Daniel Horowitz Garcia, "Contradictions of Discourse: Evaluating the Successes and Problems of a Batterer Intervention Program"
(page 4 of 4)

MSV understands that individualizing violence is easy for the men in the class and for society at large. The changes in curriculum in the last three years were made in order to resist this easy way out. This existence of a BIP at all is critiqued by MSV. The criminal court system sees BIPs as an easy fix, one that cheaply places the problem on individual men and absolves the State of responsibility. The demographics of a MSV class mirror national statistics on BIP attendance.[8] Overwhelmingly, those men attending BIPs are those caught in the criminal court system. Yet there are few critiques of these programs beyond number crunching the recidivism rate of attendees. According to conversations with MSV staff, it's only in the last 30 years that there has been any interest within the State or outside in working with men.[9] For the most part, the interest that does exist expresses itself as BIPs. Given all this, it makes sense to ask why MSV would keep such a program.

For almost 30 years, MSV has been in a formal relationship with the State. Men are court ordered to attend classes, MSV reports on the men who do attend, and the organization economically benefits from both trainings and paid attendance. Given the current situation the organization is faced with two choices: cut off all ties with the State or have some kind of plan for engagement. MSV has chosen to stay engaged with government on the local, state, and federal levels. Their strategy seems to be focused on pushing back with a strong critical evaluation of the nature and purpose of BIPs. Staff members point out that by staying engaged they have been able to influence research by the National Institute of Justice, the agency responsible for research and evaluation within the Department of Justice. Of course, this hasn't been enough to bring about systemic change. But MSV doesn't view itself as alone in this struggle. One can interpret MSV's plan as an "insider/outsider" strategy with the organization playing the role of insider. Organizations that have cut off all formal contact with the State are the "outsider" organizations. INCITE! Women of Color Against Violence is a prime example of an outsider organization. According to MSV staff members it might be too easy for government officials to dismiss INCITE, but as an insider organization MSV is capable of forcing conversations based on a critical analysis similar to that of INCITE.[10] Specifically, this is challenging government officials' definition of violence. While the State discourse on violence is limited to the individual, MSV points out how systemic violence also harms women. Prosecutors and politicians may only want to focus on physical violence and the husband or boyfriend responsible, but MSV is in position to also talk about, for example, the economic violence of low wages.

At least two evaluative questions come to mind: how well has the insider/outsider strategy been working to push a critical analysis, and what is the relationship of the BIP to this strategy? It seems clear that MSV has had some success in forcing a larger conversation about men and violence within the framework of the Department of Justice. It is also clear this hasn't been enough to stop the spread of BIPs around the country as the only solution to men's violence. On this alone, however, it would be unfair to call MSV's strategy into question. Pathologizing individual men for patriarchal violence is an integral part of patriarchy, and one organization, no matter how effective, could not possibly stop this trend. However, based on the interview conducted for this paper, a weak point was revealed: while the organization does maintain many relationships with other organizations, they are not particularly systematized in regard to the insider/outsider strategy. Many of the relationships are between individuals rather than organizational. This means that while a staff member could call up a friend working with another organization, there is not necessarily an understanding within MSV of how analysis, strategy, information, etc. is shared among the different groups.[11] To change this situation would require MSV to take the initiative in developing and sustaining stronger relationships. As part of its operational plan, MSV would need to focus on expanding dialogues with other organizations.

In order for the insider/outsider strategy to have any kind of effect, MSV will have to find a way to build relationships with organizations that share a common analysis but do not engage with government. As I've shown, the framework of confessional vs. witness can be useful for MSV in evaluating its work. To be more in line with witnessing, the content and the context of the class curriculum must intentionally centralize survivors' experience. Strong, deep relationships with outsider, women-led organizations can create the accountability necessary to avoid compromising the context of the curriculum. Although MSV is committed to a systemic critique, organizations have their own inertia. The relationships I suggest would allow, even force, the organization to confront and adapt to political change. Formalizing and further developing relationships with "outsider" organizations would help MSV with the content of the class curriculum as well. Outsider organizations can analyze the class, particularly the role of the facilitators. Being held accountable by an outside group would help MSV facilitators insure that women's experiences are brought into the class in ways that women can control. At the same time, it wouldn't be the responsibility of women to train men to be allies.

Given the larger strategy, what is the role of the BIP, or men's class, at MSV? The class is only one of six programs that MSV offers, but it is responsible for giving the organization national credibility. Since the class has such weight, it makes sense for it to come under special scrutiny. The BIP at MSV is part of a larger community-accountability model that sees violence against women as a systemic problem and maintains that the solution must be community-based. Each of the six programs are aimed at building a community capable of ending such violence.[12] Perhaps the MSV class is aimed at introducing those with privilege to one potential way new power relations could work. In effect, MSV is creating future male allies for the next wave of the women's movement. If this is the case, then it is critical that the men in the class are not there to "confess" but rather to witness the violence they have done. Confession would reinforce the idea that the men's actions are the result of pathology and that by going through the class they have been "cured." To witness the violence they have done is to see that they are capable of inflicting harm at any time because of the privileged status of men in society. Unlike a pathology, a social location cannot be cured except through the reordering of social relationships. Furthermore, effective evaluation of the work depends on evaluating the relationship of those with privilege willing to challenge the current system (i.e. potential allies) to those without said privilege in an effort to make new power relations. Put more succinctly, one would have to see how the men in the classes relate to the women's organizations considered "outsiders" in the insider/outsider strategy. The organizational relationships mentioned earlier are a critical part of the BIP, or any MSV program, reaching maximum effectiveness.

Alcoff and Gray believe that speaking out is a powerful tool both for bringing to light actual conditions in society and for moving individuals from "passive victim to active survivor".[13] Their proposition that such discourse can move the problem of violence from an individual level to a societal one suggests that non-survivors can have an active role in altering power relations. When viewed from a societal level, sexual violence is a problem of a patriarchal ordering of relations. Individuals are taught how to behave by such patriarchal ordering. Therefore, individuals can be taught to behave differently if the societal ordering is changed. Of course, not all individuals in society share equal power relations. Society is ordered to benefit men. Patriarchy teaches men that this ordering is natural, and that maintaining this order is necessary for society's survival. Patriarchy also teaches men violence as a method of maintaining order, and this violence can be stopped if men are taught to behave differently. The key is re-ordering the relations of power within society. Alcoff and Gray would undoubtedly agree that men can be a part of this process. They would also undoubtedly voice concern over how men relate to public discourse on sexual violence. Most of Foucault can be read as a warning, and his writing about discourse is no exception. In The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction, Foucault asserts that any effort to end repression would be "at a considerable cost" stating further that a "whole new economy in the mechanisms of power will be required." He also wrote that an "irruption of speech" would be necessary.[14] We can take from this that speech is necessary to introduce new mechanisms of power. Yet we must be careful, or at least intentional, when we do so. We must pay as close attention to the impact of our actions as to the intention of our actions. As Alcoff and Gray summarize, the frame of discourse is understood by how the discourse itself proceeds, not in reference to objective intentions. Mistakes and unintended consequences are inevitable, but we do not have to let this stop us from taking action. If we begin our action with careful thought, we already have the ability and tools to change course as needed. My work with MSV has been enlightening, but I began the work without careful thought of why I would be doing it. As this essay shows, hopefully, this was a mistake. What is necessary is a careful review of why and how the work is being done. The content of the work has much merit. The context of the discourse needs work.

Endnotes

1. Linda Alcoff and Laura Gray, "Survivor Discourse: Transgression or Recuperation?" Signs 18.2 (1993): 260. [Return to text]

2. Alcoff and Gray, 287-8. [Return to text]

3. Alcoff and Gray, 281-2. [Return to text]

4. Men Stopping Violence, "Our History," Men Stopping Violence. 1 December 2009. [Return to text]

5. Dick Bathrick, Ulester Douglas, Sulaiman Nuriddin, Phyllis Alesia Perry, and John Tramel, Men at Work: Building Safe Communities (Decatur, Georgia: Men Stopping Violence, 2008): Introduction. [Return to text]

6. Bathrick, Introduction. [Return to text]

7. Alcoff and Gray, 265. [Return to text]

8. Ulester Douglas, Dick Bathrick, and Phyllis Alesia Perry, "Deconstructing Male Violence Against Women: The Men Stopping Violence Community-Accountability Model" Violence Against Women 14.2 (2008): 2-3. [Return to text]

9. Ulester Douglas and Dick Bathrick, Personal interview with the author, 19 May 2010. [Return to text]

10. Douglas and Bathrick, Interview. [Return to text]

11. Douglas and Bathrick, Interview. [Return to text]

12. Douglas, Bathrick, and Perry, 2-4. [Return to text]

13. Alcoff and Gray, 261. [Return to text]

14. Michel Foucault. "We 'Other Victorians.'" From The History of Sexuality, Volume 1: An Introduction in The Foucault Reader, Paul Rabinow, ed. (New York: Pantheon Books, 1984), 294. [Return to text]

Page: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4