In reading an article about the problem of domestic violence and abuse in Cambodia (Rebecca Surtees, 2007), I came across a very interesting point, one which has come up many times when researching this, but the point was just made so clearly: "one of the major obstacles in combating domestic violence everywhere in the world is that it is commonly conceptualised as a private issue rather than a public concern" (p.59). In this being the case, not only does it ignore the outside social, political and cultural contexts in which it takes place, but it makes it a smaller issue, one not punishable as other forms of violence are, and justifies its existence as being 'normal' and appropriate behind closed doors. Additionally, it hides the fact that it is most often women who suffer: in many places men are not even punished or jailed if the woman dies as a result (p.59). Society can still conveniently ignore this gendered nature and keep it behind a veil of 'domesticity'. Furthermore, it allows for the state to turn a blind eye, take no responsibility and in fact be told that they have no obligation or right to intervene. In many other areas, family does not lie beyond the remit of the state (tax, family law, service, etc) and yet in this matter, sexual or otherwise, the violence is accepted and ignored.
It is not until domestic violence is seen in the way that other violence is, of power, control and fear, that it can begin to be changed and considered for the true nature of what it is. In this way society may stop seeing women as provocateurs of their treatment, disconnected from a good society, brushed aside as 'private business'.
The solutions cannot be global in nature however: they must happen locally, engaged in the space in which they happen. Development communities obviously continue to operate along the line of human rights in the dealings but local culture and custom must be the foundation so as not to lie counter to the efforts being made to change.
I found this in a personal experience while working in Vietnam. The first time (of many) that I was approached by one of my female students, bruised across the cheek and eyes after having been hit by her fiancee, having to hold back so much to just tell her to leave him, to refuse to marry him, to disagree with her family or try to get their support: because that was not how things would happen. The social discrimination, the stigma, the lack of family support: these were all things of which I couldn't fully comprehend. Had she taken any of those drastic actions, the consequences could have been devastating for her. What was needed was compassion, questions, conversation and listening: finding out what could be done, what tools she did have at her disposal.
Interventions must go together with social norms, whilst also challenging them: but this cannot always be done in a full confrontation. We like to think in grand gestures, huge change happening all at once, bra burning and protests: but what we need to remember is the ground work that goes in before those things happen. Rights don't come overnight: Rosa Parks didn't just one day decide to sit at the front. Initiatves, on any level, need to take into account all sides of an issue and work through the tools at hand for raising awareness, lessening the impacts at the outset, and addressing the roots.
Luckily my student was able to get her mum on her side, with much calm conversation and discussion about her future. She didn't marry him, and she is now finishing a further degree in her studies and dating another young man she met. Not all situations work out like this, but looking at interventions through multiple lenses, starting with taking the private into the public sphere, should be analysed more and expanded.
Rebecca Surtees, (2007) 'Negotiating Violence and non-violence in Cambodian Marriages' in Oxfam GB 2007, , Terry, G. (ed) (2007) Gender Based Violence, pp. 56-69.