Working with Domestic Violence. Justine van Lawick 4-4-2013 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
working with domestic
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Working with Domestic Violence. Justine van Lawick 4-4-2013 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Dec 10, 2023 197 likes •538 views

Creating Dialogical Space in Working with Domestic Violence. Justine van Lawick 4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 1 Triggers of violence Cluster A is injustice : betrayal, a child, animal or vulnerable person is maltreated, your partner has an

slide-1
SLIDE 1

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 1

Creating Dialogical Space in Working with Domestic Violence.

Justine van Lawick

slide-2
SLIDE 2

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 2

Triggers of violence

  • Cluster A is injustice: betrayal, a child, animal or vulnerable person

is maltreated, your partner has an affair (jealousy)

  • Cluster B is disrespect: violent behaviour, unwished touching,

attacks, scolding, pestering, disqualifying, shame, humiliation, in traffic: dangerous driving, bumper sticking,

  • Cluster C is neglect: not getting attention, being misjudged,

ignored, not being seen, heard, understood. Being abandoned.

  • Cluster D is powerlessness: opposition, objection, nagging, blaming,

unjust reproaches, your wishes are not met, victim behaviour, bureaucracy, authoritarian behaviour

slide-3
SLIDE 3

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 3

Tremblay, 2000

Two year old children use violent behaviour regularly, they bite, kick, pull hairs, beat with

  • bjects.
slide-4
SLIDE 4

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 4

Recent Survey

Domestic Violence in the Netherlands 2007- 2010

  • H.C.J. van der Veen (Ministerie van Justitie,

WODC)

  • S. Bogaerts (Universiteit van Tilburg,

Intervict)

slide-5
SLIDE 5

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 5

  • ≥ 9% of Dutch population victim of serious

forms of domestic violence in the last 5 years

  • ≥ 40% reports light incidents of domestic

violence

  • 50% of Dutch population reports no

experiences with domestic violence.

slide-6
SLIDE 6

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 6

Men, women, perpetrators, victims

  • 60% of the victims are women, 40% are men.
  • 83% of reports to the police concern male

perpetrators, 17 % female

  • Self report survey: 60% women report violent

behaviour towards the partner, 40% men report violent behaviour.

slide-7
SLIDE 7

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 7

Perpetrators and victims

  • 2/3 of perpetrators also victim
  • 1/3 of victims also perpetrator
  • Significant statistic correlation between positions
  • f victim and perpetrator.
  • Offering systemic treatment seems to be

indicated

slide-8
SLIDE 8

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 8

Conflict Tactics Scale (Straus)

  • Self reports on conflict behavior in couples
  • 78 questions, 50% I did….against my partner and 50%

my partner did…..against me.

  • From scolding to injure and using weapons
  • Research and meta-research in USA and UK (Archer,
  • 2000. metastudy 60.000 couples) shows that women

can be as violent as men in couple conflicts

slide-9
SLIDE 9

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 9

Criminal Statistics

  • Criminal statistics from police (80% of

perpetrators are men) do differ a lot from

  • utcomes of research with the ‘Conflict Tactics

Scale’ research.

  • Hypothesis: Different outcomes, different

groups

slide-10
SLIDE 10

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 10

Couple dynamics

  • M. Johnson (1995/2000)
  • Intimate terrorism
  • Violent resistance
  • Mutual violent control
  • Situational couple violence
slide-11
SLIDE 11

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 11

Definition

Intimate terrorism: CONTROL When a person uses his/her physical or psychological power to threaten or hurt the

  • ther person in order to create fear and to have

his/her own way against the wish of the other person

slide-12
SLIDE 12

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 12

Definition 2

  • Situational Couple violence: LOSS OF

CONTROL When conflicts escalate and walk out of hand, not intentional

slide-13
SLIDE 13

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 13

Perpetrator treatments

Perpetrator treatments that are based on the hypothesis: violence is acted out by men who wish to dominate and

  • ppress women is not effective in diminishing

recidivism meta-analyses: Babcock & LaTaillade (2000) Babcock, Green & Robie (2004) Feder & Wilson (2005)

slide-14
SLIDE 14

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 14

VIOLENT BEHAVIOUR IS MORE CONNECTED TO THE EXPERIENCE OF POWERLESSNESS THEN TO POWER

slide-15
SLIDE 15

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 15

The dichotomy perpetrator versus victim

  • Therapists tend to identify with victims
  • Victims are supported, perpetrators are punished
  • Violence problems in families are so complex

that perpetrators often are victims as well and victims can also be perpetrators.

  • Searching for guilt closes down and amplifies

violent behaviour, asking for responsibility

  • pens up useful resources
slide-16
SLIDE 16

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 16

Why couple, family and network therapy?

1. Most partners and families do not want the relationships to stop but want the violence to stop 2. In systemic therapy the destructive dynamic and vulnerabilities can be in the center of treatment. 3. There is space for complexity and multiplicity of voices 4. Power, gender, meanings, history, fears and longings connected to the escalating conflicts can be reflected

  • n, this opens up a dialogical space where existing

resources can be reached 5. CHILDREN in the centre

slide-17
SLIDE 17

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 17

Always systemic therapy?

  • When assessment shows a high frequency of

severe violence with a controlling, intimidating partner and a scared, fearful partner, safety has to be organized before family therapy starts

slide-18
SLIDE 18

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 18

Profiles of couple dynamics

Complementary dynamic

  • One is intimidating the other, one is

dominant and in power, the other is scared and sub ordinate, master and slave.

  • When the ‘slave’ is opposing, the ‘master’

will enlarge the control, violence and intimidation till the opposing partner gives in.

slide-19
SLIDE 19

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 19

complementary

slide-20
SLIDE 20

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 20

Symmetrical dynamic A dual fighting couple, they match each

  • ther, power competition, ongoing ‘war’,

psychological and physical. Some couples switch from complementary to symmetrical styles.

slide-21
SLIDE 21

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 21

slide-22
SLIDE 22

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 22

Spiral of violence

  • Romantic illusions
  • Perceiving differences
  • Trying to restore the ideal image by corrections: trying to change the other

persons behavior. First violence?

  • Corrections do not lead to change but are perceived as reproaches and attack.
  • The dynamic of attack and defend add to the destruction of the romantic

myth

  • Feelings of betrayal and grieve about loss of romantic ideal
  • Increasing doubt about the relationship, fight flight and freeze reactions,

dysfunctional patterns, fear of loosing the relationship. Violent behavior more frequent and more severe.

slide-23
SLIDE 23

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 23

Escalation

Irritated, alert Angry, scared rage, panic stress Increase of Blood pressure Stress hormones Heart beat Fast breathing Primitive brain Reflective brain

slide-24
SLIDE 24

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 24

Escalating language

  • Try to convince the other
  • Not listening
  • Hearing a reproach in everything the other says
  • Attack and defend
  • Involving other incidents and other persons
  • Generalizing
  • Black and white, always and never
  • Stereotyping, caricaturizing
  • The other as an enemy
slide-25
SLIDE 25

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 25

De-escalating language

  • Trying to understand the other
  • Asking more about the experiences and thoughts of the
  • ther
  • Empathizing
  • Accepting differences in feeling, thinking and opinions
  • Limiting the discussion to the actual topic
  • Searching for compromise
  • Nuance en relativize
  • Accepting different subjective truths
slide-26
SLIDE 26

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 26

CALMING DOWN PROGRAM

  • 1. Focus on responsibility. Avoid talking about

causes, guilt, history and other important topics (these are postponed to late sessions) General education about research and the large group they are part of can help.

  • 2. Ask for the commitment of both partners to

co-operate in the non violence program

slide-27
SLIDE 27

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 27

  • 3. Explain the effect of physical

aggressive arousal.

  • Ask for exact body sensations as

the most clear and important signals of agitation

  • Explain the effect of the chemical

changes (high adrenaline, blood pressure etcetera) in the body that influences the brain: biased and narrowed cognition, from the reflective tot the primitive brain. (stress makes stupid)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 28

4.Explain the calming down program

  • When you sense things are going in the wrong

(violent) direction, take the responsibility to calm down, communicate you need to calm down.

  • The partner has to agree with this and also stop

the escalation.

slide-29
SLIDE 29

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2010 29

  • 5. Reflect together on how they can

make this program a failure and let them think about solutions.

  • telling the other one to calm down or take a time out
  • Not accepting a time out of the other person
  • go away for a long time
  • involve children
  • avoiding any contact (punishment?) after a time out
  • Starting to blame directly after a calm-down session
slide-30
SLIDE 30

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 30

Destructive cycles

  • Blame and blame
  • Blame and retrieve
  • Retrieve and retrieve
slide-31
SLIDE 31

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 31 4-4-2013 CMA Felix & J van Lawick

slide-32
SLIDE 32

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 32

Personal history

slide-33
SLIDE 33

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 33

Dialogical assessment

Complexity in stead of simplicity Contextualising violence: Individual resources: (dis)abilities, talents, personality, gender, belief systems Gender and Power: differences in power; beliefs about men and women, boys and girls Family: relationships, children, history, old parents, illnesses Financial resources: Debts, housing, (im)possibilities Culture: inclusion or exclusion

slide-34
SLIDE 34

4-4-2013 v.Lawick 2013 34

Quality at the gate!

To be able to do dialogicl assessment where all voices can be heard we need quality at the gate, preferably networkmeetings.