Article

Social Change Movements and the Struggle Over Meaning-Making: A Case Study of Domestic Violence Narratives

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, 601 East Daniel Street, Champaign, IL 61820, USA.
American Journal of Community Psychology (Impact Factor: 1.74). 10/2008; 42(3-4):220-34. DOI: 10.1007/s10464-008-9199-3
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT Social movement theorists have emphasized the important role of meaning-making for social change movements (e.g., D. A. Snow and R. D. Benford, 1992, In: A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.) Frontiers in social movement theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp 133-155; C. M. Mueller, 1992, In: A. D. Morris & C. M. Mueller (Eds.) Frontiers in social movement theory. Yale University Press, New Haven, CT, pp 3-26). Using the domestic violence movement as a case study, this study undertakes a close analysis of advocates' narratives about the phenomenon of domestic violence. This analysis sheds light on the current status of the movement as a social change movement attempting to promote alternative understandings of domestic violence as a social, rather than individual, problem. Study findings provide some evidence that the domestic violence movement has become increasingly de-politicized by documenting a range of narratives that convey an apolitical, degendered, individual-level analysis of domestic violence.

1 Bookmark
 · 
85 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The feminist debate on no-drop prosecution is long-standing. However, the ways liberal and radical feminist perspectives inform advocacy in applied settings are limited in the extant research. Drawing from interviews with 26 domestic violence (DV) victim advocates, the current study examines perspectives and practices of victim advocates in no-drop prosecution cases. Two predominate themes emerged-a survivor-defined approach to advocacy emphasizing the individual situations and choices of battered women, and a social change approach focusing on changing the social structures that tolerate violence against women. Findings indicated the relationship between such practices was complex, overlapping, and at times contradictory. While advocates generally supported no-drop prosecution with the goal of social change, survivor-defined approaches superseded social change efforts for a majority of advocates. Survivor-centered advocacy and no-drop prosecution at times conflicted with one another. Advocates described victims' concerns about safety, livelihood, and trauma testifying in court as challenges to the policy, as well as the practice of holding victims in contempt of court and jailing them for not testifying. At the same time, advocates illustrated how survivor-defined advocacy complimented prosecution by addressing women's myriad of needs and concerns related to prosecution. Advocates indicated that victims were more likely to safely participate in prosecution when their individual needs were addressed. Implications for DV victim advocacy are presented.
    Journal of Interpersonal Violence 01/2014; 29(11). DOI:10.1177/0886260513516385 · 1.64 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Once an intervention has been found to be effective, it is important to examine the processes and factors within the program that led to its success. The current study examined survivors’ reflections on the Community Advocacy Project, an empirically supported intervention for women with abusive partners. The study examined the service delivery processes that survivors affirmed or identified as core components of the intervention. Qualitative analysis of interviews with 51 survivors indicated that 3 main service delivery elements contributed to positive outcomes: orientation to the whole person, unconditional validation and acceptance, and an orientation to information provision and action. These overarching themes are described and implications for domestic violence services and dissemination are discussed.
    Journal of Community Psychology 01/2013; 40:1-18. DOI:10.1002/jcop.21502 · 0.99 Impact Factor
  • Source