International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement

Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

Theoretical Perspectives on
Understanding Gender-Based Violence
Jeffrey Kurebwa, Bindura University of Science Education, Zimbabwe

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the various theoretical perspectives that have been developed by various scholars
to understand gender-based violence (GBV). These theories are very important as they influence on
the interventions that can be taken to reduce GBV. The following nine theoretical perspectives will be
discussed in this article: psychological, sociological, feminism, exchange, resources, stress, economic
exclusion, intersectional, and ecological. This study will look at the strength and weaknesses of all
the theoretical perspectives.

KEywoRdS
Feminism, Gender, Gender-Based Violence, Intersectionality, Survivor, Victim, Violence Against Women

INTRodUCTIoN

Theories are important because they influence the actions chosen to address Gender Based Violence
(GBV) and frame the general understanding of a social issue (Bowman, 2002; Jasinski, 2001).
Understanding the causes of GBV is important for those who seek to prevent, predict, or intervene
to avert the occurrence of violence within intimate relationships (Cunningham, 1998). GBV which
is also termed Violence against Women (VAW) is a field where the link between theory and practice
has been quite explicit (Holtzworth-Monroe & Saunders, 1996). Theory development has proceeded
from a wide range of disciplines including criminology, law, psychiatry, psychology, public health,
social work, sociology, and women’s studies (Jasinksi, 2001; O’Neil, 1998).

definition of Gender-Based Violence

GBV is defined as an umbrella concept that describes “any form of violence used to establish, enforce,
or perpetrate gender inequalities and keep in place unequal gender-power relations.” (Fulu, Warner,
Miedemak, Jewkes, Roselli, & Lang, 2013) This includes intimate partner, physical, sexual, and/
or emotional violence, non-partner, physical or sexual violence, child marriage, and female genital
cutting (FGC). GBV cuts across economic and social status, ethnicity, and geography. GBV has major
implications for almost every aspect of health and development from access to and use of health
services to educational attainment, economic growth and full enjoyment of human rights. It is rooted
in gender-based power inequalities and puts women at a disadvantage because they generally do not
enjoy the same economic, political or social status as men.
This study also adopts the United Nations (UN) General Assembly’s 1993 definition of violence
against women as “any act of gender-based violence that results in, or is likely to result in, physical,
sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women” (United Nations, 1993). This definition’s
reference to “gender-based” violence is an acknowledgment of its origins in gender inequality; as
such, laws, institutions, and social and community norms tend to tolerate and condone violence against

DOI: 10.4018/IJPAE.2021010102

Copyright © 2021, IGI Global. Copying or distributing in print or electronic forms without written permission of IGI Global is prohibited.

17
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

women, helping to enforce it (Heise, Ellsberg, & Gottemoeller, 1999; Bott, Morrison, & Ellsberg,
2005). The analysis of types and forms of violence experienced by girls and women is organized
roughly by the life stage in which they occur.
VAW is described in the Beijing Declaration as “any act of gender-based violence that results
in, or is likely to, result in physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including
threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty in public or private” (Carrillo, Connor,
Fried, Sandler & Waldorf, 2003, p.19). VAW is mainly perpetuated through cultural norms and
traditions, reinforces male dominated power structures and systems that are commonly referred to as
patriarchy. Linked to this assertion Kilmartin & Allison (2007, p.5) clearly show that it is “any attack
directed against a (usually female) person due, at least in part, to a disadvantaged position within
male-dominated social systems”. Furthermore Kilmartin & Allison (2007, p.5) noted that GBV is
entrenched in a complicated spider’s web of “privilege, toxic masculinity and patriarchy”. This is
evidenced by the common belief in many African societies that women and children ‘belong’ to men
and do not need to have control and decision-making powers within the home and in public spaces
as well. These negative patriarchal elements are re-enforced by cultural norms and traditions that
include dowry or lobola payments. These further weaken women’s ability to be in charge of decisions-
making and their livelihoods. Although lobola was intended in its design as a way of strengthening
relations between families when marriage happens, it has been misinterpreted many times to reflect
that a woman has been sold off to a man and hence is entailed to do as instructed by the man. Stewart
(1992, p.159) indicated that once lobola is paid the woman, her child bearing and earning ability is
entirely owned by the husband. In Africa, debates on the usefulness of lobola have been intensified
with others arguing that lobola makes women commodities. On the other hand, lobola payments in
many cultures still remain an important aspect that has to happen to legitimise marriage.
One of the main violations that women and girls experience globally is rape (Carrillo, 2003,
p.11). Rape is often treated as a crime of passion rather than a misogynist act. Rape and any form
of sexual violence are often dealt with as personal, private and domestic matters, which should be
managed within the household set-up. Rape has been reported as a way of attacking, subjugating,
hurting women in countries where civil wars have raged for many years for example the Democratic
Republic of Congo. In peaceful times in many countries in Africa, raping of women and children still
occur and the perpetrators are never brought to justice. This often promotes a culture of silence as
women and children lack the voice to open up and seek justice within systems that do not recognise
gender disparities.
Violence perpetrated against a person because of their sex and the status they have in a given
society or culture is a sexist phenomenon, rooted in inequalities that exists between men and women
around the world (Baker & Cunningham, 2005). Given the historical dominance and discrimination
of women by men and the disproportionate number of women and girls who are victims of violence,
one generally speaks of VAW, although men and boys also experience GBV, especially sexual violence
(UN Women, 2015; Council of Europe, 2011; WHO, 2013). The Istanbul Convention recognises that
VAW is one of the social mechanisms by which women are held in a subordinate position to men
(Council of Europe, 2011).

Theoretical Perspectives
There are various theoretical perspectives on GBV. This section discusses the main theoretical
frameworks that have been used by various scholars in trying to explain, understand, and providing
interventions to end GBV.

Psychological Perspective
Early psychological framework of GBV focused clearly on psychological and psychiatric factors
(O’Leary, 1993). The assumption was that one or both partners had certain abnormal characteristics
that made them prone to violence. For example, women were thought to be masochistic and men to

18
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

have individual problems with loss of control and ‘excessive drive for aggressive behaviours’, which
is seen as the result of ‘genetic make-up’ and/or ‘adverse socialization experiences’ (Snell, 1964
cited in O’Leary, 1993; Lorenz, 1966 cited in Browne & Herbert, 1997, p. 28). Other psychological
frameworks of domestic violence include psychopathology, psychodynamic, interpersonal interactive
and social learning theory (Jasinski, 2001).
All of these perspectives concentrate on characteristics of individual abusers. For instance, the
psychopathology perspective suggests that men who are violent towards women have some sort of
personality disorder or mental illness (Jasinski, 2001). The interpersonal interactive perspective
focuses not only on the characteristics of abusers but also the characteristics of the victims (Toch,
1969 cited in Browne & Herbert, 1997).
In the social learning theory, violence in the home is viewed as a learned behaviour from
observing aggressive role models and/or exposure to violence (Jasinski, 2001). Although there is
some evidence to support this observation, it does not account for a large number of abusers who do
not have a childhood abuse history nor come from violent homes (Jasinski, 2001). The psychological
explanation is also limited because it fails to address the issue of power and gender (Yllo, 1993).
Further, this perspective does not provide answers as to why men with “mental illness” abuse their
wives and not others such as their employees (Yllo & Bograd, 1988).

Sociological Perspective
The core of the sociological perspective is the assumption that social structures have an effect on people
and their behaviour (Gelles, 1993). Some sociologists have investigated risk factors and predictors of
domestic violence. These factors include age, sex, socio-economic variables, social stress, and race
and ethnicity (Gelles, 1993). Gelles & Cornell (1990) proposed that factors such as work pressures,
unemployment, poverty and poor housing caused frustration and stresses at the individual level and
as a consequence lead to violence in the family. However, some scholars argue that this is a limited
view since violence is not confined to families in the lower socio-economic groups but is spread across
the class spectrum (Browne & Herbert, 1997). Sociologists also viewed family structure as a social
institution that creates a high risk for violence (Gelles, 1993). Although sociological perspectives
employ psychological variables, family factors, and the broader social context into an understanding
of domestic violence as a social issue, Yllo (1993) argued that sociological work was largely ‘gender-
neutral’ and did not focus on the patriarchal nature of these social forces in the theories. In short
social forces have led to gender inequality in the family allowing men to take control of the family
and abuse their partners.

Feminist Perspective
Researchers and clinicians using the feminist perspective view VAW as a form of social control that
emerges directly from the patriarchal structure and the ideology of the family (Dobash & Dobash,
1979; Yllo & Bograd, 1988, Yllo, 1993, 2005). Dobash & Dobash (1979) explained VAW in terms
of coercive control, which focused on the power and control that males exert over females or the
subordinate position of women in society. This power and control occurs at both societal level and in
the context of home and family. At the societal level, this can be seen as males occupying positions of
power and control in government, religious organisations and society in general. Dobash & Dobash
(1979) argued that just as males dominate females at the societal level, this also occurs in the context
of the home and family. From this perspective, the main factors that contribute to violence between
husbands and wives include the historically male-dominated social structure and socialization practices
that teach men and women gender-specific roles (Jasinski, 2001; Pagelow, 1984).
VAW from a feminist perspective also focuses on the relationship between cultural ideology of
male dominance and structural forces that limit women’s access to resources. Thus, VAW becomes
a method used by men to maintain social control and power over women and therefore is a result
of the subordinate position women occupy in the social structure. This subordination is the cultural

19
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

legacy of the traditional family (Jasinski, 2001). In other words, VAW is one manifestation of a
system of male dominance that has existed historically and across cultures (Yllo & Straus, 1990).
Some researchers have dismissed feminist perspectives on VAW. They criticized these perspectives
as narrow and unable to account for violence perpetuated by women (Dutton & Bodnarchuk, 2005;
Steinmetz, 1987 cited in Yllo, 2005).
Feminist researchers on the other hand have argued that these models provide a very broad analysis
of gender and power in society and provide fruitful insight into GBV while other perspectives do
not adequately incorporate gender issues in their explanations (Yllo, 1993). Feminist perspectives
are now becoming the dominant explanatory models for understanding GBV (Gelles, 1993). This is
because of its major strength in the “praxis or advocacy approach” (Gelles, 1993, p. 41). The central
focus of the feminist approach is about women’s victimization as a social problem and the need to
address the patterned, continuing, and harmful use of psychological and physical coercion to control
and dominate women (Gelles, 1993).
As Parker & McFarlane (1991, p. 63) argued that “physical abuse of women, specifically the
abuse of pregnant women, is central to women’s condition and oppression” and as such the application
of feminist principles to the proposed study was deemed to be appropriate, and could be used as a
framework to make sense of the findings.

Exchange Theories
Social exchange theories are particularly appealing frameworks because they explicitly allow for
consideration of financial resources (Riger & Krieglstein, 2000; Worden, 2002). Exchange theory
focuses on the structure of social relationships and the flow of benefits through social interaction. The
central premise of exchange theory is that human behaviour is in essence an exchange (Homans, 1961).
The early roots of exchange theory can be traced to utilitarian economics and classical anthropology,
while more recent attention has come from behavioural psychology and sociology (Turner, 2003;
Molm, 2001). Traditionally, social exchange theory has focused on positive or rewarding outcomes
and did not examine punishment or power based on the capacity to punish (Molm, 1997). Early
theorists, such as Homans (1974) and Blau (1964), explicitly excluded punishment and coercive
power from their scope of social exchange theory (Molm, 1997; Emerson, 1962; 1972). Only more
recently has attention focused on relations of dependence characterized by unequal power and conflict
(Molm, 1997; 2001) and specifically intimate partner violence (Worden, 2002). Virtually all social
exchange theories are premised explicitly on four core assumptions (Molm, 1997). These basic
concepts focus on the actors who exchange, the exchange resources, the structure of the exchange,
and the process of exchange. The first assumption brings attention to how actors are dependent on
one another for outcomes they value. The mutual dependence on one another for valued resources
provides the structural basis for their power over each other (Molm, 2001; Molm, Quist, & Wisely,
1994). Following the “principle of least interest,” the partner who has the more resources is less
dependent on the relationship (Homans,1974]). The second assumption highlights how actors are
self-interested, seeking to increase outcomes they positively value and decrease outcomes they
negatively value (Molm, 2001; Molm & Cook, 1995; Molm, Quist, & Wisely, 1994). While humans
are not perfectly rational, they do engage in calculations of costs and benefits in social transactions
and attempt to make some benefit from their social transactions with others (Turner, 2003). The
third assumption captures the basic premise of exchange theory that social relations are formed and
maintained because actors provide reciprocal benefits over time. Actors engage in recurring, mutually
contingent exchanges with specific partners over time (Molm & Cook, 1995). The final assumption
suggests that all outcomes of value follow a principal of satiation or as described in economic terms
as diminishing marginal utility.

20
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

Resource Theory
Resource theory is a social-psychological framework for understanding social interactions and
relationships. It is closely related to social exchange theory and some researchers have suggested
resource theory and exchange theories are conceptually equivalent (McCloskey; 1996). Some scholars
describe these frameworks as separate theories (Kurst-Swanger, & Petcosky, 2003; Loue, 2001), while
others, view resource theory as one perspective situated within the framework of exchange theory
(Jasinksi, 2001). Like social exchange theory, this framework points to resource deficits as significant
risk factors of intimate partner violence and focuses attention on the balance or imbalance of resources
within the couple as underlying the use of violence (Fox, 2002; Kaukinen, 2004; McCloskey, 1996).
In contrast to exchange theory, this framework has not been as fully elaborated and makes slightly
different predictions about intimate partner violence (Hesse-Biber & Williamson, 1984). Resource
theory was first articulated as a framework for studying power within the family by Wolfe (1959)
and was subsequently elaborated by Blood & Wolfe (1960). Blood & Wolfe (1960) perceived a close
relationship between power and resources. From their perspective, power is viewed as the potential
ability of one individual to influence the behaviour of another. Resources are conceptualized broadly
to include anything one individual can offer to another to help that person satisfy needs or attain
goals (Hesse-Biber, & Williamson, 1984). The work of Goode (1971) represents one of the earliest
applications of resource theory to violence within intimate partnerships. Goode (1971) characterized
resources that can be used to exert power within intimate relationships into four groups: economic
variables; prestige and respect; force and its threat; and likeability, attractiveness, friendship, and
love (Goode, 1971).
Goode (1971) argued that individuals who possess economic resources, prestige, and likeability/
love generally will not feel the need to use threats or overt force. Thus, male violence is a resource of
last resort, when other resources are unavailable or have proved ineffective (Goode, 1971). Building
on the work of Goode (1971), Allen & Straus (1980) describe violence as the “ultimate resource”
that will be invoked by a person who lacks other resources used to derive power within relationships.
Specifically, comparative resources theory suggests a status inconsistency hypothesis where the risk of
male violence is heightened in couples in which the female’s economic contribution meets or exceeds
the male’s contribution to their economic well being (Allen & Straus, 1980; Atkinson, Greenstein
& Lang, 2005; Fox, 2002; Goode, 1971). Additionally, resource theory suggests that in couples
with male superiority in earnings in work history, male violence might be more likely if violence is
construed as a privilege of his greater resource contribution and simultaneously as a reflection of
his partner’s relative economic vulnerability (Fox, 2002). Resource theory contends that the power
differential between partners influences the propensity towards violence (Anderson, 1997). The most
powerful people tend to abuse the least powerful individuals; therefore, the less power a female has,
as compared to her partner, the greater the risk of abuse.
From this perspective intimate violence occurs when a man loses his instrumental and symbolic
role as a breadwinner (Gibson-Davis, 2005). As women become more economically independent,
men may resort to an available resource—namely violence—to compensate for both their labour
market difficulties and for their frustrations when women become chief breadwinners (Fox, 2002;
McCloskey, 1996).

Stress Theories
Stress is considered a significant risk factor for VAW (Farrington, 1986; Jasinski, 2001; Kurst-Swanger
& Petcosky, 2003; Pagelow, 1984). Although stress has received inconsistent attention within the GBV
literature, it has been the focus of several theorists who have generally taken two paths: the family
stress perspective and the environmental stress perspective. The first approach focuses on individuals
within the family and the characteristics that make families particularly prone to stress. In contrast,
the environmental stress perspective examines the structural characteristics of society that result in
a disparate distribution of opportunities.

21
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

Violence has long been viewed as a problem for families with increased levels of stress (Kurst-
Swanger & Petcosky, 2003). Farrington (1980; 1986) is one of the first researchers to specifically
focus on the role stress plays in family violence.
Following general stress theorists, Farrington (1986) suggested stress is a multidimensional
concept that involves both objective and subjective components. The objective component involves
a stressor stimulus or series of stressor stimuli and the objective reality that stress or stimulus has on
the individual, independent of any cognitive perception or interpretation on the part of the individual.
The subjective element relates to the definition of the situation arrived at by the individual or social
system. Stress is then viewed as a discrepancy between the demand posed by the objective and/or
subjective demands of a stressor stimulus and the coping behaviour(s) drawn from the individual’s
or social system’s response capabilities (Farrington, 1986). From this perspective violence is not
likely to be the most frequent response to stress (Farrington, 1986). It is also neither a necessary nor
a sufficient condition for violence to occur (Farrington, 1986). With the exception of Cano & Vivian
(2001), most researchers (e.g. Farrington, 1986; Straus, 1990), do not argue that stress directly causes
violence. A number of important precipitating and mediating variables operate to determine whether
a particular individual will respond to stress or the frustration resulting from an unresolved stress
experience in a violent manner (Farrington, 1986; Straus, 1990).
Mediating factors can include the sex of the actor, socio-economic position, past experiences
with violent behaviour, and the extent to which violence is viewed as an acceptable response to a
stressful situation within the actor’s family and subculture, norms related to the legitimacy of violence
within the family, and the involuntary nature of family membership (Straus, 1990). Families are often
not adequately equipped with the necessary resources to manage demanding situations (Farrington,
1986; Straus, 1990). The family stress theory suggests that diminished economic resources may lead
to conflict in intimate relationships (Riggs, 2000; Straus, 1990; Straus, 1980). Work related stressors
such as unemployment and chronic poverty may be particularly stressful situations for men. These
stressors, leading to frustration, in turn may heighten the risk of husband to wife violence (Jasinski,
2001; Riggs, 2000). When demands are intolerable, violence may be an acceptable response to the
stressful situation (Jasinski, 2001).

Economic Exclusion/Male Peer Support

The economic exclusion/male peer support model conceptualizes violence as a multi-faceted
phenomenon caused by a combination of micro- and macro-level factors. This framework has emerged
relatively recently and is grounded in the theoretical work by DeKeseredy & Schwartz (1993);
Sernau (2001), and Young (1999). The economic exclusion model contends that major economic
transformations, such as the shift from a manufacturing to a service based economy, stagnating
wages, and downsizing and outsourcing of jobs, led to an increase in formal labour market exclusion.
These changes have contributed to alarmingly high unemployment rates and a class of “postmodern
serfs” composed of underemployed, deskilled, and disposable service workers (DeKeseredy, Alvi,
& Schwartz, 2006). In the face of these changes, being an economic provider is still fundamental to
most men’s self identity and part of women’s expectations (Edin, 2000; Kenney 2006). Consequently,
more men are left to cope with the stress of being unable to be a “good breadwinner” and they often
turn to their male peers for support (DeKeseredy, Alvi, & Schwartz, 2006).
Male peer support has been described as the attachments to male peers and the resources through
which these men perpetuate and legitimate violence against women (DeKeseredy, 1990). Male peer
support models initially were used to examine VAW and the influence of memberships in primary
social groups that subscribe to patriarchal ideologies. They have been used to explain rape and sexual
assault against college women, women in public housing as well violence perpetrated by men in
the military, and male student athletes (DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 2002; Rosen, Kaminski, Palmley,
Knudson & Fancher, 2003). The male peer support model takes account of a number of factors
including a patriarchal social structure, male peer social support, membership in social groups, alcohol

22
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

use, and lack of deterrence. Expanding the traditional social bond theory of crime and delinquency,
Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy (2001) argue that deviance is a culturally relative construct and
that some behaviours defined by scholars as ‘deviant’ are in fact acts of conformity to the norms that
are conventional within certain communities or social groups. Within these groups men feel pressured
to adopt values associated with VAW (Godenzi, Schwartz, & DeKeseredy, 2001). Male peer support
groups provide positive reinforcement and social rewards for behaviour the group considers appropriate
(DeKeseredy & Schwartz, 1993). In addition there is a lack of punishment and deterrence. Violence
against women is seen as a legitimate and effective means to repair “damaged” masculinity. Peers
also serve as role models because many of them beat their own intimate partners. While a limited
number of studies have tested the economic exclusion/male peer support model it is consistent with
the larger body of research that has concluded the risk of domestic violence is exacerbated when
economic differentials favour women.

Intersectional Theory
Intersectionality is a method, rooted in black feminism and critical race theory and an analytical tool
that can move according to time, disciplines, issues and boundaries of gender and economic justice
(Devon, 2013; Samuels & Sheriff, 2008). The basic concern of intersectionality is to investigate how
women of colour are subjected to gender discrimination and race discrimination at the same time.
Traditionally these forms of discrimination were viewed as separate (Monk, 2011). Edna (2012)
also mentioned that intersectionality theorizes that inequality is a mutual constitution of different
systems of oppressions i.e. gender, race and class. It focuses on how these are combined to form a
single oppression. However, this is inadequate.
The intersectional theory is encompassed to international level and a wide range of experiences
and power structures of different genders, ethnicities and sexual orientations that have an ability to
analyze conflicting trajectories of equality (Devon, 2013). Critiques of intersectionality believe that
there is no particular position of intersectionality and ability to illustrate the larger picture (Devon,
2013). On the contrary, the researchers have found that when intersectionality theory is applied to
social building and political change, it emphasize commonalities and create solidarity among different
political groups and that helps in the mutual acknowledgement of oppressive structures and the
struggles linked to those oppressions. Intersectionality and Violence Against Women
Monk (2011) observed that intersectionality has an ambiguity and somewhat confusing, but
it offers comprehensive tools for VAW. VAW can specifically be analysed with intersectionality in
the same context, it actually executed (Monk, 2011, p. 106). Researchers also added that studying
VAW through the lens of intersectionality helps in creating connections around different experiences
of discrimination, marginalization, and privilege by revealing the issues between different groups
and also the perspective of both victims and privilege because individuals can be identified with
different social groups and at the same time are vulnerable to both discrimination and privilege and
thus intersectionality facilitate cross-study (Devon, 2013; Hankivsky, 2009).

The Ecological Model

Research on violence considers risk factors of violence rather than causes of violence; a risk factor
contributes to violence by increasing its likelihood of occurring. Similarly, protective factors decrease
the likelihood of violence. The ecological approach does not attribute the cause of violence against
women and girls to any single factor. Rather, the ecological model posits that violence is a function
of multiple factors that interact at various levels of the social ecology, including (a) life histories
and personality factors that women and men bring to their relationships; (b) situational and context
factors that shape their daily lives; and (c) norms and messages that are reinforced by family members,
friends, and social institutions as appropriate behaviour for women and men. As Heise (2011, vi)
explains: “These norms and expectations are in turn shaped by structural factors—such as religious
institutions and ideology and the distribution of economic power between men and women—that

23
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

work to define beliefs and norms about violence and structure women’s options for escaping violent
relationships.” Socio-cultural factors themselves can be imagined to operate at two levels: (a) through
those structures that impinge directly on the individual’s immediate context; and (b) through the
broader social norms that influence those structures.
The ecological model constitutes a framework of analysis widely used in research into violence
against women, young people or the elderly (Heise, 1998, 2011; Garcia-Moreno, 2012). This model
helps us understand the root causes and risk factors of violence by taking into account the context in
which people live, whether they are perpetrators of violence or ‘survivors’. This context influences
the condition (physical and mental health or access to basic services), and the position (status and
the social recognition granted) of an individual and their ability to reject gender norms and male
domination. The risk of perpetrating or suffering from violence is thus understood at four different
levels:

1. The individual level covers a person’s personal history and biological characteristics that will
influence their behaviour.
2. The relationship level explores how social behaviours, attitudes and dynamics are influenced
by other household or family members, as well as economic resources and levels of education.
At this level, it is necessary to examine how interpersonal relationships, and prevailing social
norms, influence the institutions of marriage, sexual behaviours that are tolerated (or not tolerated)
and the opportunities for men and women to occupy different roles, to access information or to
engage in income-generating activities (Marcus, 2014).
3. At the community level, intermediary institutions (both formal and customary) can allow,
or prevent – depending on the context – the implementation of public health and protection
programmes and channel funding towards activities against GBV. Analysis at this level needs to
examine the existence and performance of protection services (shelters or police services), health
services (clinics, hospitals, psycho-social support centres) and legal and judicial services (legal
assistance in divorce matters, custody matters, inheritance; sanctions against cases of violence;
lawyers, criminal courts, high courts). It should also explore the importance of traditional
institutions and religious norms, particularly in community-based conflict resolution (Samuels,
2017).
4. Finally, at the societal level, the macro-economic, historical, ideological and political legacies
of the country or geographical region influence the governance in place, the ratification of
international conventions on the rights of women, the existence of national policies that promote
equality and the allocation of public funding or aid to the social sector. Integrated analysis of
these different levels makes it possible to understand the factors that perpetuate violence and
potential areas for intervention to change discriminatory social norms.

These complex factors of abuse reflect how a range of factors not only perpetuate but sustain
GBV. The ecological model provides a comprehensive analysis on how some communities are more
prone to violence than others and why this actually escalates in times of, for example, war and political
instability. In most cultures certain behaviours or attitudes trigger GBV. For example in a study
conducted in rural South Africa, Kim & Motsei (2002) indicated that among men justified physical
abuse against women were frequently described, using terms such as ‘discipline’ and ‘punishment’
and that most men felt it was ‘justified’ to beat a woman. The study also noted most women, despite
race, acknowledged that social norms of such violence existed and that certain behaviours increased the
possibility of violence, including alcohol abuse and a wife’s sexual infidelity. Kabeer (2015) affirms
this by stating that conflicts revolving around food emerged as a trigger for violence as women were
beaten if there was not enough food, if the food did not taste right or if they were found tasting it
before the husband. Kabeer (2015:194) further explains that wife-beating were frequently “an outlet
for men’s powerlessness in the face of grinding poverty”.

24
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

The ecological framework seeks to understand the context of violence and promotes accountability
at all levels by demanding interventions that are appropriate to the context. Cabrera (2010:39)
substantiates this in a study on VAW in Latin America, by stating that in Guatemala the most serious
abuses occur in rural areas where women do not know about their rights and are perceived as the
property of their spouses. Similarly in Tanzania “violence against women is culturally regarded on
a continuum with the use of physical punishment to control children, and is broadly accepted” thus
high levels of need in terms of awareness and rights sensitisation (McClokesy, Williams & Larsen,
2005: 129). It is critical to note that where there is generally a culture of violence or even in times
of war, GBV increases.
In 2002 the WHO published the World Report on Violence and Health that used an ecological
model to understand the multi-faceted nature of violence, by identifying the biological and personal
history factors that affects individual behaviour (WHO, 2002:13). The study further noted that when
an analysis is conducted using an ecological perspective, there are some risk factors that are peculiar
to certain types of victims, for example women who are prone to intimate partner violence, being more
vulnerable to sexual violence (WHO, 2002:15). To further this theory on how violence is perpetuated,
a study conducted in Bangladesh revealed that some aspects of a woman’s status would increase or
decrease the risk of being beaten, depending on the social context, which found that some aspects of
women’s status could either increase or decrease a woman’s risk of being beaten, depending on the
socio-cultural conditions of the community in which she lives (Bott, Morrisson & Elseberg, 2004:14).
The study found that in some settings that were “characterised by more conservative norms regarding
women’s roles and status, women with greater personal autonomy and those who participated for a
short time in savings and credit groups experienced more violence than women with less autonomy”.
This goes to show that various settings and contexts will either increase or decrease the possibility
and magnitude of violence.
The strength of the ecological framework is its power to identify the multiple levels of interaction
at which risk factors may operate. This framework serves two purposes: (a) It is a useful and clear
means of organizing a large body of literature on factors that predict violence against women and girls;
and (b) The framework identifies the level or levels of social interaction at which a risk factor operates.
It allows for more precise targeting and development of interventions to address particular risks.

CoNCLUSIoN

The theories reviewed above provide evidence that theorists are beginning to address the connection
between GBV and socio-economic factors. Reviewing these efforts has also brought attention to areas
that should receive attention in order to improve our theoretical understanding of the relationship
between GBV and socio-economic factors. Many frameworks explaining intimate partner violence
consist of similar ideas and subsequently lack theoretical clarity. The distinction between social
exchange theory and resource theory, for example, is rarely well articulated. This lack of agreement
is indicative of the need to recognize and explore the discrepancies within the theoretical literature.
Theoretical clarity will be particularly useful in order to empirically test a theory.
Additionally, the empirical evidence in support of these theories is another primary concern.
Developing a comprehensive and useful theory requires ongoing empirical investigation (quantitative
and qualitative) (Bersani & Chen, 1988). While the theoretical literature explaining GBV is immense,
the empirical data in support of these theories is little (Margolin, Sibner, & Gleberman, 1988). The
lack of empirical evidence is particularly pronounced when considering theories that integrate socio-
economic factors. Contributions to the theoretical literature would be strengthened with the addition
of empirical evidence. The work of Yick (2001); Riger & Krieglstein (2000), for example, represent
ambitious attempts at theory development. While these are valuable contributions to the development
of scientific knowledge, they leave much of what we ‘know’ at the level of theoretical speculation
(Farrington, 1986). For this reason it is imperative that there be greater empirical investigation in

25
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

terms of testing the utility of theoretical models and looking specifically at the relationships between
socio-economic factors and violence. There remain many questions about the relationship of socio-
economic factors and violence, which can only be answered through additional investigation.

26
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

REFERENCES

Allen, C. M., & Straus, M. A. (1980). Resources, power and husband-wife violence. In M. A. Straus & G. T.
Hotaling (Eds.), The social causes of husband-wife violence (pp. 188–208). University of Minnesota Press.
Atkinson, M. P., Greensten, T. N., & Lang, M. M. (2005). For women breadwinning can be dangerous: Gendered
resource theory and wife abuse. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(5), 1137–1148. doi:10.1111/j.1741-
3737.2005.00206.x
Baker, L., & Cunningham, A. (2005). Enseigner en quoi consiste la violence faite aux femmes et ses effets sur
les enfants. Centre for Children and Families in the Justice System. London Family Court Clinic, Inc.
Ballantine, C. (2017). Working Paper No.5 - Pakistan: The Economic and Social Impact of Violence Against
Women and Girls (VAWG), UK aid. Available from: https://www.whatworks.co.za
Bersani, C., & Chen, H. T. (1988). Sociological perspectives in family violence. In V. B. Van Hasselt, R. L.
Bellack, & R. L. Morrison (Eds.), Handbook of family violence (pp. 57–86). Plenum Press. doi:10.1007/978-
1-4757-5360-8_4
Bhattacharya, S. (2014). Status of women in Pakistan. J.R.S.P., 51(1), 179-211.
Blood, R. O., & Wolfe, D. M. (1965). Husbands & wives: The dynamics of married living. Free Press.
Bott, S., Jejeebhoy, S., Shah, I., & Puri, C. (2003). Towards Adulthood: Exploring the Sexual and Reproductive
Health of Adolescents in South Asia. World Health Organization.
Bott, S., Morrison, A., & Ellsberg, M. (2004). Preventing and Responding to Gender-based Violence in Middle
and Low-income Countries: a Multi-sectoral Literature Review and Analysis. Academic Press.
Bowman, C. G. (2003). Theories of domestic violence in the African context. The American University Journal
of Gender, Social Policy & the Law, 11(2), 847–863.
Cunningham, A., Jaffe, P. G., Baker, L., Dick, T., Malla, S., & Mazaheri, N. (1998). Theory-derived explanations
of male violence against female partners: Literature update. London Family Court Clinic.
Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against the patriarchy. The Free Press.
Dutton, D. G., & Bodnarchuk, M. (2005). Through a psychological lens: Personality disorder and spouse assault.
In D. R. Loseke, R. J. Gelles, & M. M. Cavanaugh (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence (2nd ed.).
Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483328584.n1
Edin, K. (2000). What do low-income single mothers say about marriage? Social Problems, 47(1), 112–133.
doi:10.2307/3097154
Edna, V. (2012). More than culture: Structural racism, intersectionality theory, and immigrant health. Social
Science & Medicine, 75(12), 2099–2106. doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2011.12.037
Farrington, K. (1986). The application of stress theory to the study of family violence: Principles, problems and
prospects. Journal of Family Violence, 1(2), 131–149. doi:10.1007/BF00977249
Fulu, E., Warner, X, Miedemak, S., Jewkes, R., Roselli, T., & Lang, J. (2013). Why do some men use violence
against women and how can we prevent it. Quantitative findings from the United Nations Multi-Country Study
on Men and Violence in Asia and the Pacific. Academic Press.
Garcia-Moreno, C., Jansen, H. A., Ellsberg, M., Heise, L., & Watts, C. H. (2006). Prevalence of intimate partner
violence: Findings from the WHO Multi-Country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence. Lancet,
368(9543), 1260–1269. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(06)69523-8
Gelles, R. J. (1993). Through a sociological lens: Social structure and family violence. In R. J. Gelles & D. R.
Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence. Sage.
Gibson-Davis, C. M., Edin, K., & McLanahan, S. (2005). High hopes but even higher expectations: The
retreat from marriage among low-income couples. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 67(5), 1301–1312.
doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2005.00218.x

27
International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

Goode, W. J. (1971). Force and violence in the family. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 33(4), 624-636.
Hall, J. M., & Stevens, P. E. (1991). Rigor in feminist research. Advances in Nursing Science, 13(3), 16–29.
doi:10.1097/00012272-199103000-00005
Heise, L. (1998). Violence against women: An integrated, ecological framework. Violence Against Women, 4(3),
262–290. doi:10.1177/1077801298004003002
Heise, L. (2011). What works to prevent partner violence? An evidence overview. UK Department for International
Development.
Hesse-Biber, S., & Williamson, J. (1984). Resource theory and power in families: Life cycle considerations.
Family Process, 23(2), 261–278. doi:10.1111/j.1545-5300.1984.00261.x
Holtzworth-Munroe, A., Bates, L., Smitzler, N., & Sandin, E. (1997). A brief review of the research on husband
violence - Part I: Maritally violent versus nonviolent men. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 2(1), 65–99.
doi:10.1016/S1359-1789(96)00015-8
Im, E. (2000). A feminist critique of research on women’s work and health. Health Care for Women International,
21(2), 105–119. doi:10.1080/073993300245339
Jasinski, J. L. (2001). Theoretical explanations for violence against women. In C. M. Renzetti, J. L. Edleson, &
R. K. Bergen (Eds.), Sourcebook on violence against women (pp. 5–21). Sage Publications.
Kabeer, N. (2015). Gender, Poverty, and Inequality: A Brief History of Feminist Contributions in the Field of
International Development. Gender and Development, 23(2), 189–205. doi:10.1080/13552074.2015.1062300
Kaukinen, C. (2004). Status compatibility, physical violence, and emotional abuse in intimate relationships.
Journal of Marriage and the Family, 66(2), 452–471. doi:10.1111/j.1741-3737.2004.00031.x
Kilmartin, J., & Allison, C. (2007). Men’s Violence against Women: Theory, Research and Activism. Lawrence
Erlbaum Associates. doi:10.4324/9780203937136
Kim, J., & Motsei, M. (2002). Women Enjoy Punishment: Attitudes and Experience of Gender-Based Violence
Among PHC Nurses in Rural South Africa. Social Science & Medicine, 54(8), 1243–1254. doi:10.1016/S0277-
9536(01)00093-4
Kurst-Swanger, K., & Petcosky, J. L. (2003). Violence in the home: Multidisciplinary perspectives. Oxford
University Press. doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195165180.001.0001
Marcus, R., & Harper, C. (2014). Gender justice and social norms – processes of change for adolescent girls.
Towards a conceptual framework 2. Overseas Development Institute.
Monk, H. (2011). Understanding Sexed and Racialised Violence: An Intersectional Approach (PhD thesis).
University of Central Lancashire. Available from: https://core.ac.uk
O’Leary, K. D. (1993). Through a psychological lens: Personal traits, personality disorders, and levels of violence.
In R. J. Gelles & D. R. Loseke (Eds.), Current Controversies on Family Violence. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
O’Neill, D. (1998). A post-structuralist review of the theoretical literature surrounding wife abuse. Violence
Against Women, 4(4), 457–490. doi:10.1177/1077801298004004005
Pagelow, M. D. (1984). Family violence. Praeger.
Parker, B., & McFarlane, J. (1991). Feminist theory and nursing: An empowerment model for research. Advances
in Nursing Science, 13(3), 59–67. doi:10.1097/00012272-199103000-00008
Riger, S., & Krieglstein, M. (2000). The impact of welfare reform on men’s violence against women. American
Journal of Community Psychology, 28(5), 631–647. doi:10.1023/A:1005193603532
Riggs, D. S., Caulfield, M. B., & Street, A. E. (2000). Risk for domestic violence: Factors associated with
perpetration and victimization. Journal of Clinical Psychology, 56(10), 1289–1316. doi:10.1002/1097-
4679(200010)56:10<1289::AID-JCLP4>3.0.CO;2-Z

28
 International Journal of Political Activism and Engagement
Volume 8 • Issue 1 • January-March 2021

Rosen, L. N., Kaminski, R. J., Moore Palmley, A., & Knudson, K. (2003). The effects of peer group climate on
intimate partner violence among married male U.S. army soldiers. Violence Against Women, 9(9), 1045–1071.
doi:10.1177/1077801203255504
Samuels, F., Jones, N., & Gupta, T. (2017). Tackling intimate partner violence in South Asia. Why working with
men and boys matters for women. Overseas Development Institute.
Samuels, G., & Sheriff, F. (2008). Identity, Oppression, and Power Feminisms and Intersectionality Theory.
Journal of Women and Social Work, 23(1), 5–9. doi:10.1177/0886109907310475
Schwartz, M. D., & DeKeseredy, W. S. (1997). Sexual Assault on the College Campus: The Role of Male Peer
Support. Sage.
Sernau, S. (2001). Worlds Apart: Social Inequalities in a New Century. Pine Forge Press.
Steward, S. (1992). Working the System: Sensitizing the Police to the Plight of Women. In M. Schuler (Ed.),
Freedom from Violence: Women’s Strategies from Around the World (pp. 157–171). PACT Communications.
Straus, M. A. (1980). Behind closed doors: Violence in the American family (M. A. Straus, R. J. Gelles, & S.
K. Steinmetz, Eds.; 1st ed.). Anchor Press/Doubleday.
Straus, M. A. (1990). Ordinary violence, child abuse and wife beating: What do they have in common? In M. A.
Straus & R. J. Gelles (Eds.), Physical violence in American families: Risk factors and adaptations to violence
in 8,145 families (pp. 213–234). Transaction.
United Nations. (1993). Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women. United Nations General
Assembly A/RES/48/104, 85th plenary meeting, December 20, 1993. www.un.org Retreived 20 May 2020.
Vardeman, J. (2013). Information-Seeking Outcomes of Representational, Structural, and Political Intersectionality
among Health Media Consumers. Journal of Applied Communication Research, 41(4), 389–411. doi:10.1080
/00909882.2013.828360
WHO. (2005). WHO Multi-country Study on Women’s Health and Domestic Violence against Women. WHO.
WHO. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: prevalence and health effects of intimate
partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. Department of Reproductive Health and Research, WHO,
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine and South African Medical Research Council.
Wolfe, D. M. (1959). Power and authority in the family. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp.
99–118). University of Michigan Press.
Women, U. N. (2015). Glossaire des termes tires. Essentials de la programmation et de suivi et sections
d’évaluation. New York: UN Women.
Yick, A. G. (2001). Feminist theory and status inconsistency theory: Application to domestic violence in Chinese
immigrant families. Violence Against Women, 7(5), 545–562. doi:10.1177/10778010122182596
Yllo, K., & Bograd, M. (Eds.). (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse. Sage.

Jeffrey Kurebwa holds a PhD in Public Administration. He has published extensively in the areas of gender equality,
gender-based violence, community development, and local governance. Currently he is working as a Lecturer in
the Department of Peace and Governance at Bindura University of Science Education in Zimbabwe.

29