that comes from the system of response; rather than the dynamics involved in this form of abuse. Labelling dowry abuse as culturally complex creates a false cultural dichotomy and the opportunity for structural reform is diminished.
Dowry abuse has been the subject of a separate Senate Inquiry in 2019, which made multiple recommendations including the establishment of a nationally consistent definition of economic abuse, where behaviours related to dowry abuse could be recognised. This is a measured approach which would allow for a broad range of economically abusive behaviours to be recognised without singling out particularly communities, thereby creating an openness for engagement and in turn enhancing opportunities for safety.
The way forward
We encourage policymakers as well as mainstream services to take an intersectional approach to understanding and addressing violence against women. The term ‘intersectionality’ has been adopted and used widely within the context of policy responses to violence against women. However, the true definition of what is meant by ‘intersectionality’ needs to be applied consistently. Intersectionality is not synonymous with diversity and inclusion. Kimberle Crenshaw, who first coined the term, developed it as a response to describe how race, class, gender and other individual characteristics intersect with one another and overlap to create greater exclusion and marginalisation by the mainstream; as she says, it is the place where “power comes and collides, where it interlocks and intersects”. Crenshaw herself has warned against the travelling of the idea of intersectionality beyond context and content.
Approaching all forms of violence against women using an intersectional lens requires an understanding that all forms of violence are complex. It also requires self-reflection and asking critical questions as to which aspects of our own privilege or power are leading us to define certain forms of violence as more complex than others.
Understanding specific experiences of violence must remain at the heart of all of our responses to violence against women and their children. We must acknowledge that by ‘othering’ certain women, their access to support is impeded and the complicated web of power relations that support is embedded in continues to be compounded and out of reach.
A better way forward would be to see all forms of violence as acts of aggression rooted in power, and occurring in all cultures and communities. Whilst there is a need for culturally responsive and tailored solutions they are not possible through the current framing or othering of cultural complexity. A delicate balance between understanding of cultural specificity and the universality of gender-based violence is required to adequately address violence against all women in Australia.
Notes
Othering of culture as complexity in the context of violence against women: Unpacking the power of language was subject of a recent discussion series panel hosted by Harmony Alliance. The recording can be accessed here.
Part 1 of this series: A multi-disciplinary response to family violence – building communities of action
Part 2 of this series: Women’s physical security cannot be achieved without securing their financial independence
This post is part of the Women's Policy Action Tank initiative to analyse government policy using a gendered lens. View our other policy analysis pieces here.
Posted by @SusanMaury