Ryan and Debi Cragun’s Blog

Violence Against Wives

Author:

R. Emerson Dobash; Russell Dobash

Publisher:

The Free Press

Date of Publication:

1979

ISBN:

0029073200

Rating:

9

Summary:

I picked this book up as it is related to a project I’m working on having to do with families and religion. Spousal abuse isn’t normally my area of expertise. Also, I have to admit to having skimmed some of the contents, but I think I got the primary points of the book.

The authors start the book out describing a group of women in England who finally get together in the 1970s at a community center and begin discussing a variety of issues facing women. It’s only after the community center opens that some of the women begin discussing the abuse they suffer from their husbands. These discussions eventually open the shutters, exposing a pervasive problem to a world that has basically been oblivious to it for millenia: lots of husbands beat their wives.

The authors then describe the history of husbands beating wives, “history is littered with references to, and formulas for, beating, clubbing, and kicking them into submission. Women’s place in history often has been at the receiving end of a blow” (p. 31). This abuse took place basically as far back as written history goes, and probably much further. The authors highlight two particular periods: Ancient Rome, which is often thought of as progressive, and Christianity in the Middle Ages (post the fall of Rome).

In Rome, “It was the legal right of a husband to require that his wife obey him. She was his property and subject to whatever form of control was necessary for achieving obedience and what was deemed by himself and by the law to be appropriate behavior” (p. 36). Particularly grievous offenses of wives against husbands included: adultery, drinking of wine or drunkenness, “counterfeiting the household keys, making poison, abortion, attending public games without the husband’s permission, and appearing unveiled in the streets” (p. 36). “A husband was allowed to leave his wife if she committed any of these offenses, but, until later reforms, she was prohibited from leaving him even if he engaged in the same behavior. For him, such behavior was not defined as an offense, and he was therefore not liable for punishment” (p. 37).

Christianity during the Middle Ages co-opted the “ retrogressive principles of patriarchy” (p. 40) from the Romans, not their later progressive ideas. What’s more, Christianity provided an ideological and moral support for patriarchy (p. 44). Granted, the state later codified this relationship into law and arranged the legal system so as to make it difficult if not impossible for women to change it. But Christianity justified that system. At the end of the Middle Ages, as changes and reforms spread around the Western World (we’re ignoring the rest of the world, as is so common among Westerners), one thing that did not change in a progressive fashion was the spousal relationship, “The authority of the male head of each conjugal unit was increased while wives became more dependent and subject to control and chastisement and lost many of the means that traditionally had afforded them some opportunity, albeit very limited, to resist or struggle against subordination. As the French historian Petiot put it: “Starting in the fourteenth century, we see a slow and steady deterioration of the wife’s position in the household. She loses the right to take the place of the husband in his absence or insanity… Finally, in the sixteenth century, the married woman is placed under a disability so that any acts she performs without the authority of her husband or the law are null and void. This development strengthens the power of the husband, who is finally established as a sort of domestic monarch”” (p. 48).

This disenfranchisement of women was legally codified in the U.S., “In 1824 wife beating was made legal in Mississippi. Court cases in several other states reaffirmed the traditional right of a man to beat his wife and did so in language identical to that of the English common law” (p. 4). “[The] subordination of women was explicitly established in the institutional practices of both the church and the state and supported by some of the most prominent political, legal, religious, philosophical, and literary figures in Western society, for instance, Rousseau, Hegel, Kant, Fichte, Blackstone, Saint Augustine, John Knox, Calvin, and Martin Luther. In one way or another, they each advocated a patriarchal relationship between men and women and especially between husbands and wives. They believed that men had the right to dominate and control women and that women were by their nature subservient to men. This relationship was deemed natural, sacred, and unproblematic and such beliefs resulted in long periods of disregard or denial of the husband’s abuses of his economic, political, and physical power” (pp. 6-7).

What, exactly, was the relationship between husbands and wives? “The relationship between husbands and wives was once almost identical to that between parents and children. The husband’s use of physical force against his wife was similarly an expression of the unequal status, authority, and power of marital partners and was widely accepted as appropriate to the husband’s superior position. The husband was legally vested with responsibility for the control and management of his wife’s behavior because she was generally acknowledged to be naturally less capable and responsible than her spouse” (pp. 10-11).

It wasn’t until after the Civil War in America that wife beating was made illegal. It took until 1894 for Mississippi to change the earlier law (p. 63). But the change in legality didn’t change the practice. That remained fairly common through the 1970s, and probably remains disturbingly common still today. There’s also a great deal of irony (and not in a humorous sense), that the most pervasive brutalization of women takes place in what is deemed the most “sacred institution”: the family. “It is within marriage that a woman is most likely to be slapped and shoved about, severely assaulted, killed, or raped” (p. 75).

After giving the above history of the treatment of women, the authors turn to their findings. They interviewed over 100 hundred women who had been physically abused by their husbands. They also draw on the data of other researchers. They discuss abuse from its initiation, when a husband first hits his wife, and follow it through to when it ends, either with the wife leaving or one of the two dying.

Most of the women in the study did not marry men who were already physically abusing them: 77% experienced the first violence after marriage. But for most of these women, it was soon after marriage: 84% were attacked within the first three years. Why do men do this? Those men who do beat their wives tend to think of their wives as property, “One woman we interviewed told us that she was first beaten on her honeymoon and when she cried and protested, her husband replied, “I married you so I own you.”… The husband’s sense of ownership and control is immediate. It comes with the marriage contract, and all the social meanings and obligations associated with the words “love, honor, and obey”” (p. 94). The first time a husband hits his wife changes their relationship, “The first episode clearly illustrates a growing sense of possessiveness, domination, and “rightful” control and these are the factors that lead to the continuation of the violence” (p. 96). Initially women think the violence will stop, especially if the violence is associated with what are believed to be solvable problems (p.124). Men, initially, are also remorseful (p. 124). But the alleged problems are usually not solvable and are just excuses for the violence, not the actual causes. Over time, the man, “becomes less concerned, less remorseful, and less willing to change while the woman’s affection for him and estimation of her own worth begin to deteriorate. As the physical abuse becomes more frequent and severe it eventually dominates the relationship” (p. 124).

Women in abusive relationships seldom respond with violence. The physical strength of their spouses makes such attempts futile, as fighting back generally only increases the rage of their husbands (p. 108). Despite their lack of a violent response, wives do make it clear to their husbands that the violence is not okay and they are not happy with it (p. 120). Women in abusive relationships experience violence regularly, “A majority of the women experienced at least two attacks a week. Twenty-five percent said that the violence usually lasted from 45 minutes to over 5 hours; the other 75% reported that the physical attack lasted 30 minutes or less… Any particular physical attack might last only a few minutes or several hours, as one woman indicated” (p. 120). The authors estimate only 2% of the attacks are reported to the police (pp. 1654-165), though wives do mention the abuse more commonly to friends, relatives, and other individuals.

Also, only about 3% of the beatings the women received were reported to doctors (p. 180). In the authors’ research, 20% of women never made a single visit for any of the injuries they received. Some of the beatings result in broken bones and severe lacerations, but women are reluctant to go to the doctor, “When visits to the doctor were made usually they were made against the husband’s explicit prohibition or were allowed by him only after the woman had given assurances that the source of the injury would not be revealed to any medical staff. This meant that the time spent in the doctor’s office or the emergency room often was very tense and that the woman sometimes had to lie about the cause of her injuries in order to protect herself from further attack” (p. 181). Doctors also rarely inquired about abuse (in the 1970s at least, not sure about today), which meant the women had to bring it up. And even when they did, doctors usually would simply say “leave him” and not do anything else.

Part of the reason doctors probably said so little was because so few men are prosecuted for beating their wives, “In 1966 over seventy-five hundred women appeared at the district attorney’s office in Washington D.C. seeking to file complaints against their husbands. Only 200, that is, 2.7%, succeeded” (p. 219). I’m not sure what the numbers are today, but I’m guessing they are still pretty low.

Once the attacks become repetitive, wives often cease to struggle, “They cease to argue and to defend themselves from even the most blatantly false accusations or unjust treatments in the hope that they will avoid an escalation of violence. Either they turn inward and attempt to build a protective shell around their emotions that will allow them to cope with the continuing violence or they consider that their only escape is suicide or murder” (p. 141)

It is at this point that the authors address the age old question of why women in such relationships don’t leave, “Since a married woman’s social and individual worth rests largely upon her ability to be a good wife and mother and since being a good wife includes, among other things, providing proper services for her husband… then her sense of self-worth depends in large part on how the recipients of her services, that is, her husband and children, evaluate her performance. When a man beats his wife… he is making an explicit and powerful statement about his belief in her inability to be a good wife and to provide what he believes to be proper services. When he then blames her for the beating, this becomes an even more powerful statement of her worthlessness. When statements of blame are repeated often enough, the woman, who initially felt that she was unjustly treated, begins to have doubts” (p. 125). Thus, women in such relationships are controlled by several factors: First, they have accepted the ideology that says women should be defined by how good of a wife they are, which sets them up for failure. Second, their husband, regardless of the wives’ behavior, indicates they are not good wives through the abuse. And third, this abuse leads the wives to believe they have failed to live up to the ideology that set them up for failure in the first place.

The authors also note that many women do leave, but, they, “do so with varying intentions about the permanency of that act. Certainly, a few women never leave the house even for several hours, but most women have at some time left, sometimes with every intention of returning and sometimes intending to make a permanent break” (p. 144). Of the women interviewed by the authors, 88% left at some point, but most returned home within a week (p. 144). The reasons women don’t leave vary, but usually include, “a devastatingly low self-concept, isolation, and fear of living independently,” as well as concern for the children and feeling “trapped” because of a lack of education or occupational prospects (p. 146). There are certain factors that increase the odds of leaving, including particularly severe or frequent attacks (p. 146).

Not all women leave. Some die from the violence. Some commit suicide. Others kill their husbands. And yet others live with the abuse until their husband dies or they die. Unfortunately, there is no way to really know just how many women are living with this kind of abuse.

Review:

This is a carefully researched, well-written book. The only problem: it’s dated. The authors have another book out updating this research, which I’m hoping to peruse in the next few days. I’m sure much has changed. That said, the historical treatment of violence against women in this book is really informative. The book also offers an interesting snapshot of violence against wives in the 1970s. Because the book is dated, I’m not going to recommend it. I’ll see what I think of their newer book.

I’ll end this review with the authors’ concluding thought, “The struggle against wife beating must be oriented both to the immediate needs of women now suffering from violence and to more fundamental changes in the position of women. We now stand at a point where we may either work toward removing the very roots of wife beating by eliminating patriarchal domination or we may work only toward limited reforms which, while providing vital assistance to women currently being beaten, will do little about the problem itself. We must take up the challenge and address the issue in its fullest form, otherwise we will commit the errors of the past. The problem lies in the domination of women. The answer lies in the struggle against it” (pp. 242-243).

Jehovah’s Witnesses: Portrait of a Contemporary Religious Movement

Author:

Andrew Holden

Publisher:

Routledge

Date of Publication:

2002

ISBN:

0415266106

Rating:

9

Summary:

I picked up this book because I’ve been working on a paper comparing LDS and Jehovah’s Witnesses (JWs) growth and I needed a better understanding of the Jehovah’s Witnesses. This book definitely fits the bill.

The author is very clear in his intentions from the outset, “I write for an academic community, or indeed for anyone with a sociological interest in religious movements.” (p. xi). That said, the book is readable by a non-sociologist, but there is a substantial amount of sociological jargon in the book that might make it onerous reading for non-academics.

As I see it, the book basically has three elements. The first is the background information on the Jehovah’s Witnesses, from their history to their theology. However, it is not a detailed summary of the JW’s background nor their theology, and this is not, generally, laid out with the specific intent of describing the background or theology, but it is interlaced with the other information in the book. The second element is a description of the author’s research into the JWs. The author conducted interviews with many JWs and attended meetings and other activities for years. He also read much of their literature. In short, the book reports the results of the author’s ethnographic research into the JWs in the UK over a 5 to 10 year period in the mid to late 1990s. The third element of the book is the theoretical explanations provided for why people join, why the JWs are growing as fast as they are, and why people leave.

Just in case anyone reading this review is interested in some of the unique characteristics of the JWs, I thought I’d include a few explanations provided by the author. You may know that JWs don’t celebrate most holidays, either religious or national. But do you know why? “The Society forbids its members to participate in annual events such as Christmas, Easter, birthdays and national festivals. It teaches that Jehovah does not acknowledge these events since, wherever they are cited in the scriptures, they are always in the context of sin or apostasy… Though they recognise that the birth of Christ is presented as a joyful occasion by the synoptic writers, devotees refuse to partake in the celebration on the grounds that we do not know the precise date of an event that has, in any case, become tainted with secular images such as lights, trees, tinsel and mistletoe. As far as Easter is concerned, the egg is historically a pagan symbol for the celebration of the return of spring and the rabbit was an emblem of fertility, neither of which is connected with the resurrection of Christ. Furthermore, the Witnesses associate annual celebrations with immodest behaviour and excessive alcohol consumption…” (pp. 25-26).

Also, JWs don’t vote nor salute flags. Again, there is an explanation, “Despite their belief that Satan controls the world, the Witnesses do not generally go as far as members of religious organisations such as the Plymouth Brethren in isolating themselves completely from outsiders. None the less, their persistent refusal to engage in political activities such as voting in elections or joining pressure groups shows their disdain for secular society. The Witnesses continue to object to both jury and military service (on the grounds of pacifism and neutrality), and they do not support local or national charities.” (pp. 25-26).

The belief and behavior for which JWs are most well-known, however, is the refusal of blood transfusions. Ever wonder why they refuse transfusions? “The Society teaches that blood transfusions are strictly forbidden since blood is a source of life that is sacred to Jehovah… Genesis 9: 4 and Leviticus 17: 11-12 are among the scriptural references used by the Society in support of the doctrine, but it is Acts 15: 28-9 that is most frequently quoted in Watch Tower literature: ‘For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things: that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols and from blood and from what is strangled and from unchastity.’ Blood transfusions are thus considered physically and morally unclean… receiving blood is tantamount to polluting oneself as well as offending the community.” (p. 28)

Something I didn’t know much about before reading this book was the behavioral codes of the JWs regarding appearance, alcohol and drugs, and sex. JWs believe cleanliness and nice clothing are illustrations of their purity, so they tend to wear nice, clean clothes. As far as the others are concerned, “Adultery, fornication, masturbation and homosexuality all flout the organisation’s teachings on sexual conduct. Anything other than highly controlled heterosexual activity is regarded as immoral, and sexual intercourse is confined to marriage. Drug abuse, smoking and the excessive consumption of alcohol, although not symbolically polluting, are believed to be physically polluting and offensive to Jehovah.” (pp. 25-26). None of this is particularly surprising, but I didn’t realize how anti-homosexual JWs are, “Of all these sexual activities, homosexuality is regarded as probably the most vile and unnatural. In a much earlier tract, but one still widely used by devotees, we read: masturbation can lead into homosexuality. In such instances the person, not satisfied with his lonely sexual activity, seeks a partner for mutual sex play. This happens much more frequently than you may realize. Contrary to what many persons think, homosexuals are not born that way, but their homosexual behaviour is learned. And often a person gets started when very young by playing with anothers’ sexual parts, and then engaging in homosexual acts.” (p. 27). I guess from a “control” standpoint, combining masturbation with homosexuality makes sense, but it obviously flies in the face of the preponderance of empirical evidence: masturbating doesn’t make people homosexual.

The author also describes the organization of the JWs, which was also something with which I was not that familiar. JWs don’t have paid clergy and all the members in good standing (called “pioneers”) are the missionary force. But I was never sure who ran the organization, “The Witnesses make use of two corporations — namely, the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania and New York, and the International Bible Students Association. The Pennsylvanian Corporation has voting members who live in all parts of the world. They meet annually and elect or re-elect seven directors of the corporation, who themselves elect officers. The President of the corporation is therefore, elected not by popular vote but by the directors, who choose one of their members for the post. The International Bible Students Association is a London Corporation. It owns property in Britain and is responsible predominantly for British affairs. The President is responsible for the central administration of door-to-door evangelism and travels extensively to check on the progress of the movement worldwide. Doctrinal edicts are the responsibility of a larger body of Jehovah’s Witnesses known as the remnant class — a spiritual committee comprising the President and other devotees.” (pp. 29-30). This makes the leadership of the organization seem as though it is more of a corporation than anything else, but this next quote illustrates some of the differences, “Until recently, members of the Governing Body remained completely anonymous to Witnesses at grass roots level. Their photographs were never to be seen in Kingdom Halls or in any of the organisation’s literature. Witnesses everywhere continue to believe that God is using the Governing Body as his channel of communication, and any correspondence for which it is responsible is endorsed only by the Society’s official rubber stamp… The structure of the movement and the intense loyalty demanded of each individual at every level demonstrates the characteristics of totalitarianism… namely, an elaborate total ideology making chiliastic claims with a promise of a utopian future, a single mass party, a monopoly of the means of communication and central direction and control of activity through bureaucratic co-ordination… the Watch Tower Society controls millions of people who are denied freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly and freedom of conscience yet, paradoxically… devotees regard themselves as free, and non-members as oppressed or ‘in shackles’” (pp. 32-33).

Another tidbit about the JWs that most may be somewhat familiar with is the fact that it is a millenarian movement awaiting the return of Christ. The JW leadership claimed Christ was going to return multiple times, “The years of 1874, 1914, 1918, 1925 and 1975 were all earmarked, to a greater or lesser extent, as times for the Second Coming of Christ, yet all brought bitter disappointment.” (p. 1). As is the case with many religious movements, disappointments like these are easily justified (e.g., followers lacked faith or the coming was spiritual, not physical, etc.).

Why are the JWs growing (and growing faster than Mormons, by the way)? The author attributes their appeal to two factors: the close-knit community converts find upon joining and the certainty provided by the totalitarian belief system that converts find comforting in light of the uncertainty brought about by modernization (p. 56). It is the chaos of modernity that pushes people toward the JWs, who provide answers and certainty for individuals who feel lost in the modern world.

The author also notes that JWs use some tools of modernity to convert others, namely they try to persuade through reason and logic rather than through appeals to emotion. While the “logic” is generally fallacious and tortured, appeals to reason are attractive to potential converts. The lack of charismatic worship is also somewhat unique to JWs, “…preparation for Watch Tower ministry is largely devoid of supernatural invocation. One indicator of this is the fact that the familiar stories in which born-again Christians declare how lost they were before they saw the light were missing in the testimonies of Witness converts.” (p. 60). The author also notes that JW meetings are devoid of glossolalia, weeping, and other displays of intensity or emotion – they are pretty rational affairs. Thus, JWs benefit from the very modernity they use as their foil in trying to attract converts.

Review:

The author is actually quite fair to quotidian members of the organization, but is dutifully critical of the leadership, particularly the founder of the JWs, “In a court in Ontario, Canada, in 1913, he [Russell, the founder of the JWs] declared under oath to be an expert scripture scholar, but when handed a Greek New Testament he was forced to admit that he did not even know the Greek alphabet. Neither did he know Latin or Hebrew. Few, if any, academic theologians in the universities of the world today acknowledge Russell as a scholar in any sense of the word.” (p. 19). The author is skeptical of many of the claims of the movement, but he is quite respectful of those who affiliate with the movement. It seems as though his years of experience around these people have led him to admire them for their devotion even though he does not find their beliefs compelling.

One claim of the author that I was skeptical about was the assertion that JWs are not particularly interested in education, “It would be a mistake, however, to think that, because Witness children are disciplined readers and listeners, they are high academic achievers. There are two main reasons why this is not generally the case. First, the passive ‘learning’ that takes place in the Kingdom Hall and at Book Study meetings fails to procure the critical thinking, less still the analytical skills, required for high-level academic performance; and, second, the Society’s message is unequivocally spiritual, which means that, whatever the academic potential of its younger members, evangelistic activities take priority over educational success. Young Witnesses who intend to undergo baptism rarely progress to college or university.” (pp. 134-135). While I’m not really surprised by this claim considering there are no social scientists studying religion who are Jehovah’s Witnesses are far as I know, I did think it warranted closer scrutiny. So, I pulled out the General Social Survey and ran a quick analysis on the Jehovah’s Witnesses in the data set. The mean educational attainment reported for JWs from 1972 to 2006 is 11.29 years, which means just less than a high school diploma. The mean for the US generally is around 12.40, which means some college. Intriguingly, when you limit the GSS to just 2006, the mean for JWs drops to 11.24; JW educational attainment is not improving. This would seem to indicate that the author is right: JWs do not value educational attainment nearly as much as they value devotion to the religion.

I only have two very minor criticisms of the book. First, the author doesn’t clearly spell out his methods, though there is a brief section on his approach early in the book. A little more detail on his ethnographic methods would have been nice. Second, the book is missing one bit of information I was hoping it would have: The membership increase ratio of converts to children. In other words, what percentage of new members are converts vs. what percentage are children of existing members? Given my interests in religious growth, I was hoping he would answer this but he didn’t, even though he did say that about 70% of the children of JWs remain members.

Overall, this is a superbly-written book that does a remarkable job explaining a religious movement. The book details the theology and history sufficiently for his purposes and for readers to understand the movement, but it is not a detailed exegesis. The theoretical arguments for the appeal of the religion and its growth are also sound and well-reasoned. Finally, the author presents a good balance between skepticism of the movement’s claims and respect for the adherents. I highly recommend this book for anyone interested in understanding how sociologists think about religious movements.