Batterer's programs
Today, even the definition of “help” is not what most people think it is.
We haven’t said much about how we treat abusers in this enlightened era, so we’ll tackle this subject here.
What is widely used is something called “The Duluth Model,” which is based on supposition and feminist ideology, with a bit of revenge-seeking added in. Here’s the philosophy behind it:
By 1984, DAIP staff, battered women, and advocates had serious concerns about anger management as a treatment model. The theory that anger causes violence simply didn’t resonate with most battered women’s experiences, nor did it help offenders get to the roots of their beliefs about entitlement and the use of violence to settle conflicts. DAIP stopped using anger management, and developed the Duluth curriculum. It helps offenders to understand how their socialized beliefs about male dominance impede intimacy; that violence is intentional and a choice designed to control their intimate partner; that the effects of abusive behavior damage the family; and that everyone has the ability to change.
We agree with the NIJ researchers that changing offenders’ attitudes towards women is extremely difficult. We still live in a sexist society where women are devalued, where many men still believe they are entitled to be in control in an intimate relationship, and where men who batter believe they have the right to use violence. While it is a goal to change the attitudes of men who batter, the ultimate goal of the Duluth Model has always been to ensure that victims are safer by having the state intervene in an accountable way to stop the violence.
Much of the re-education aspect of the model is based on the “Power and Control Wheel,” (above) a graphic which provides a pat “analysis” of men’s violence against women. It has become an icon of unquestionable validity in treatment programs, even though it ignores the human factor and any concept of relationships being interactive. It is as if women have no influence whatsoever on their relationships, and are passive observers of their own lives. Yet it has generated reams of research papers, spawned other wheels related to child abuse and that abuse deemed specific to Indian reservations.
In addition to re-education, designated batterers are often given jail time, probation, or other punitive solutions applied to “hold the batterer accountable.” Keep in mind this program is a product of the early 1980s, and no significant change has been made to this approach since then. It disregards any established scientific methodology relating to behavioral modification, or societal changes over time. It is also beginning to be recognized as less than effective, to the point where DAIP has what was once a section in 2006, now a pdf (significantly edited) on the website now defending the program. That is where I originally found the above quote.
You might think that when the promotional literature talks about treatment for batterers, this is likely to be something devised by professionals with expertise in the areas of human behavior. Far from it. The Duluth Model was actually conceived by advocates for battered women and battered women, with not an objective observer among them.
Imagine, if you will a handful of victims of theft, sitting in a room. Among them are a former Madoff client, a blind woman who lost her dog, a college student whose roommate regularly takes his sodas from the communal refrigerator without asking, a composer whose magnum opus was plagiarized, a homeowner whose neighbor borrowed his lawn mower and didn’t return it, and a priest who discovered the proceeds from a bingo game had gone missing. There is also an insurance company official present.
Quite different people in quite different situations, wouldn’t you agree?
Now imagine this group being able to entirely design and control, at all levels, for the whole country, a single response for thieves that would be in effect for decades to come, and one can begin to understand what the Duluth Model is all about.
Tomorrow: "Getting tough" on domestic violence (Part three)
Part One of the series is here.
Comments
Thank you for your thoughts. Indeed, a meta-look at the most recent studies of DV programs is dismal indeed. Most have no better outcome than doing nothing (and some worse) (Feder, L 2005 A Meta-Analytic Review of Court-Mandated Batterer Intervention Programs: Can Courts Affect Abusers’ Behavior?). The premise that this is a male-female issue distracts us from the real issue -- one of power; it is generally accepted that DV occurs equally in M-F, M-M, and F-F relationships. In a white paper by Stewart (Stewart, L 2007 Principles of Effective Family Violence Programming), rather than ask which program works best, she “cherry-picks” what works within a number of programs. After reviewing the available programs, that's exactly what we did in creating our EMI program. Steven Peer, Emotional Mastery, Inc, Mpls, MN
The Duluth model has served its purpose, that of raising the awareness about domestic violence. Practice experience and new research are clarifying what is involved in domestic violence: varities of victims, mutual abuse, communication and relational skills.... No doubt, the physical/emotional batterer is there, but not all perpetrators need the same model of treatment. Please refer to Michael P. Johnson's research, and programs by John Hamel and David Wexler of California.
I became a "victim" of the Duluth Model following a relatively minor spat with my ex-wife of one year. Physical "abuse" was nothing more than a minor shove in a mutually combative episode. The only counseling needed was that of divorce lawyers but local Duluth zealots were not happy with a "no fault divorce". After everything was done, my ex-wife got saddled with loads of marital debt and about $20,000 of her own attorney costs.
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!