Collateral Damage: An Analysis of the Achievements and Unintended Consequences of Batterer Intervention Programs and Discourse

• NCJ Number: 194936
• Journal: Journal of Family Violence Volume: 17 Issue: 2 Dated: June 2002 Pages: 167-184
• Author(s): Eric S. Mankowski; Janice Haaken; Courtenay S. Silvergleid
• Date Published: June 2002
• Length: 18 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Issue Overview
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This paper reviews and critiques two prevailing program models for batterer intervention in order to highlight both their valuable achievements and attendant costs and consequences.

Abstract

One of the models assessed is the unstructured group therapy model. This model focuses on the perpetrator's behavior rather than any dysfunction in the women or the relationship. Under this model, men are encouraged to share experiences of their own victimization and vulnerability. The facilitator encourages the group to be self-directed, often taking a minor role in the discussions. Although themes may emerge in the group interaction, topics and activities of each week are not preplanned. Groups typically last between 3 months and 18 months. The other model critiqued is the Duluth power and control model. This model frames male battering as a component of patriarchy, in that men develop a sense of entitlement to control and dominate their female partners. The goal of this intervention is to hold men accountable for their violence, as it focuses on deconstructing the basis of abusive episodes in "power and control" motives and replacing these with an "equality" model for relationships. This paper first describes the historical development and basic program components of the two intervention models. It then traces differences in the models to their grounding in different psychological assumptions and theories about behavioral change, masculinity, and violence. Because such theories influence institutionalized intervention practices, the differences between the models are mapped onto contrasting approaches to the regulation of human deviance in the criminal justice and mental health systems. The analysis highlights how each model's alliance with these systems has perpetuated the very essentialist and polarized concepts of gender and domestic violence that originally inspired intervention efforts. The paper concludes with suggestions for alternative approaches to batterer intervention that might inspire future collaborations between victim advocates and intervention providers. 1 table and 46 references