Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros22Articles thématiquesFamily Violence and Institutional...

Articles thématiques

Family Violence and Institutional Responses

Marylène Lieber et Marta Roca i Escoda
Cet article est une traduction de :
Violences en famille : quelles réponses institutionnelles ?  [fr]

Résumés

Si la famille est en général synonyme d’intimité et de relations de confiance, elle peut également être un lieu d’abus, de contrôle ou de violences. Les diverses formes de violences qui se déroulent dans la sphère privée ont été dénoncées dès les années 1970 par les mouvements féministes. Elles ont alors fait l’objet d’une variété de politiques et d’actions publiques ayant pour vocation de défendre et d’accompagner les victimes, de punir et soigner les agresseurs ou de rétablir des liens familiaux distendus. En s’attachant à la façon dont ces violences ont été définies dans des contextes différents, en Europe, en Amérique du Nord et en Amérique latine, cet article a pour ambition de donner à voir les perspectives variées que recouvrent des catégories d’action publique aussi diverses que violences conjugales, violences domestiques, violences intrafamiliales ou encore féminicides ou fémicides, et les conséquences que ces différentes visions du problème ont sur sa prise en charge. Largement influencé par les études genre et la sociologie des problèmes publics, cet article, notamment à travers la présentation des contributions qui composent ce numéro de la revue Enfances Familles Générations, entend questionner les notions de violences de genre dans le cadre familial, dont les frontières sont fluctuantes et investies de façon variée, ainsi que les formes d’institutionnalisation du problème et les solutions qui sont envisagées.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

1A wide range of similar or contradictory institutional responses is currently being deployed to address violence against women and particularly violence occurring within couples and families. In the public sphere, the issue of how such violence should be defined triggers debates and controversies both on the causes of and responsibilities for what is today widely recognized as a deep-rooted scourge and on the shaping of what could be considered as the most relevant responses. Drawing from a variety of anti-violence laws, many public actions and policies were designed in various contexts and resulted in prevention campaigns, in the building of shelters and counselling centres, and in monitoring programmes for perpetrators. A wide range of institutional and non-institutional actors, at national and international level, are involved in these initiatives, which bring about varying definitions of these acts of violence occurring within the nuclear family.

2Taking into account the diversity of practices and definitions, this issue of Childhood Families Generations aims at presenting case studies while reflecting on how European, North and Latin-American institutional constellations in various national contexts have contributed to the definition of intra-family psychological, physical, and sexual violence, and have subsequently shaped the responses to this issue (Gusfield, 2009; Bacchi, 1999). With contributions drawing on research conducted on the phenomenon of gender violence from a historical, politological or sociological perspective, this issue primarily investigates how public action has been shaped in terms of women’s rights, criminal justice response, or public health.

3How is it that such violence which was ignored for so long has now become both intolerable and unacceptable? Which actors did bring this issue into focus and what were their claims, debates and controversies? How is intra-family violence currently defined and what are the advantages and limitations of these definitions? Are policies falling under the “domestic violence” or “family violence” umbrella similar to those developed to fight “conjugal violence” or even “violence against women”? Does the terminology in use refer to similar understandings and definitions of the problem? Which debates and issues are the people involved in emergency actions confronted to? What tools can they use? And how can such violence be measured? These are some of the guiding questions this publication tries to answer while exploring how intra-family gender violence has been constructed as a public problem.

4Focusing on the nuclear family with its various generations, the parental couple as well as the children reveals the diversity of definitions used to shape this phenomenon as a political concern. It also allows us to identify the normativities associated with family relations that are enshrined in the formulation of the problem, and to show that these perspectives convey various norms associated with how family operates, with intergenerational relations, and with gender relations. In fact, the forms of action addressing such violence are also constitutive of the legitimate definition of family norms and the specific positions, roles and prerogatives of each family member. Conversely, these very conceptions of legitimate family norms historically rooted in marriage laws help define what does or does not constitute violence and what should be qualified as such. In many cases, the supposed “best interest of the family” actually appears to put wives at a strong disadvantage (Cador, 2005) as they ensure a smooth and harmonious running of the family. The difficult recognition of conjugal rape clearly illustrates both how conjugal relations are conceived as a site of intimacy where women freely consent to submission and how strong resistance is when it comes to granting women rights when those are seen as a threat to a certain family order.

5This issue of EFG promotes the public problem perspective, which entails analyzing how occurrences of psychological control and physical and sexual violence are defined as public problems requiring intervention in the private sphere (Bacchi, 1999). The discursive framing and symbolic dimension of the language used to discuss violence are major issues. Indeed the problematization of and the ability to represent the aforementioned problem are setting the boundaries of what is acceptable and what is not and defining the solutions that can be considered. The ability to impose a specific definition then becomes an object of struggle due to the fact that such definitions may undermine – or strengthen – family morality (Lenoir, 2003) and other values related to the couple (Gilbert & Henry, 2012).

6To deepen reflection, we divided this publication along three main lines of research, the first of which focuses on the definitional struggles and on how the various stakeholders represent the problem. The articles included in this section examine how violence is defined as well as how conceptions of family and family relations relate to these definitions, and highlight the challenges of state action, in particular those faced by social workers (Lessard et al., Labarre & Roy, Lapierre et al.). The second line of research takes on a comparative approach to various national contexts, using case studies to shed light on how intra-family violence is understood and institutionalized in relation to the region-specific challenges and opportunities (Delage, Lapalus, Sanz-Gavillon & Miranda-Pérez). Finally, the third line of research explores the issue of measuring violence and analyses the ways in which this problem can be made visible through a study of how quantifying procedures expand the boundaries of the unspoken, thus contributing to defining the unacceptable and the intolerable (Debauche).

7Taken together these research themes weave a thread that reveals the various ways in which violence within the private sphere is framed and make it possible to see the multiple perspectives involved and the diversity of the solutions meant to address this issue. While the classic feminist perspective rightly denounces the all too invisible nature of violence against women around the world, this issue aims to go one step further by documenting the various ways in which the problem is recognized and dealt with by various institutional or militant bodies, while identifying the knowledge developed so far and the ongoing controversies within public action processes.

From a feminist perspective to a multi-faceted public problem approach

8From the 1970s feminists contributed to unveil violence by men against women and to define it as a specific and distinct phenomenon that could occur in the form of sexual assault – which fostered the debate on rape and its lack of recognition (Brownmiller, 1976; Vigarello, 1998) – or within the conjugal or family sphere – which made visible the issue of “battered women” (Herman, 2012) and incest (Boussaguet, 2009). By considering women’s everyday lives, questioning social boundaries, and stating that “the personal is political,” these movements have contributed to denouncing and challenging many violent situations experienced by women as “ordinary” or “normal,” first and foremost rape, sexual assault, and domestic violence (Romito, 1997; Smyth, 2002). They have helped challenge the notion of family as a place of protection and mutual support (Fougeyrollas-Schwebel, 1994) and condemn abusive practices that have been too often overlooked.

9Researchers working within these movements also insisted on the epistemological need to speak from the women’s perspective and to report their experiences and understanding of violence (Radford & Russel, 1992; Corrin, 1997). In that sense, Jalna Hanmer (1977) marked a crucial milestone as she conceptualized male violence against women as one of the fundamental mechanisms of gender-based social control. Later, Liz Kelly (1987) developed a theory based on the idea that the existing continuum of male violence was transcending the public-private dichotomy while being linked, under its many forms, to the still prevailing gender-based organization and social discrimination in all societies (Lieber, 2008).

10From this perspective, research on violence against women focuses on a wide variety of acts ranging from sexual harassment on the workplace (Gardner, 1995) or in public areas (Zippel, 2006) to femicide (Radford & Russel, 1992). These studies contribute to outlining this category by adding new developments such as forced marriage (Ouattara et al., 1998) and wartime rape (Kelly, 2001) or conversely debating about the fact that some issues should be excluded from this category, e.g. prostitution (Doezema, 1998). In this multi-faceted and burgeoning field reflecting the growing political and scientific interest in the issue (Romito, 2006; Lovett & Kelly, 2009), public attention is particularly drawn to rape and sexual assault (Brownmiller, 1976) along with conjugal violence (Hanmer & Itzin, 2000) because they both become visible in frequent occurrences and take place in the intimacy – thus questioning two core social institutions, marriage and family. Indeed statistics show that violence against women is primarily perpetrated by men who are acquainted to their victims and that conjugal ties – in which women frequently are the dependant ones – are particularly conducive to a controlling and violent climate (Gillioz et al., 1997; Jaspard et al., 2003).

11Conceptualizing male violence against women was an major step in the recognition of these forms of violence that are affecting all social categories (Edwards, 1987), and helped shape the global framework to address this violence (Htun & Weldon, 2012) in a process where international bodies formulated this perspective in terms of gender and recognized its scope and its cross-cutting nature (Reid, 2003). As a result, the United Nations adopted the Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women in 1993. More recently, in Istanbul, the Council of Europe passed the 2011 Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, a legally binding instrument, which make it compulsory for its Member States to implement anti-violence action plans.

12Although feminist discourses played a crucial role in the “discovery”, visibilization, and conceptualization of the problem, they have often been marginalized over the years in favour of an intra-family violence perspective focused on the various forms of violence involving family members and on the notion of shared responsibilities rather than on conjugal ties (Roca i Escoda & Lieber, 2015). Some ways of naming this violence such as intra-family violence or domestic violence refer to all types of violence occurring within the family, whether towards women, men, children, or elderly people. The scope of other terms, such as intimate partner violence or conjugal violence, is limited to violence involving people in an ongoing or ended conjugal or marital relationship (Schwander, 2006). Moreover, some public responses tend to value or promote conjugal and family relations at the expense of the right of women not to be subjected to violence (Commaille, 2001; Barone, 2002). In France, for instance, the institutional approach to conjugal violence sometimes tends to favour the restoration of harmony both between intimate partners and in the private sphere (Cador, 2005; Volpi, 2012). Other studies stress the fact that focussing on the family is an invitation to consider the situation of children (Déroff & Potin, 2013) whose protection is their mothers’ duty. Thus, the issue of intra-family violence currently encompasses a range of terminologies and understandings of the problem depending both on how the problem was publicised and on which stakeholders exposed it as a public problem requiring special attention from the authorities. Anti-violence actions were therefore shaped by the various ways of considering and exploring this issue. While feminist actions mainly focused on care, counselling and support of victims, masculinist movements have challenged this perspective which they consider as a "victimhood" approach, stressing instead a definition of violence between men and women as an individual and symmetrical interaction (Brossard, 2008).

13Consequently, the first part of this issue of EFG analyses this plurality of understandings, primarily focussing on the conjugal and family dimensions as sites for problematizing this violence, and on the various perspectives and solutions feeding the above-mentioned definitional struggles. The first three articles discuss how this violence is considered and characterized. They all highlight the need to take on an interdisciplinary perspective rather than setting one conception against the other, thus considering that the various conceptions are both broadly complementary and a tool for grasping the diversity of actual situations. However, they insist on the fact that practices and analyses should not exclude the structural dimension of violence and its connections with gender relations. As violence against women continues to give rise to debates surrounding its characterization (Where does it begin? How is it different from conflict?) and its causality (What are the responsibilities and how are they shared?), these three articles paint a nuanced picture allowing us to see the multiple forms of intra-family violence, the various views that must be considered, and the tools available to public authorities and social workers to tackle the problem.

14In the first article, Geneviève Lessard and her colleagues analyze the situation in Québec and show how intra-family violence was conceptualized as a socio-criminal issue. To gain a better understanding of the diverse individual and social situations, the authors distinguish conjugal violence from domestic or structural violence, drawing on both the typologies designed by Johnson (2008 and 2013) and Appel and Holden (1998) and on feminist intersectional theories (Crenshaw, 1991). The perspective they took on makes it possible to analyze a category such as conjugal violence showing the variety and scale of the situations covered, and to describe the complex nature of the form of violence. As a result, the authors suggest an approach that incorporates these various forms of knowledge – both theoretical and practical – while critically analyzing the dynamics at work within the field of social work marked by a tendency to psychologize and symmetrize conjugal violence (Dobash et al., 1992).

15The second paper is rooted in the North American context too. It examines how children and adolescents – affected by intra-family violence but largely unheard – define conjugal violence. Drawing from these accounts of parental violence, Simon Lapierre and his coauthors explore the different ways in which the interviewed children and adolescents describe their family environment. This article is important in that it shows how ordinary actors, those defined as indirect victims by the authorities, assimilate a disembodied definition of violence that is disconnected from their experience. Indeed, the sample of children and adolescents define violence in ways that apparently corroborate the masculinist perspective whereby both parents share the responsibility of violent situations – which would reinforce the relation-based conception of the couple by assuming that violence between intimate partners is symmetrical. However the authors show that children and adolescents analyse actual situations – i.e. their experiences of violence – as arising from unequal relations between partners based on the dominance of men over women, thus adopting a perspective that is closer to the way feminists define conjugal violence.

16In the third article, Michel Labarre and Valérie Roy examine the issue of fatherly involvement taking into account this structural dimension of violence. While valued by specific public policies, fatherly involvement can become a concern in violent situations. For example, some feminist authors denounce the practices – central to the masculinist claims – aiming at maintaining parental and family bonds at all costs when violence is involved (Romito, 2006). Labarre and Roy take on this controversy to show how the research field of fatherhood within violent contexts was built and how programs for assaultive men were implemented, while analyzing the limitations of these actions. Going beyond the feminist focus on receiving and assisting the victims, this article is an invitation to reflect on how male violence perpetrators are being taken care of and on the values that should underlie these programs. For that purpose the authors compare two approaches, both common and contrasting: the first one strengthens the father identity and promotes fatherly involvement in accordance with a functionalist conception of family bonds seen as harmonious and indivisible while the second one aims at restricting the link between violent fathers and their children using socio-criminal and therapeutic interventions and control mechanisms.

17To allow those involved in social work and in the fight against conjugal and domestic violence to address the complexities of such situations, academics call for an interdisciplinary and multi-faceted approach that doesn’t lose sight of either the structural nor the gender dimensions of such violence.

Feminist struggles and institutional grounding

18Beyond the challenge of defining violence against women in various arenas, we must also examine the specific contexts where the process through which such violence is being problematized occurs. The phenomenon of intra-family violence is defined differently depending on the nature of the abuse, the historical and national timeframes, the scope of state action, and the dominant representations of family and gender relations; these definitions contribute significantly to shaping the implemented policies and actions. It is therefore important to analyze the forces driving these intervention patterns and to determine why they evolve, what their political incentive is, and how the definition of the problem affects the solutions brought forward.

19In this issue of EFG, three articles are covering this dimension. Approaching it through a comparative analysis of various national contexts, their authors examine how local definitions of violence and their underlying perspectives are locally deployed. Focusing on the actors involved in the advancement of women’s rights as well as on the social, medical, political, and legal institutions that have taken them up, these papers reveal how feminists have politicized violence against women in different countries and which instances they relied on to do so (Elman, 1996; Weldon, 2002). These studies invite us to take stock of the uncertain nature of public action and of the complex processes through which concrete policies arise. Social issues do not emerge as public problems under the sole influence of deliberate and coherent efforts to construct them as such. Neither does this transformation stem from the activism of any particular group – namely feminists (Trom & Zimmermann, 2001). On the contrary these papers illustrate the many dynamics, opportunities, circumstances and arenas of public action that helped to define and categorize violence against women in each particular case (Hilgartner & Bosk, 1988). Public action is conducted within a variety of arenas and, consequently, it was never a linear translation process of a singular and uniform political will towards civil society (Roca i Escoda, 2009). Conversely, institutional responses to violence against women result from trade-offs between various stakeholders, including the state and its institutions. Thus it becomes necessary to know how gender-based power relations and feminist demands are incorporated into the institutionalizing and recognition process of a social problem such as violence against women (Walker, 1990).

20Comparing the contexts in which conjugal violence emerged as a public problem and its differentiated institutionalization processes in France and the United States, Pauline Delage invites us to ground our reflection in the relationships between activists and state institutions in a fertile socio-historic perspective. She explores the varying ways in which this phenomenon was framed from a series of perspectives ranging from social to legal, and highlights the paradox whereby the country with the weakest social welfare system was the most successful in integrating and recognizing conjugal violence. While conjugal violence was institutionalized through the same sector – social work – in both the US and France, Delage explains the differences observed in how action against conjugal violence was institutionalized and professionalized through the existing differences in the training given to social workers.

21In her article, Marylène Lapalus explores how murders and killings of women were conceptualized in Latin America. While the concept of femicide travelled across various cultural and geographical areas, it evolved differently in several local Latin American contexts. The author allows us to examine the conceptual paths followed by the concepts of feminicidio in Mexico and femicidio in Costa Rica, as they evolved in distinct ways to describe gender violence. She seeks to understand how feminist claims specifically denouncing brutal crimes against women shaped the definition of such crimes, resulting either in a broad definition in which the state is given a central role (feminicidio), or in a more intimate and relational definition highlighting intra-family violence (femicidio). According to Lapalus, analyzing the political scope of both conceptualizations leads to a deconstruction of the stereotypical definitions of violence against women. Moreover, when referring to murders of women, such conceptualizations appear as less neutralizing than expressions such as domestic violence or intra-family violence.

22Similarly, Anne-Claire Sanz Gavillon and Fabiola Miranda-Pérez study national public policies in two post-dictatorship countries, Spain and Chile. They reveal the dynamics at work in these contexts using a macro-social analysis. Adopting a cognitive approach to public policy (Muller & Surel, 2003), the co-authors analyze the legal developments that occurred in both countries during and after their transition process to democracy and highlight the multiple definitions of violence against women formulated during this period of time. They do so by carrying out a double comparison – along both time and space –, and discuss two approaches seen as radically different readings of the problem. In Chile, violence occurring within the private sphere was enshrined in law in terms that focus on the intra-family dimension, the primary goal being to maintain or repair the family ties damaged by violent situations – thus promoting the preservation of the family as an institution. According to the authors, Chilean law considers that intra-family violence reveals an underlying dysfunctional situation or, at best, that women and children are the primary victims of this violence. Conversely, the terminology adopted in Spain focuses on women’s rights. Following this enshrined “gender violence” perspective, Spanish law defines women are the primary victims of such violence and underscores the structural linkages of this phenomenon, seen as one manifestation of persisting gender inequalities.

23While these articles take on different comparatist approaches, they all stress how important it is to adopt an historical and institutional perspective when exploring the heterogeneous definitional processes related to this problem (Zimmerman, 2003) as well as the stakes underlying the terminological issues revealing how family, violence, and women’s rights connect and intersect thus strengthening one perspective or another (Commaille, 2001). These comparisons also provide a subtle analysis of the process through which the problem is framed, of the solutions that might be undertaken under the studied circumstances, and of the role of governmental structures in the struggle to prevent violence against women.

Quantifying violence and making it visible

24Mobilization and research contributed to make violence against women public and also resulted in the publication of a significant number of studies aimed at measuring its extent, causes, and consequences. In turn, these studies contributed to making this phenomenon and its prevalence more visible. The role of statistical data is crucial in public policy design processes. Indeed, social problems are constructed through the very social organization that defines them and makes them real using empirical data collection (Gusfield, 2009). Beyond the arbitrary conventions underlying all statistical constructions, we must stress that the production of data influences social representations, creating “reality effects” (Dérosières, 1993). Since the late 1980s a large body of quantitative studies have filled the knowledge gap on this so-called invisible phenomenon (Smyth, 2002). Studies specifically focused on violence against women were conducted and thus complemented the limited body of data produced by various associations or broad victimization surveys.

25Still, both the chosen perspective and the way the questions are asked have a strong impact on the quality of the data collected which in turn also influence the outcome as well as the measured prevalence of the phenomena under study (Gillioz et al., 2002; Cavalin, 2013). In some countries, violence is measured through victimization surveys providing the number of assaults on both men and women (including the ICVS, International Crime Victims Survey). As these surveys are not specifically focused on violence against women, they often fail to reveal its extent. Research data specifically collected to study violence against women are definitely more comprehensive and paint a more accurate picture. These studies focus massively on conjugal violence (Gillioz et al., 1997) but also on violence (especially sexual violence) committed in various social contexts – the home, public places, or the workplace (Jaspard et al., 2003; FRA, 2014). Some other statistical data account for the health consequences of conjugal violence (Beck et al., 2010) or for the economic costs associated to it (Godenzi & Yodanis, 1998).

26These studies usually highlight the fact that women of all social categories are primarily assaulted in the private sphere and by people they know, usually their partners or ex-partners (Hanmer & Maynard, 1987). For many women, the private sphere – their home – is therefore not a place of safety and trust (Valentine, 1992).

27These studies obviously rely on categories and statistics that affect their outcomes and, consequently, the way they define the question. While there is currently a lack of historical understanding of the way these categories were statistically constructed, these studies are apparently providing the victims with an impulse to have their voice heard, as shown by Alice Debauche in the last article of this issue.

28Debauche explores sexual violence and the way it is accounted for, thus showing that the way institutions measure and address rape and sexual assault in France was influenced by the media coverage and condemnation of child sexual abuse. During the 1990s sexual violence against adults was gradually separated from child sexual abuse. But in the context described by Debauche, media coverage of underage victims had a positive impact on the visibility of sexual assault as a whole. By questioning current statistical categories, Debauche shows how difficult it is to measure sexual violence and explores the limits of defining rape as a single legal and statistical category. While child abuse is gradually being condemned as a category distinct from violence against women, statistical tools fail to properly distinguish these two types of violence.

29The articles making up this issue aim at nourishing the reflection through which intra-family psychological, physical, and sexual abuse become public action categories, the genealogy of which should be carefully analyzed. This perspective makes it important to understand the controversies surrounding such categories, the institutional artifacts through which they can be rooted into practical reality, the actors involved in bringing them to public attention as well as the range of solutions proposed by public authorities or associations to address the problem within various contexts of social and political intervention. These articles also point to the stakes underlying these various categorizations, defined by Lessard and her coauthors as “not equal and interchangeable.” These research papers show that we should not downplay the gender and structural dimensions of intra-family violence. Moreover, they point to the fact that these dimensions are linked to the prevailing family norms and power relationships that operate across such violence (Ferree, 1990).

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Appel, A. E. et G.W. Holden. 1998. « The Co-occurence of Spouse and Physical Child Abuse: A Review and Appraisal », Journal of Family Psychology, vol. 12, no 4, p. 578-599.

Bacchi, C. L. 1999. « Violence Against Women », in Women, Policy and Politics, Londres, Sage.

Barone, A.-M. 2002. « La médiation familiale et le «bon divorce» : l’idéologie de la famille indissoluble », Olympe, no 17, p. 80-85.

Beck, F., C. Cavalin et F. Maillochon (dir.). 2010. Violences et santé en France. État des lieux, Paris, La documentation Française.

Boussaguet, L. 2009. « Les "faiseuses" d’agenda. Les militantes féministes et l’émergence des abus sexuels sur enfants en Europe », Revue française de sciences politiques, vol. 59, no 2, p. 221-246.

Brossard, L. 2008. « Le discours masculiniste sur les violences faites aux femmes : une entreprise de banalisation de la domination masculine », dans Le mouvement masculiniste au Québec : l’antiféministe démasqué, sous la dir. de M. Blais et F. Dupuis-Déri, Montréal, Remue-ménage, p. 93-110.

Brownmiller, S. 1976. Le viol. Paris, Stock.

Cador, P. 2005. Le traitement juridique des violences conjugales : la sanction déjouée, Paris, L’Harmattan.

Cavalin, C. 2013. « Interroger les femmes et les hommes au sujet des violences conjugales en France et aux États-Unis : entre mesures statistiques et interprétations sociologiques », Nouvelles questions féministes, vol. 32, no 1, p. 64-76.

Commaille, J. 2001. « Les injonctions contradictoires des politiques publiques à l’égard des femmes », dans Masculin-Féminin : questions pour les sciences de l’homme, sous la dir. de J. Laufer, C. Marry et M. Maruani, Paris, PUF.

Corrin, C. 1997. La violence masculine contre les femmes : résistance et recherche féministe, Nouvelles questions féministes, vol. 18, no 3-4, p. 9-48.

Crenshaw, K. 1991. « Mapping the Margins: Intersectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence Against Women of Color », Stanford Law Review, vol. 43, p. 1241-1299.

Deroff, M.-L. et E. Potin. 2013. « Violences conjugales dans l’espace familial : que fait-on des enfants ? Pratiques professionnelles au croisement des champs de la protection de l’enfance et des violences conjugales », Enfances Familles Générations, no 18, p. 120-137.

Dérosières, A. 1993. La politique des grands nombres, Paris, La Découverte.

Dobash R. P., R. E. Dobash, M. Wilson et M. Daly. 1992. « The Myth of Sexual Symmetry in Marital Violence », Social Problems, vol. 39, no 1, p. 71-91.

Doezema, J. 1998. « Forced to Choose: Beyond the Voluntary v. Forced Prostitution Dichotomy », dans Global Sex Workers: Rights, Resistance, and Redefinition, sous la dir. de K. Kempadoo et J. Doezema, Londres, Routledge.

Edwards, A. 1987. « Male Violence in Feminist Theory: An Analysis of the Changing Conceptions of Sex/Gender Violence and Male Dominance », dans Women, Violence and Social Control, sous la dir. de J. Hanmer et M. Maynard, Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press International, p. 13-29.

Elman, A. 1996. Sexual Subordination and State Intervention: Comparing Sweden and the United States, Oxford, Berghahn Books.

Ferree, M. M. 1990. « Beyond Separate Spheres: Feminism and Family Research », Journal of Marriage and the Family, no 52, p. 866-884.

FRA – European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. 2014. Violence Against Women: An EU-wide Survey. Main Results, Vienne, FRA - European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, http://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2014/violence-against-women-eu-wide-survey-main-results-report.

Fraisse, G. 2000. Les deux gouvernements : la famille et la cité, Paris, Gallimard.

Fougeyrollas-Schwebel, D. 1994. « Entraide familiale : de l’universel au particulier », Sociétés contemporaines, vol. 17, no 17, p. 51-73.

Gardner, C. B. 1995. Passing By. Gender and Public Harassment, Berkeley, University of California Press.

Gilbert, C. et E. Henry. 2012. « La définition des problèmes publics : entre publicité et discrétion », Revue française de sociologie, vol. 53, no 1, p. 35-59.

Gillioz, L., J. De Puy et V. Ducret. 1997. Domination et violence envers la femme dans le couple, Lausanne, Payot.

Gillioz, L., J. De Puy et V. Ducret 2002. « Intimités piégées. La violence conjugale en Suisse », Nouvelles questions féministes, vol. 21, no 1, p. 57-80.

Godenzi, A. et C. Yodanis. (1998). Erster Bericht zu den ökonomischen Kosten der Gewalt gegen Frauen, Fribourg, Université de Fribourg.

Gusfield, J., 2009 (1981), La culture des problèmes publics. L’alcool au volant : la production d’un ordre symbolique, Paris, Economica.

Hanmer, J. 1977. « Violence et contrôle social des femmes », Questions féministes, no 1, p. 69-88.

Hanmer, J. et C. Itzin (dir). 2000. Home Truths About Domestic Violence: Feminist Influences on Policy and Practices, London, Routledge.

Hanmer, J. et M. Maynard. 1987. Women, Violence and Social Control. Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press International.

Herman, E., 2012. Féminisme, travail social et politique publique. Lutter contre les violences conjugales, thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Paris EHESS, 19 juin 2012.

Hilgartner, S. et C. Bosk. 1988. « The Rise and Fall of Social Problems: A Public Arena Model », The American Journal of Sociology, vol. 94, no 1, p. 53-78.

Htun, M. et S. L. Weldon. 2012. « The Civic Origins of Progressive Policy Change: Combating Violence Against Women in Global Perspective, 1975-2005 », American Political Science Review, vol. 106, no 3, p.548-569.

Jaspard, M. (dir). 2003. Les violences envers les femmes en France. Une enquête nationale, Paris, La Documentation française.

Johnson, M. P. 2008. A Typology of Domestic Violence: Intimate Terrorism, Violent Resistance, and Situational Couple Violence, Boston, Northeastern University Press.

Johnson, M. P. 2013. « Les types de violence familiale », dans Violences envers les femmes : Réalités complexes et nouveaux enjeux dans un monde en transformation, sous la dir. de M. Rinfret-Raynor, É. Lesieux, M.-M. Cousineau, S. Gauthier et E. Harper, Québec, Presses de l’Université du Québec, p. 15-32.

Kelly, L. 1987. « The Continuum of Sexual Violence », dans Women, Violence and Social Control, sous la dir. de J. Hanmer et M. Maynard, Atlantic Highlands, Humanities Press International, p. 46-60.

Kelly, L. 2001. From Marginal to Globalised Issue: Three Decades of Research and Activism on Violence Against Women, Inaugural professoral lecture, University of North London.

Lenoir, R. 2003. Généalogie de la morale familiale, Paris, Le Seuil.

Lieber, M. 2008. Genre, violences et espaces publics. La vulnérabilité des femmes en question, Paris, Presses de Sciences Po.

Lovett, J. et L. Kelly. 2009. Different Systems, Similar Outcomes? Tracking Attrition in Reported Rape Cases Across Europe, Londres, Metropolitan University.

Muller, P. et Y. Surel. 2000. L’analyse des politiques publiques, Paris, Montchrestien.

Ouattara, M., S. Purna et M. Thomson. 1998. « Forced Marriage, Forced Sex: The Perils of Childhood for Girls », Gender and Development, vol. 6, no 3, p. 27-33.

Radford, J. et D. Russell (dir). 1992. Femicide: The Politics of Woman Killing, New York, Macmillan.

Reid, S. 2003. Prévention de la violence à l’encontre des femmes. Une perspective européenne. Strasbourg, Éditions du Conseil de l’Europe.

Roca i Escoda, M. 2009. « L’action publique sous la loupe du genre : réflexions épistémologiques et méthodologiques », Revue de l’Institut de sociologie, Université libre de Bruxelles, 2009, p. 105-120.

Roca i Escoda, M., Lieber, M. 2015. « La mise en œuvre et les mutations d’un problème public : les violences faites aux femmes dans le canton de Genève », Oñati Socio-Legal Series, vol. 5, no 2, (À paraître).

Romito, P. 1997. Epistémologie, méthodologie et évolution sociale des études sur la santé des femmes. Nouvelles questions féministes, vol. 18, no 2, p. 35-58.

Romito, P. 2006. Un silence de mortes. La violence masculine occultée, Paris, Syllepse.

Schwander, M. 2006. Violence domestique : analyse juridique des mesures cantonales. Tour d’horizon des dispositions législatives en vigueur dans les cantons pour lutter contre la violence domestique, Berne, Bureau Fédéral de l’égalité entre femmes et hommes.

Smyth, A. 2002. « Résistance féministe à la violence masculine contre les femmes. Quelles perspectives ? », Nouvelles questions féministes, vol. 21, no 2, p. 76-92.

Trom, D. et B. Zimmermann. 2001. « Cadres et institution des problèmes publics. Le cas du chômage et du paysage », dans Les formes de l’action collective. Mobilisations dans les arènes publiques, sous la dir. de D. Trom et D. Céfaï, Paris, EHESS.

Valentine, G. 1992. « Images of Danger: Women’s Sources of Information about the Spatial Distribution of Male Violence », Area, vol. 24, no 1, p. 22-29.

Vigarello G. 1998. Histoire du viol. XVIe-XXe siècles, Paris, Seuil.

Volpi, O. 2012. La prise en charge des violences conjugales dans le Nord Pas de Calais, thèse de doctorat en sociologie, Université de Lille 1.

Walker, A. 1990. Family Violence and the Women’s Movement: the Conceptual Politics of Struggle, Toronto, University of Toronto Press.

Weldon, S. L. 2002. Protest, Policy, and the Problem of Violence Against Women: A Cross-National Comparison, Pittsburgh, University of Pittsburgh Press.

Zimmermann, B. 2003. « Eléments pour une socio-histoire des catégories de l’action publique », dans Historicités de l’action publique, sous la dir. de P. Laborier et D. Trom, Paris, PUF.

Zippel, K. 2006. The Politics of Sexual Harassment: a Comparative Study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany, New York, Cambridge University Press.

Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence électronique

Marylène Lieber et Marta Roca i Escoda, « Family Violence and Institutional Responses »Enfances Familles Générations [En ligne], 22 | 2015, mis en ligne le 08 juillet 2016, consulté le 29 mars 2024. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/efg/888

Haut de page

Auteurs

Marylène Lieber

Associate Professor

Institute of Gender Studies

Department of Sociology

University of Geneva (Switzerland)

marylene.lieber@unige.ch

Marta Roca i Escoda

Lecturer

Centre for Gender Studies LIEGE

Institute of Social Sciences – Social and Political Science

University of Lausanne (Switzerland)

Marta.RocaEscoda@unil.ch

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-NC-ND-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY-NC-ND 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search