Status: New Definition, New Thinking

Jane Monckton Smith,Amanda Williams,Frank Mullane

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137307439_3

2014-01-01

Abstract:We must acknowledge that if the characteristics of something change then, of necessity, so do the actors. So, when the definition for abuse is changed this changes who the perpetrators and victims are. The new definition, in many ways, resists the dominant discourse of IPA. It should produce new discursive subjects, the most important of whom will be the victim and the abuser. For example, if we say that the definition for GBH requires that the victim receives a broken bone, then all other assaults which do not break bones are excluded and the characteristics of GBH are different. It may also be that people who use the type of violence that breaks bones have different motivations and psychology from those who cause serious injury by, for example, throwing acid. This will mean that the people who commit GBH and those who are its victims are changed also. Previous perceptions and constructions of GBH victims and perpetrators are no longer wholly valid. Foucault’s (1972) idea that we construct our own reality through discourse has an immediate relevance. Now that it has been acknowledged specifically that domestic abuse is a course of conduct that involves coercion and control, new discursive subjects are constructed. Now we have to know about those abusers who are not merely physically violent, but are controlling and have a different psychology, and we must also consider those victims whose lives are dominated by fear rather than injury.