The foundations: a contextual model and patriarchal ideology

In general terms, what are the theoretical foundations that guide your work on family violence?

The starting point is a contextual model that articulates, on the basis of a cybernetic epistemology, individual, family and sociocultural components.

If we work with the idea of totality, we pay particular attention to the ideological aspects of the question. As family therapists, we know that the formation of families rests on a set of presuppositions that circulate in society and that are expressed, in specific ways, in the different social groups and in each particular family.

Some of these presuppositions correspond to current cultural conceptions, made explicit in social language, such as the principle of equality in the man-woman relationship, free choice based on love, and raising children without coercion.

These explicit presuppositions coexist with implicit presuppositions, inherited from earlier social stages, which act in an underlying way and which, in the case of family violence, determine action. The implicit ones belong to what is called patriarchal ideology, which asserts an inequality by nature in which the man is superior to the woman and therefore holds greater power. The woman and the children are the property of the man who, in the exercise of his rights, has the power to discipline and educate them, and may resort to all kinds of punishment to achieve these ends.

This patriarchal ideology, characterized by authoritarianism, is the foundation on which the development of domestic violence rests, and domestic violence, as we can see, is linked to hierarchical structures of gender and age that form relationships of subordination and domination. These family systems operate under the sign of a predominant cohesion, with no possibility of differentiation between their members. Rules circulate within them that amputate autonomy and define a “being able to be” only under the imposition of another. The rigidity that characterizes these structures means that people relate to one another only in terms of functions. That is how they carve out their identity: each one “is” through the presence of the other.

This mode of functioning allows acts of abuse to go unnoticed and to be registered as “natural” and/or “normal.”

Likewise, the presence of an external, everyday, repeated, increasingly subtle situation of consensus confers legitimacy on violent acts and cancels out the possible mechanisms of social control.

The cycle of violence

When we talk about violence, we refer to a cycle that repeats itself over time. What is your view of this aspect?

To simplify, I will answer the question only for man-woman violence, because the cycle of violence against children has specific aspects.

The cycle of violence is a useful paradigm for thinking about the phenomenon and, above all, for better understanding the mechanisms that perpetuate it and the central reasons why women, who are mostly the victims of physical violence, stay with their partner.

According to this scheme, violence occurs in cyclical situations that can be related to three phases, whose duration or intensity vary from case to case: 1) the build-up of tension, 2) the acute phase of the beating, 3) the “loving” calm.

Phase 1 is that of rising tension within the established power relations. The shifting of expectations tied to gender stereotypes jeopardizes the stability of the system, insofar as it undermines the stability of its members. When the tension reaches its point of maximum tolerance comes phase 2, that of the beating. This means that, in the course of recurrent, increasingly tense exchanges, physical violence emerges at the moments when the relationship of domination and subordination needs to be reconfirmed. The blow struck by the man must be seen as an act of powerlessness in the face of the possible loss of a power that is real or never attained, rather than as a simple show of strength. The results of the critical phase of the beating reconfirm the identity of each one, fundamentally based on the relationship weak and passive woman / strong and active man. Insofar as the two are bound only in terms of functions, each retains a recognition of self as long as the other does not cease to be what he or she is “supposed” to be.

Phase 3 is radically opposed to phase 2. In relational terms, it is distinguished by behavior of repentance and affection on the part of the violent man, and by the acceptance of the woman, who believes in his sincerity. At this stage an idealized image of the relationship predominates, in keeping with conventional gender models. Then, sooner or later, everything starts again and phase 1 comes back on stage. Finally, the cycle of physical violence is almost always accompanied by an emotional violence that is much harder to detect and quantify, but that is no less aggressive and dangerous. Likewise, in a very high proportion of cases, the violence is solely psychological. This type of violence occurs essentially in phase 1, the build-up of tension, and is characterized by disqualifying exchanges, indifference, disconfirmations, threats and insults, among other things. When the point of maximum tension is reached, the discharge takes the form of shouting, anger, rage, blows against objects, slammed doors, walking out of the house, etc. Then the stage of calm reappears, closing and renewing the cycle. Detecting this circuit of emotional violence is important because a widespread conception associates the idea of violence with physical violence alone, leaving aside a very large number of situations of abuse.

Treatments

How do you approach the treatment of violence in the couple?

Insofar as the phenomenon of violence responds to an articulation of levels, it is essential to approach it with an interdisciplinary approach. At different moments and in different circumstances, the participation of several disciplines is required, simultaneously or staggered over time. I will not dwell on the characteristics an interdisciplinary team must have, but I want to stress as fundamental the need to share a theoretical framework, the clear distinction between the competencies of each discipline and, finally, ongoing reflection on the topic in question, on the professional role and on the personal aspects engaged in the task. On the side of psychology, we see that the problem involves the use, jointly or alternately, of different modalities of intervention depending on the case. Thus, we work on developing awareness-raising and consciousness-raising projects, on creating support networks, on self-help groups for women and for men, on group and individual therapies, and on family and couple therapies, seeing the members together, by subsystems or individually. The common objective of these alternative interventions is a revision of patriarchal ideology, as well as a process of delegitimizing and denaturalizing violence and increasing its visibility.

The therapeutic process unfolds around a set of moments that advance in a spiral, producing a cumulative effect throughout the treatment (see the box below). This process is conceived as an activity that develops mainly in dialogue, and not as an action of intervention on the individual. In this stance, the therapist tries to insert himself or herself into the construction of the world of the family, the couple or the person, in order to elicit proposals for alternative ways of seeing. The techniques we use are varied and include, among others, storytelling, humor, play, enactment, the use of metaphorical images and relational dialogues.

One of the most debated topics in the approach to family violence is that of the joint or individual treatment of the members of the system. What is your opinion?

In principle, I consider that violence must be brought under control before any other work can be undertaken. The main topic is therefore violence, and only then attention to the different aspects of the relationship.

Physical abuse is not negotiable and, consequently, as a first step, we must get it to stop. Then we move on to the different stages of the process, keeping as our main focus the question of gender, which implies valuing the woman’s place and putting it on an equal footing with the man’s. Joint therapy is possible when the man has agreed to stop the violence and the woman wants to continue the relationship. This is viable only if the situation is analyzed in the context of patriarchal ideology and with the clear intention of finding an alternative formulation that leads to new behaviors. Otherwise, the effect of joint sessions can lead, the man in particular, to shirk his responsibility and to reinforce the justifying idea of the facts as a response to a supposed provocation. In short, I think that family therapy and couple therapy are extremely productive and feasible, provided the therapist knows the implications of ideology in his or her work.

The person of the therapist and ideological commitment

Finally, what is the place of the therapist and what are his or her essential characteristics?

The therapist occupies a central place in the therapy of family violence. The effectiveness of the treatment depends, to a significant extent, on the way he or she makes use of that position. A basic idea is that people possess their own resources and always find a way out. The therapist develops and redirects these resources by fostering skills and aptitudes. To do so, he or she must take risks similar to those expected of the patients. The main risk is to be willing to commit one’s person. This means that the therapist’s ideology as well as personal qualities are the most precious resources available. Through the use of the self, the therapist includes himself or herself in the bonds with the patients and withdraws from them, occupying at times the place of activator, at times that of external observer of situations. In other cases, the therapist occupies the place of model. This dynamic role must allow a multiple range of movements: entering into relationships and leaving them, making use of one’s authority, playing and withdrawing, remaining central or peripheral, etc. All of this requires of the therapist great plasticity, a flexible use of self, an ideological commitment (in particular on gender-related issues) and a considerable personal willingness to change and to constantly reconsider the task, in order to detect the resonances and isomorphisms that constantly creep in and obstruct action. Working on one’s own person has become a fundamental aspect for me. In this sense, in all the activities I have been carrying out for a long time (team supervision as well as training), I deal not only with the problem of violence in the cases presented, but also with what happens to the person of the practitioner (or practitioners) involved in the situation.

The stages of the therapeutic process in cases of violence