“Violence” can be defined, in the first instance, as the use of force against another person or entity. Violence can be physical, sexual or psychological and can also take the form of deprivation. It can occur between individuals (family, community), have a collective character (as in social, political and economic violence) or be self-inflicted. “Economic violence” can entail taking economic advantage of people, in different contexts such as the workplace or the family. “Structural violence” describes violence occurring within and supported by social structures and institutions. Racism, sexism and classism are forms of structural violence. Structural violence functions interdependently with other types of violence, including gender-based violence, war or intra-family violence.
European scholars writing after the Second World War have supported the thesis of a decline in violence in the modern period, as a result of a ‘civilizing’ process that led to the repression of brutality (Elias)(1), the shift from state brutality to discipline (Foucault)(2) and the increasing exercise of violence through cultural forms rather than mere coercion (Bourdieu’s “symbolic violence”(3)). An early postwar exception to this line of arguing, Franz Fanon’s “The Wretched of the Earth”(4) has portrayed violence as the mark of colonial governance, ever-present and arbitrary. The growing visibility of feminist and post-colonial frameworks in the past decades led to renewed attention towards the continued existence of quotidian physical violence in most people’s lives and the connection between interpersonal and inter-state violence. Furthermore, there is a growing awareness that violence overwhelmingly targets or affects disadvantaged social groups; previously, it was frequently argued the most disadvantaged persons were also the main perpetrators of interpersonal violence due to the frustrations of economic deprivation(5).
In certain frameworks of thought, such as Marxism and the related socialist feminism, violence is the mark of the exercise of power and necessary for maintaining a hold on power (see Power). For others, among which the philosopher Hanna Arendt, power (as something that only emerges through collective action as per her conception) is entirely distinct from the use of force and the exercise of authority. Yet others have pointed out that physical violence and coercion are not always necessary to maintain existing power arrangements, that people can be disciplined to regulate themselves(6). Indeed, it can be argued that one of the main fault lines between Marxian and post-structuralist feminists is drawn between different understandings of the relationship between power and violence.
In the past three decades, one of the most interesting interventions in public discussions about violence with important consequences in activism and policy-making, has been the socialist and liberal feminist problematization of violence against women and then of gender-based violence more broadly. They argued that violence against women is a result of patriarchal domination or liberal states’ unwillingness to intervene in the “private sphere”. The internationalization of European and American human rights discourses on violence against women has been criticized, particularly by feminists themselves, as having neglected local dynamics, bolstered state social control and promoted professionalization and NGOization around the world(7) (see NGOization). On the other hand, as in the case of Lebanon, the evolution of approaches to gender-based violence, including the problematization of a historically-dominant “Violence Against Women” conceptual framework, point to a more complex form of cultural and policy transfer in the so-called developing world.
“Violence against women” (VAW) was a term established following several international conferences during which activists and NGOs pressured for the international recognition of violence against women as a central issue in the fight for women’s rights and gender equality. As a result, the United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence in 1993 states that “violence against women is a manifestation of historically unequal power relations between men and women, which have led to domination over and discrimination against women by men and to the prevention of the full advancement of women, and that violence against women is one of the crucial social mechanisms by which women are forced into a subordinate position compared with men”(8). Thus, in this framework, VAW may be considered as a form of discrimination against women.
“Gender-based violence” (GBV) refers to any act of violence based on social gender differences. For women, GBV could take the form of discrimination in access to services, sexual exploitation (trafficking), sexual harassment, domestic violence, spoliation. GBV can also be analyzed in the broader social context where male privilege and power over women is reinforced through violence. Women are more at risk in times of conflict, since they are more vulnerable to sexual violence (including rape) but also to domestic violence, early marriage, or cases of what was coined as “survival sex”: the exchange of sex for food or help, as was observed recently in the wake of the Syrian refugee crisis in Lebanon(9). An increase in GBV against men is also observable in times of conflicts, but ideas about masculinity and other gender stereotypes are often obstacles in men disclosing gender-based violence perpetrated against them(10).
It has been argued that both the VAW framework and dominant understandings of “non-discrimination” can reaffirm gender binaries and lead to the exclusion of gender non-conforming individuals(11). This debate is illustrated by the ongoing discussion around the law for the protection of women from family violence, voted in Lebanon in 2014 and spearheaded by the NGO KAFA. By identifying women as the sole recipients of such violence, the law does not cover gay men, transwomen victims of family violence (nevertheless, the Lebanese LBGT movement strongly supported the campaign since it was seen as granting some protection to queer and lesbian women)(12). In this context, Lebanese activists face the constant struggle of raising awareness about the differences between notions of VAW and GBV.
Activists in Lebanon try to differentiate between عنف على اساس النوع الاجتماعي (GBV) and على اساس الجنس (sex-based violence). Also, activists and NGOs work on popularizing terms such as ناجية (survivor) instead of ضحية (victim) and emphasizes the rights of violence survivors, especially in legal discussions and discourses. This is meant to avoid reproducing the discourse on women as societal victims and ascribing violence only to cis-men – meanings that exist implicitly in the VAW framework. Furthermore, activists worked on shifting the language of violence, from “domestic violence” (منزلي), to “family violence” (أسري). The latter term allows for the incorporation of cases that could occur outside the household, an important intervention considering the structure of kinship in Lebanon and the frequent perpetration of GBV by members of the extended family. The downside of a definition of family that refers to kinship networks is the exclusion of familial forms such as non-married couples or queer families. An additional issue with the family-centric definition incorporated in the new law is that it does not cover (migrant) domestic workers. Although they might live in the same household as the violence perpetrator, domestic workers are not protected under this law. As employees, their protection must be regulated by a different set of laws.
Several other legal and social dynamics contribute to the GBV phenomenon in Lebanon and compound difficulties in addressing it. Because the Personal Status Law (regulating marriage, divorce, child custody and inheritance) designates religious institutions to administer family relations(13), domestic violence is under-reported. This may be due to a perception that the law is not on the side of the abused but instead favors the unity of the family. It can also be argued that civil war violence has led to the normalization of domestic violence and, possibly, its increase. Furthermore, the strong cultural perception of the family household as a space free of violence results in NGO representatives’ unwillingness to address family violence as a structural problem(14). This happens despite the fact that households are spaces where intense violence – whether economic, physical, sexual – is perpetrated.
