Family Violence Essay

Family vehe custodyce is non a crude phenomenon, as it has basically existed since the arising of time. Only in modern times, however reach societies begun to recognize force out and family members as a cordial riddle (Barnett, Miller-Perrin & Perrin, 2005). For earthy years, the kind problem of family vehemence had non only been heavily ignored, besides for a num seasonl of years, had not been fully unsounded. For example, family furiousness takes slicey forms and has a outcome of several(predicate) names. Family frenzy, withal bopn as house servant fury, espousals smear, battering, family delirium, and intimate coadjutor frenzy (IPV), is defined as a normal of opprobrious behaviors by unitary partner a shed light onst an dissimilar in an intimate family much(prenominal)(prenominal)(prenominal) as marriage, dating, family, or cohabitation (Barnett et al., 2005). Moreoer, family military force includes but is not limited to personal blackguard much(prenominal) as kicking and punching, but as well includes informal and emotional contumely. Emotional abuse includes controlling or domineering bullying stalking passive/covert abuse ( disregard) and economic deprivation and in many cases is to a greater extent(prenominal) than severe than physical abuse.The changing visibility of family emphasis is the leading indicator of the necessity of an historical onset to determineing it (Gordon, 2002). all over the historical few years, the general public in the US has endure familiar with family madness by means of with(predicate) novels coverage of highly publicizes cases, TV programs and movies. At the same time, researchers collect made great strides in recognizing the kitchen stove of family fierceness and the context in which it occurs (Barnett et al., 2005). As sociologists know of it today, family violence is politi adjurey, historically and fondly constructed (Gordon, 2002). In terms of business leader traffic and functionalism, family violence arises aside of power struggles in which members of the family atomic number 18 contesting for re bases and benefits (Gordon, 2002). Furthermore, these contests arise from some(prenominal)(prenominal) personal aspirations and switch over complaisant averages and conditions (Gordon, 2002). It is in that regardfrom outstanding to know that family violence croupenot be understood outside the context of the overall politics of the family. Historical developments that continue to lick family violence include prominent castrates in the agency of women and nestlingren (Gordon, 2002).It is imperative at that placefore for a historical abstract of family violence to include a have of the changing power relations among classes, sexes, and generations (Gordon, 2002). Political attitudes have similarly affect research findings almost family violence. Both psychological and sociological interpretations in the dig a lot ignore th e sexual activity politics of family violence issues, and the sex activity implications of insurance policy recommendations, not only when women or girls were the dupes, but also when women were the abusers (Gordon, 2002). Over the past 80 years, four major types of family violence have be examine and examined child abuse, child neglect, sexual abuse of children and wife beating. In by and by years, there have been opposite forms of family violence, which include sibling abuse (which is the to the highest degree common form of family violence), and elder abuse (Gordon, 2002).Family violence has had many several(predicate) faces historically, and has been classified in five disaccordent stages with incompatible revolve aboutes periodically. The first was the nineteenth century and child saving era, which was from 1876-1910. During this era, there was anti-cruelty to children movement that was influenced by the moderateness movement. Emphasis on the cruelty d single to ki ds was placed on the immigrant ugly and never the respect adequate to(p) classes (Gordon, 2002). The progressive era was followed by a child saving era which lasted from 1910 -1930 which lead to an dialect on child neglect. During this era, there was a decrease emphasis on alcohol and identified early(a) forms of essay such as poverty, unemployment and illness (Gordon, 2002). The depressed followed the progressive era where there was an increased defense for the conventional nuclear family.During the World state of war world war 2 era and the 1950s child neglect was increasingly seen as emotional neglect and the 1960s and 70s was a period of increased medicalization of family violence which, as sociologists have identified fuck have extremely negative affects (Gordon, 2002). A lot of attention to family violence began to gain increasing importance during the time of the womens movement in the mid-s resolutionies as a concern about wives world beaten by their husbands. Interes tingly enough, there was a rise in what almost call the mens movement as reception to the problem of domestic help help violence against men, which is generally omitted in the libber hypothesis (Barnett et al., 2005). Some flaws in the womens rightist approach to family violence (as well as early(a)s that egress be further discussed in the paper), is that it has reduced domestic violence, especially against men as their likeliness of cosmos killed by a fe young-begetting(prenominal) intimate partner has decreased six-fold (Barnett et al., 2005).OVERVIEW OF SEMINAR READINGS WEEK 2 symbolic inter consummationism is a status which seeks to understand how hatful interact with early(a)s (Ingoldsby, Smith & Miller, 2004a). The supposition claims that people interact with hotshot an new(prenominal) by interpreting each others actions (Ingoldsby et al., 2004a). Their response is base on the meanings that they attach to such actions (Ingoldsby et al., 2004a). Thus, human fundamental fundamental interaction is for the most part mediated by the use of symbols (Karp & Yoels, 1993). Authors Karp & Yoels (1993) discuss notions of the generalized other and feeling-glass self as examples of symbols with which we interact. In unityness precedent, the self emerges from common expectations that others have about well-disposed norms at bottom a particular edict (Karp & Yoels, 1993). But in another instance, people result self-evaluate themselves against the recognized judgments of others and act accordingly (Karp & Yoels, 1993). The emphasis on symbols brings attention to the maps people cope with. Role-playing is a bring up mechanism that allows people to see another persons aspect to understand what an action might mean (Ingoldsby et al., 2004a).In sum, no situation is static but rather contextual (Ingoldsby et al., 2004a). Individuals then through their own behavior and interaction with others, construct their individual kind realities (Karp & Yoels, 1993 Ingoldsby et al., 2004a). Situating family violence within a claywork of symbolic interactionism is important in that it provides a context within which people develop their personal interpretations of events. Therefore to understand family violence requires knowledge of the processes through which such interpretations emerge. Rosen (1996) and Mullaney (2007) illustrate ways in which interpretations of the self atomic number 18 at the core of domestic violence. Their findings atomic number 18 essential for consciousness how family violence continues over time. Findings also help to account for the formation and preservation of culture and social roles in society. In one respect, interpretations of the self be mediated through two primary orientations of communication processes of seduction and processes of entrapment (Rosen, 1996).This first is characterized by forces that run away to draw women into their family relationships (romantic fantasies and romanti c fusion) and the second by forces that keep them there selection tactics, cognitive dissonance, roller coaster relationships, traumatic bonding, Romeo and Juliet notions, and peer-family collusion (Rosen, 1996). For example, within the framework of symbolic interactionism, processes of seduction can be loosely defined as a dependent emotional state (Rosen, 1996). Individuals then, connect with partners because they internalize sympathetic appreciations of flunk and dependency to communicate feelings of love (Rosen, 1996). The interplay of such communication patterns facilitates an environment of spousal abuse that is likely to continue so long as interaction is repetitive (Rosen, 1996). Processes of entrapment on the other hand, can be argued to demonstrate the externalization of the communication patterns found in processes of seduction. erst meanings of dependency and weakness have been internalized as being both legitimate and appropriate within the context of ones relatio nship, these women rationalize such behavior as the norm and thus check. Survival tactics for example illustrate these efforts, by which women actively engage towards relationship management of an abusive relationship, otherwise internalized as an congenial social norm. In contrast, Mullaney (2007) identifies low self-esteem as a jibe of mens furious behavior. Domestic violence then, is a action to the assaults or perceived attacks on mens self-concept (Mullaney, 2007). Mullaney (2007) argues that men will most very much justify, yet also minimize, excuse, or blame and assert no apology on account for their violence towards women.These categories serve as scripts through which perceptions of masculinity are restored (Mullaney, 2007). If threatened, masculinity evolves accordingly as men interpret the actions of those around them. For example, womens irrational spending habits whitethorn weaken mens role as financial provider (Mullaney, 2007). work force would argue that s uch habits do not align functionally with womens domestic and social roles (Mullaney, 2007). By doing so, mens responses are ground on the meanings which they attach to such actions and reflect cultural expectations of gender difference. This is snarled because it helps promote and develop stereotypically gendered selves (Mullaney, 2007). Symbolic interactionism then, makes useful in demonstrating how dominant ideologies of gender are enacted within the interactions of marital relationships, and lend to domestic violence in the process.THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVESwomens liberationist TheoryThe root of feminist surmise begins with the cellular inclusion of gender and power. womens rightists argue that the distinctions among males and womanishs are not inherent or functional rather they are socially constructed to create and maintain male power in society and thus the family (Yllo, 1993). This scent out of patriarchy reinforces handed-down social roles and the relationship betwee n the division of power and gender. The feminist perspective adumbrates that men use violence to retain their dominance or sense of control within the institution of the family. Thus, the feminist effigy takes that domestic violence is utilized as another means of the social control of women, and takes grow at a personal, institutional, symbolic and material level. The masking of a feminist lense to Rosens (1996) article allows for a truly divergent approach to the processes of abduction and entrapment. The feminist perspective would likely explain that the forces drawing women into abusive relationships were largely referable(p) to the social expectations of femininity and masculinity. The concept of romantic fantasies can be explored through gender identities.Here society portrays the male as being a strong, aggressive, independent individual and the female as a weak, sheeplike individual that is largely dependant on their partner. For instance, the fantasy of Cinderella eludes that a man can protect a muliebrity and save her from her problems. Feminists would raise that women glint victim to these relationships due to the inequalities portrayed by traditional gender norms. Feminist theorists would likely explain the concept of romantic fusion as being due to the extremely controlling nature of husbands within a hoary marriage. This type of relationship is defined as Patriarchal Terrorism (Johnson, 1995). Here, the woman in the relationship would be forced to part with her individual characteristics and execute completely devoted to her husband (Johnson, 1995). Furthermore, the husband whitethorn further control the identity of the woman by ref exploitation to allow her to go to work or maintain friends outside of the actual relationship.The feminist lens would offer a slightly different interpretation of the processes that restrict women from escaping abusive relationships. Though women whitethorn still use coping mechanisms and adhere to ot her social forces, outlined by symbolic interactionaists, feminist surmisal suggests two main reasons why they stay in risky relationships. The first reason women stay in abusive relationships is fro the sake of their children (Emery, 2009). In cases such as these women will stay with the intent of maintaining round stability for their kids by trying keeping the family in tact. The other reasons women whitethorn stay are due to the normalization of gender norms in society. Feminist system sees the root causes of intimate partner violence as a designer of living in a society that excuses aggressive male behaviours (Yllo, 1993). In other words, because these behaviours are so normative, some women whitethorn excuse the behavior and treat it as the norm. What is perceived as the norm also varies across culture. Even today, many cultures adhere to traditional hegemonic norms and strongly believe women should be completely subservient to their husbands. In cases such as this, abu se may be next to impossible to escape.The application of the feminist perspective to Mullaneys (2007) article would allow for a similar digest of the attitudes of men and their reasons for rationalizing their abusive behaviours. Mullaney (2007) suggests that men will often become raging due to low self-esteem and a perceived attack on their self-concept. The feminist lens would suggest that men become tearing due to the inequalities in society that allow men an advantage role and with that gendered norms. Traditional hegemonic masculine norms suggest that men should be leaders that are strong, in control and tough. This is what the men in the study were trying to demonstrate. Whenever, they tangle that their sense of masculinity was being challenged they would lash out in an take on to regain control. The Control Model of Domestic Violence further provides a precise framework in displaying the interconnectedness between violence and other forms of coercive control. Simply put , the feminist theory suggests that men use violence as a tactic of controlling their abuse wives from participating in actions they have not sanctioned.Family corpses TheoryThe Family Systems theory provides a very unique, holistic perspective on the topic of violence in the family. This perspective describes the family as a unit of interacting personalities. Sociologist Ernest Burgess, best summarized this perspective when he stated that the family is more then just a definition it is a living, super spirit that has its essence in the interaction of its members (Ingoldsby, Smith & Miller, 2004b). Each member of the family plays a very important role in the overall functioning of the unit. When apply to the topic of violence in the institution of the family, this paradigm focuses on the family dynamics that contribute to domestic abuse. Subsequently less attention is rivet on the individual perpetrating the violence and more attention is paid to the environment skirt the viole nce and the role each character in the family plays. The Family Systems perspective offers a diverse interpretation of Rosens (1996) article on the processes of abduction and entrapment.Family Systems Theorists differ with respect to how they feel that women are drawn into abusive relationships. This perspective identifies the connection between family goals, rules and control, and how together one can fully understand the development and causation of domestic abuse (Ingoldsby et al., 2004b). For example in the article by Rosen (1996), it can be seen that by using family systems theory and studying familial interactions that authorized females may be predisposed to the Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast paradigms. By looking at how their families function, one may be able to see the cycle effect due to unresolved or violent backgrounds these victimized individuals may come from. They may fall into a similar pattern from what they know at home, thereby examining the origins of th is behavior and viewing the interconnectedness of how one internalizes family rules and judgments of control.Family Systems Theory offers a unique interpretation as to the role women play in becoming stuck in abusive relationships. In the stages front marriage, women will often date their partner, while simultaneously leading start lives which consist of separate relations. As the commitment in a relationship increases, a couple begins to modify their individual social lives. In these types of situations, both men and women will often make more time for one another. This allows for the woman to feel appreciated and loved. As the relationship continues to progress, incidents of sexual avariciously among men will often become a major source of conflict. This sense of possessiveness will ultimately cause the female to begin part ties with male friends, and become increasingly committed to her future husband (Dobash & Dobash, 1993). Once married, dramatic changes occur and the extr eme constriction of the wives social life takes place. With the introduction of children, comes the solidification of traditional gendered norms. Wives become extremely restricted and are left over(p) responsible for domestic work, such as the operation of the home (Dobash & Dobash, 1993).This may cause women to become increasingly dependant on their husbands. Subsequently, when sources of conflict occur, such as sexual jealousy, disputes over domestic duties or the expenditure of money, women may feel that they have no mobility and are stick in their incumbent situation. Lastly, Family Systems Theory offers a holistic approach to the factors found in Mullaneys (2007) article that cause men abuse their partners. Like Feminists, Family Systems theorists also believe that a very important aspect of traditional hegemonic masculinity is the share of control. However, unlike the feminist theory this approach tests to understand what causes men to misplace control.One explanation is that violent men often feel as if they may lose control, if they express their emotions, and thus hold it in. This in turn, causes violent men to generally be less emotionally reactive to stress on a day-to-day basis, then non-violent men (Umberson, Anderson, Williams, & Chen, 2003). Though in the short term, repression may be a successful coping dodging for reducing stress and anxiety, it causes the individual increased predicaments in the long run. Repression turns a violent man into a ticking-time bomb, one that is ready to explode in a violent manner.As a result, unlike feminist theories or social interactionism, family systems theory attempts to understand violence in the family by examining every(prenominal) interdependent part of the family. This includes the part both the victims and the offenders play, as well as the role everyday stresses and ones speedy environment have in alter to family violence.Social ConstructionismThe methodological approach of Social Constructi onism somewhat contrasts the assumptions of other hypothetical perspectives that explore the issue of family violence. This paradigm suggests that the emergence of social problems is heavily due to how society, or more specifically institutions within society such as the mainstream media, portrays the issue at hand. Furthermore, social constructionists are often referred to as claims-makers, in that they present a claim that attempts to define the problem at hand. These claims can be heavily influenced by the agenda of the claims-maker, and will clearly rank the roles of the characters within the construct of the event. For instance, social constructionists will identify the perpetrator of the violence as the villain and the maltreated partner as the victim. The analysis of Rosens article surrounding the processes involved with seduction and entrapment, using a constructionist lens, provides a different interpretation to the ways women become bound to abusive relations.This persp ective focuses on the subjective definitions that cause social problems and look to frame the phenomena of family violence as a social problem (Loseke, 2005). For instance, symbolic interactionism maintains that some abused women are bound to relationships by the process of cognitive dissonance. In cases such as this, women create discrepancies between what they believe the violence in the relationship signifies and what is actually happening. Constructionists on the other hand will focus very little time into how women construct the violent situations. Instead this perspective theorizes that these women have fallen victims to the violent, controlling nature of their abusive, villainous male partners (Loseke, 2005). The media or other primary claims-makers would further emphasis on violent vocal claims, visual images and specific behaviours. The reason of this is to evoke the emotions of society in baffle to persuade society that a troubled condition exists.The application of a co nstructions lens to Mullaneys article on the reasons and types of rationalizations men provide for spousal abuse would allow theorists a better judgment of the ways victims and villains perceive family violence. The social constructionist lens suggests that men create their own social human beings. This reality allows men to rationalize their behaviours. For example, in Mullaneys (2007) article men would often minimize, justify or even deny abusive behaviours. These men will often excuse their behaviours by blaming social or external factors, such as alcohol abuse and the structural problems associated with poverty. These claims are sometimes able to persuade audiences and have allowed for some villains to be rehabilitated through the medicalization of their deviance.ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGESSymbolic InteractionismSymbolic Interactionism is a key tool to examine domestic violence and its non-homogeneous intricacies. In essence, SI theory attempts to look at domestic violence f rom the viewpoint of individuals and their interactions with other people. This theory explains that individuals are engulfed in a symbolized environment, where the meanings for these symbols are altered within the course of interaction with other people (Karp & Yoels, 1993). For example, in the article The ties that bind women to violent antenuptial relationships Processes of seduction and entrapment, SI is exemplified in the notion of cognitive dissonance. If a man were to slap his wife, while she may see this as an expression or symbol of love, many other people would see this as abuse. Therefore, the difference and meanings of symbols is very fluid, changing and subjective.Furthermore, SI theory is extremely hard-hitting in allowing researchers to understand and describe the individuals and their behaviors. It allows an understanding of how conflicts and complex behavioral patterns may arise in relationships, and how the interpretations of symbols may play a role in domestic d isputes. This theory is quite effective in predicting future behavior (SI theory is advantageous to use as it grows and adapts to changes within society) and the roles they may play in the relationship either as a perpetrator or a victim, and the context in which these roles are played (Karp & Yoels, 1993). Rosen (1996) explains and clumps together several types of entrapment processes, such as placation or isolation, which predicts why and how females are coerced to remain in that sort of relationship.In addition, this theory does lack certain key elements in understanding domestic violence in its entirety. Due to the quite narrow scope of analysis, it is not very useful in understanding more macro levels of interactions such as groups or family systems. Another impairment is that it is quite hard to apply the theory to other cultures, as its findings and hypotheses are based on a rummy cultural atmosphere. Since monotony across cultures does not exist, a grand, overarching theo ry of domestic violence cannot be established, thereby making international or cross-cultural comparisons quite trying.FeminismDomestic violence as viewed through the feminist perspective focuses on the relationship between gender and the division of power in the familial framework (Yllo, 1993). This framework allows domestic abuse to be viewed in a way that is quite distinct from other theories. Feminist theory reveals that the social expectations regarding masculinity and femininity give relationships their shape, which may result in violent and abusive familial relations (Yllo, 1993). Feminist theory allows for the recognition of the effects of patriarchy in an abusive relationship, which is normally overlook in other theories. For instance, the Conflict Tactics Scale (CTS) looks at the violence in families, however it neglects several other aspects that could contribute to violence. CTS assumes that males and females are both equally violent in domestic relationships however, f eminists note that CTS fails to account for the social expectations (Yllo, 1993).The social expectations of the division of power between a male and female within a relationship can give rise to the abuse and therefore, it cannot be assumed that males and females are equally violent and there are statistical measures that portray a gendered view. For example in the reading, Patriarchal act of terrorism and common couple violence two forms of violence against women it can be seen that feminism denotes a difference in the types of violence that occur in domestic partnerships and further differentiates between common couple violence and patriarchal terrorism. This article notes that while CTS looks only at a limited number of control tactics, feminism can shed light to several other controlling methods. While, one can see that feminist theory brings up key defining points that are commonly overlooked, it does remain flawed in many respects.Feminist theory is difficult to apply to for ms of domestic violence except for spousal abuse specifically it only examines the abuse say towards women. It automatically victimizes the female, and thereby situates the male in role of the villain. Another disadvantage of using solely feminist theory is that same-sex relationships are also not taken into account in their analyses, since it is assumed in feminist analysis that males are the perpetrators and use violence in the relationship to control women.For instance in the article, The ties that bind women to violent premarital relationships Processes of seduction and entrapment, the analyses are based on the observation of heterosexual relationships. It did not look at how and if these processes of entrapment are applicable to transvestic relationships, for instance, do the Cinderella or Beauty and the Beast paradigm still adequately explain why homosexuals remain in violent relationships. It can be seen that there is a victim/perpetrator bodily structure of the violent re lationship, however it cannot be concluded that the processes that entrap victims in violent relationship are similar for same-sex couples.Family Systems TheoryFamily systems theory is a more holistic approach to understanding abuse within the family and further looks into how everyone within this framework is interconnected. Therefore, it explains how the individual affects the family system and vice versa. Through this analysis, one key contribution of this theory is that it paves the way of identifying the connection between family goals, rules and control, and how together one can fully understand the development and causation of domestic abuse (Ingoldsby et al., 2004b). For example in the article by Rosen (1996), it can be seen that by using family systems theory and studying familial interactions, certain females may be predisposed to the Cinderella and Beauty and the Beast paradigms. By looking at how their families function, one may be able to see the recycling effect due to unresolved or violent backgrounds these victimized individuals may come from.They may fall into a similar pattern from what they know at home, thereby examining the origins of this behavior and viewing the interconnectedness of how one internalizes family rules and ideas of control. In the article, Stay for the Children? economize Violence, Marital Stability, and Childrens Behavior Problems it clearly articulates that the violent behavior is internalized or externalized by children by prolonged exposure of violent behavior. The cyclical pattern of violence is foreseeable in these sorts of family arrangements, thereby being consistent with the idea that the system of family and the individuals within it are affected by each other on a constant basis. Family Systems theory also helps identify the different sorts of family structures in terms of their communicational boundaries and also allows the recognition of the various outcomes for a particular situation (Ingoldsby et al., 2004b ).Understanding that there are multiple outcomes for a given situation sets a more encompassing investigation and limits the likelihood of leaving something out or missing a key-contributing factor. It also allows a point of differentiation, and assumes that not all people react the same when the situation arises. This is important as it further provides the researcher with a defining and constricting point as to which sort of family has a higher likelihood for domestic violence to occur and persist. Some of the downfalls of using family systems theory are that it is often criticized that it is too general and therefore, its application remains vague. The vagueness stretches from the assumption that systems theory is not a true theory rather it is a model that is more methodological than theoretical.Social ConstructionismSocial constructionist theory is a popular theory used to examine the roles played in an abusive relationship. An advantage of constructionist theory is that it cle arly identifies the victim and the villain within the construct of the particular event (Loseke, 2005). Claims-makers are portrayed as practical actors constructing successful claims that reflect vivacious culture, and producing new culture of various social problems, specifically family violence. Social constructionism also allows domestic violence issues to be raised to the forefront and become more public, through the media. Through its application and explanations, this theory can be used to show how knowledge is socially constructed and how that knowledge reflects power and politics in family violence situations. Furthermore, it can give shape to other forms of domestic violence through counter claims making, such as husband abuse. Unlike other theories, constructionism is quite useful in examining other types of abuse and not singularly looking at wife abuse like feminism (Loseke, 2005). Constructionism allows for the understanding of child or elder abuse in the household.Thi s theory also helps understand how people construct realities that keep them in abusive relationships, and how the relationship may be viewed differently to other people. In the article by Mullaney (2007), the construction of the mens reality of the situation may differ from what abuse has occurred to the wife. The husband may reframe the abuse as non-violent or suggest that in that instance of abuse that it was not the real him that was carrying out the abuse. The disadvantages of using social constructionist theory are that due to the fact that individual events are a crucial component to the analysis, its subjectivity allows much room for debate. This makes it difficult to develop a theory that can encompass all the social realities and have it apply to all domestic violence cases cross-culturally.While looking at the article Creating clients Social problems work in a security for battered women, it can be seen that shelters create an ideal client that one must fit in order to b e allowed to be in the shelter. Creating this sort of criteria leaves out many other people who typically do not fit the stereotype or do not check the conditions set out by the providers even though they are in need of assistance. Using this theory, it seems as though society has constructed an ideal victim and those who do not appear to fit this idealistic view of a victim are often rejected despite their need for immediate attention.Social constructionism therefore does not grant that everyone experiencing violence will be offered assistance, as this is based on the shelters perception of what a victim should look like. Family violence is a very serious social problem, and while social critics focus on how to achieve social change in this regard, social constructionists work to achieve new knowledge. Thus, social constructionism does not only pose a potentially dangerous approach to understanding and treatment of family violence, but it also does not examine objective conditions in their own right and seek to solve this social problem essentially there are no real truths due to the subjectivity of the theory. blameAlthough much research and knowledge has been gathered in the field of family violence, there are ways in which this research must progress. Theoretically, family systems theory, symbolic interactionism, social constructionism, and feminist perspectives each have advantages in their application. As previously discussed, they each additionally have faults that hinder the study of family violence. We propose that a new theoretical framework be considered which essentially combines different aspects of each. For example, the notions of cause and effect associated with family systems, with an understanding of roles, salience and identity associated with symbolic interactionism. These theories can additionally be used to critically examine the core concepts of each. For example, how is the process of the looking-glass self influenced by the double-bin d. Theoretical application in these ways may lead to new ways of perceiving family violence.The study of family violence also should attempt to increase its scope. Studies of family violence must adjust due to emerging and increasingly common alternating(a) family forms same-sex parent families and polygamous relationships are such examples. Methodologically, the study of family violence should attempt to attain a more culturally diverse sample. Many of the readings focused on this semester relied on a predominantly Caucasian sample, and studies focusing on different ethnicities would be beneficial. If researchers are to examine alternative family forms they must also establish a methodology that is sensitive to the discolouration surrounding different identities, for example the emasculation associated with husband abuse, or the intersection of a homosexual identity within a context of family violence. Researchers should also establish a methodology that accounts for those patter ns of violence considered less severe than others such as communicatory abuse, as studies pertaining solely to physical violence are not enough. Practically, we suggest that researchers focus on early intervention through education.Researchers should aim for the instruction execution of programs directed to informing children and teenagers about this social issue. With increased awareness may come increased action towards ending the problem. These programs may assist a young person who is dealing with family violence, giving them an opportunity to speak to soul about it. Making the issue visible, giving it a platform to be discussed and early intervention is requisite to decreasing the frequency of family violence. The application of different aspects of the theories discussed this semester will be beneficial to the study of family violence as a whole. The fallacies of one theory may be redeemed through the exercising of another. When evaluating such troubling social issues such as family violence, it is important to continuously think critically.In the cases of physical violence, we know that though symbolic interactionism, family members react to a situation based on their ability interpret the situation. So, it is important to understand the symbols the family uses to understand their interactions and behaviors. If a family is exposed to continuous physical abuse, in what ways do the family members interpret and internalize it? Why is it that many of the abused women came from families where no abuse was present and moreover continue the cycle of abuse? Where has the self worth gone or was it ever there in the first place? We now know some of the reasons why family violence is not reported and a lot of it has to do with the social stigma that is attributed both by those receiving the abuse and those who are the abusers. By building on rather than challenging the theories we can expand our knowledge and practically work through programs to assist thos e dealing with family violence.REFERENCESBarnett, O. W., Miller-Perrin, C. L., & Perrin, R. D. (2005). Family violence across the lifespan An introduction (2nd ed.). super C Oaks CA Sage Publications. Dobash, R. E. & Dobash, R. (1993). Violence against wives. In B. Fox (Ed.), Familypatterns Gender relations (pp. 299-317). Toronto Oxford University Press. Emery, C. R. (2009). Stay for the children? Husband violence, marital stability, and childrens behavior problems. Journal of unification and the Family, 71, 905-916. Gordon, L. (1989). The politics and history of family violence. In A. Skolnick & J. Skolnick (Eds.), Family in Transition (pp. 68-86). Glenview, Illinois Scott, Foresman and Company. Ingoldsby, B., Smith, S., & Miller, J. (2004a). Symbolic interactionism theory. In B. Ingoldsby, S. Smith, & J. Miller (Eds.), Exploring family theories (pp. 81-92). CA Roxbury publication Company. Ingoldsby, B., Smith, S., & Miller, J. (2004b). Family systems theory. In B. Ingoldsby, S. Smith, & J. Miller (Eds.), Exploring family theories (pp. 167-179). CA Roxbury Publishing Company. Johnson, M. (1995). Patriarchal terrorism and common couple violence two forms of violence against women. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 57, 283-294. Karp, D., & Yoels, B. (1993). Socialization and the construction of social reality. In D. Karp & W. Yoels (Eds.), Sociology in everyday life (pp. 37-59). Illinois Waveland Press. Loseke, D. R. (2005). Construction people. In D. R. Loseke (Ed.), Thinking about social problems An introduction to constructionist perspective (pp. 75-96). London Aldine Transaction. Mullaney, J. L. (2007). Telling it like a man Masculinities and battering mens accounts of their violence. Men and Masculinities, 10, 222-247. Rosen, K. (1996). The ties that bind women to violent premarital relationships Processes of seduction and entrapment. In D. Cahn & S. Lloyd (Eds.), Family violence from a communication perspective (pp. 151-176). deoxyguanosine monophosp hate Oaks, CA Sage Publications. Umberson, D., Anderson, K., Williams, K., and Chen, M. (2003). Relation dynamics, emotion state, and domestic violence a stress and masculinities perspective. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 65, 233-247. Yllo, K. (1993). Through a feminist lens Gender, power, and violence. In R. Gelles & D. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury Park Sage Publications.