Cultural Factors in the Treatment of Battered Women With Privilege

Abstract

The field of social work pathologizes marginalized cultures by neglecting to explicitly identify cultural factors in the lives of women with systemic privilege due to race, class, and sexual orientation. This article discusses the importance of examining privilege as a strategy for advancing cultural competency in the treatment of battered women. Cultural factors in the lives of White European-American, middle-class, heterosexual women in intimate partnerships with men who share their privileges, referred to as “dominant culture women,” are explored. Additional scholarship which identifies cultural factors placing this population at risk is needed to advance cultural competency in domestic violence interventions.

Introduction

White European-American, middle-class, heterosexual women (WMHW) are highly represented among social work professionals. This population typically has greater access to institutional power than their clients in spite of the lived disadvantage of sex discrimination. WMHW clinicians are often placed in the position of providing treatment to people from minoritized racial–ethnic cultures, many of whom live in poverty and also represent a diverse spectrum of sexual orientations and gender expressions. With regard to race, class, and sexual orientation, WMHW clinicians delivering direct social services find themselves situated in a position of greater overall privilege as compared to most clients (Spears, 2003). In order to address this disparity between the “privileged” social worker and the “oppressed” client, cultural competency has increasingly become a priority of the social work profession in the United States. Efforts toward improved quality of services for people-of-color have been primarily aimed at educating relatively privileged professionals, often WMHW, on differences in the lives of clients from marginalized racial–ethnic groups, with attention to additional intersections of identity (e.g., class, sexual orientation, religion), as they impact the lives of people-of-color.

The social work profession’s increased emphasis on cultural competency has arguably improved treatment for clients from marginalized racial–ethnic groups overall. Even so, cultural competency efforts often neglect to fully account for the effects of institutionalized racism (Maiter, 2009). Razack (1994) observes that White European-Americans are typically more comfortable observing cultural difference than recognizing the complex effects of racism on their daily interactions. Consequently, “culture” is too often faulted for patterns of discrimination that are rooted in social inequities. In practice, the implementation of cultural competency has perpetuated systemic racism within the field of social work. Cultural competency frameworks are almost exclusively applied to already marginalized groups, thereby reinforcing the status of White European-American culture as the norm in the United States (Park, 2005). As a result, marginalized racial–ethnic cultures are often pathologized and held to a double standard.

This cultural double standard is especially true regarding issues of violence against women. Volp (2008) points out that social workers typically “identify sexual violence in immigrants of color and Third World communities as cultural, while we fail to recognize the cultural aspects of sexual violence that affect mainstream White women” (p. 42). Smith (2008) notes that the attempts of some domestic violence programs to become more inclusive “have unwittingly strengthened white supremacy within the anti-violence movement” (p. 418). As an example, she points to programs that have taken a model based on White European-American, middle-class women and simply added a multicultural component. Such programs essentially make slight modifications to better include minoritized women in a model that is fundamentally designed for a different population. When current multicultural interventions unintentionally foster systemic oppression, new strategies for cultural competency are needed to better fulfill the call of the National Association of Social Workers (NASW) Code of Ethics for a commitment to social justice.

Multiple strategies are required to address ethnocentric bias in the field of social work. Approaches that social workers are effectively implementing include increased research on disadvantaged populations and use of intersectional frameworks to contextualize the lives of clients (Miranda & Ross-Sheriff, 2008). In Domestic Violence on the Margins: Readings on Race, Class, Gender, and Culture, Sokoloff and Pratt (2005) offer an impressive example of these strategies implemented in literature about battered women. Efforts to create more literature about women-of-color are essential to enhancing cultural competency efforts in the field. However, this approach alone is not sufficient to prevent biases from influencing the clinical and research practices of social workers. An additional strategy is needed in order to prevent pathologizing “culture.” All social work scholars and clinicians, but especially White European-Americans, must take the same lens currently used to study marginalized cultures and inversely apply this same framework to dominant cultures. Only when White European-American clinicians have the capacity to identify aspects of their own cultural experiences as members of a socially constructed racial group, can they appreciate the significance of what culture means in the lives of clients from underserved cultures. What follows is an example of this critical analysis of privilege, looking at the cultural factors that shape domestic violence with WMHW engaged in intimate partnerships with men who share their privileges, referred to as “dominant culture women.”

This article examines cultural factors in the treatment of battered WMHW who experience privileged status in the context of their relationship, not only as individuals but also in terms of how their partnership is idealized within the broader context of the United States. Experiences of race and class privilege are the social locations most fully explored as systemic privilege pertains to clinical interventions. In some sections, there are specific references to either race or class, in order to accurately make use of supporting literature that has a focus on either of these topics. Regardless, dominant culture women are consistently the population in consideration. Notably, while norms of sexual orientation and gender expression (e.g., heterosexual, feminine, and woman-identified) are not discussed, they are defined as a prerequisite for status as a dominant culture woman.

Controversy Behind Naming Women’s Privilege

WMHW are the population most largely represented as professionals within the field of social work. Subsequently, it is not surprising that WMHW are not typically discussed in research as members of a racial–ethnic group influenced by cultural factors that may potentially be detrimental to mental health and quality of life. Weitzman (2000) has written about domestic violence in middle- and upper-class marriages, describing battered women in these partnerships as victims of “upscale violence.” She notes that there is very limited research about battered women with privilege (p. 5). While Weitzman does not integrate a cultural analysis into her research, she does identify many lived experiences of privilege that disempower battered women and arguably limit their access to help. Weitzman provides evidence that privilege is not consistently a protective factor and that cultural factors operate to perpetuate violence against dominant culture women.

Weitzman offers a poignant example of the impact of her research on social work professionals. She tells of presenting on the topic of “upscale violence” at an international conference, during which one audience member interjected that privileged women do not deserve access to more resources. Another social worker in attendance responded with a personal anecdote:

I was in a very wealthy marriage. And my doctor-husband battered me constantly. I was ashamed and embarrassed. As a mental health professional, I felt I should have known better. I felt I should be able to fix myself. And I was sure this wasn’t happening to anyone I knew. I felt frightened, depressed, and alone. In fact, because of my reputation in the community as well as my husband’s position, I really had nowhere to go for help. (p. 7)

Her example indicates that research about relatively privileged women may put social workers who are also dominant culture women in an unfamiliar and vulnerable position. It may challenge them to go against the norms in their communities and undermine systems of privilege that, in part, provide them with unearned resources and social status. While dominant culture women may be represented in research, their experience of privilege and culture is not usually discussed. Privilege, by its very nature, is accepted as a norm. To look critically at a privileged culture further challenges its status of superiority (Swigonski, 1994).

At first glance, this focus on privileged women may seem counterintuitive to a larger efforts toward cultural competency and anti-racism practices. Yet studying dominant cultures has subversive implications and is vital to a mission of social justice. There is already a body of literature about “domestic violence” that implicitly prioritizes the needs of WMHW. However, a gap remains in scholarship that explicitly names privilege. Failing to identify privilege is to maintain it as a norm and take it for granted as a standard. Exploring the effects of privilege need not minimize battered woman’s experience of abuse and discrimination on the basis of sex. This approach instead allows for a better understanding of how societal structures both advantage this population and present unique barriers that they face due to their specific intersections of identity.

The vast majority of social work articles that name privileged groups are direct comparisons to marginalized populations, with a focus on the oppression of the latter. This suggests that social work scholars of all cultural backgrounds are either unable to identify aspects of dominant culture or discouraged from doing so without drawing a direct comparison to “othered” groups. Spears (2003) assesses that direct comparison is one of several ways that White social workers, who do not usually experience themselves as racialized beings, are able to identify the social construct of whiteness. Nylund (2006) recommends that White European-American social workers adapt a “critical multicultural practice” that includes an understanding of whiteness. A practice that incorporates the deconstruction of whiteness improves upon existing cultural competency models by explicitly identifying experiences of privilege as culturally based.

A critical analysis of privilege allows for more comprehensive treatment of women who experience violent outcomes of sexism in spite, and because, of their social location. In addition, this analysis of systemic advantage has the potential to foster a more nuanced grasp on the significance of culture in the lives of minoritized clients, effectively enhancing services and treatment for women-of-color. The use of intersectional frameworks helps clinicians recognize the multiple facets of women’s identities and thereby prevents universalizing women (Samuels & Ross-Sheriff, 2008). It is as important to a mission of social justice to identify specific aspects of women’s privilege as it is to identify oppression. This practice provides an alternative to using the term “women” to implicitly refer to WMHW in social work scholarship.

As with any discussion on a given population, there is the potential for clinicians to overgeneralize about clients, compromising the quality of treatment. In spite of this risk, a term specific to this population and one which explicitly names privilege is necessary to provide improved services to women collectively. Mohanty (1988) advocates that it is vital to shift “discourse that sets up its own authorial subjects as the implicit referent,” which includes the use of the term “women” to implicitly describe women with privilege due to race, class, and sexual orientation (p. 64). Although the unfamiliar rhetoric may initially appear to minimize abuse and trauma, in practice it undermines institutionalized privilege, calling attention to how the combined effects of racism, classism, and heterosexism perpetuate domestic violence in the lives of dominant culture women.

Conceptual Frameworks

This analysis of cultural factors in the treatment of WMHW is largely informed by theories of intersectionality. Miranda and Ross-Sheriff (2008) explain how theories of intersectionality argue that women cannot be reduced solely to their experiences of gender. Most women face distinct challenges due to interlocking oppressions beyond sexism. In this light, writings about women which account only for sex discrimination have failed to represent women-of-color. who encounter racism and disproportionately live with classism and poverty as well. In addition, anytime social workers use the term “women” without fully recognizing the diversity within this category, they perpetuate systems of oppression that harm some of the very populations they aim to empower.

Intersectionality theory was largely developed by women-of-color to account for systems of oppression that differentiate their experiences from White European-Americans. For instance, Combahee River Collective (1977) developed an analysis of interlocking oppressions that made Black women the focus of their own movement. Although intersectionality theory originated as tool for naming an experience of multiple oppressions, it can also be implemented to gain a more nuanced understanding of the specific ways that privilege shapes many different women’s lives. Furthermore, using intersectionality theory to explicitly name and identify cultural influences based on privilege is an additional step toward differentiating women’s experiences due to specific social locations. These kinds of explorations of women’s privilege fundamentally recognize the differences in experience by women who do not share those same privileges.

Similar to theorists of intersectionality, proponents of cultural competency advocate for attention to the unique cultural factors that impact individual clients. Although this practice is sometimes taken for granted as advancement, Maiter (2009) points out that cultural competency, or cultural sensitivity, neglects to counter systems of racism. Park (2005) notes pervasive patterns in social work literature which invoke the term “culture” only in reference to marginalized groups. When culture is rarely used in reference to White European-Americans, it perpetuates the idea of “culture as deficit” by overemphasizing the harmful effects of culture on clients from communities-of-color. An additional limitation is that the meaning of “culture” remains vague. Even the NASW (2001) Standards for Cultural Competence in Social Work Practice does not offer a pointed definition, instead stating that the term implies an interrelated set of behaviors performed by a particular group of people and often refers to behaviors passed on between generations. The broader social work profession’s problematic conceptualization of “culture” undermines the current use of cultural competency frameworks.

The dual purpose of the analysis that follows is to begin shifting discourse on culture while also developing more effective treatments for battered women with status due to the race, class, and sexual orientation of both themselves and their partners. Explicitly, an examination of cultural factors in the lives of battered, dominant culture women offers information for improved services and treatment to this specific population. Implicitly, this study also has the potential to shed light on the limitations of using cultural competency frameworks to better understand marginalized racial–ethnic groups. Increased study of cultural factors linked to societal privilege can potentially help all social workers gain a more comprehensive appreciation that cultural factors impact the life of every client regardless of their particular social location.

Culture as Pathological

Cultural factors are typically studied only when they do not represent a dominant group, which serves to pathologize already marginalized cultures. Volp (2008) provides an example by pointing to the case of sati, or widow burning in India. White European-Americans sometimes perceive sati as an aspect of Indian culture that promotes violence against women. However, these very critics often fail to recognize that the proportion of battered women who are murdered with guns in the United States is relative to the number of women who experience death by sati in India. In order to make a more fair comparison, one could either take the perspective that (a) sati is offensive to most people in India, just as the average American perceives murdering a woman with a gun to be a heinous crime or (b) the shooting of battered women is an equally significant aspect of American culture as compared to sati in Indian culture. In this transnational comparison, sati is perceived as an Indian cultural practice while domestic violence shootings are not seen as an aspect of American culture (pp. 41–42). Consequently, domestic violence shootings in the United States are largely dismissed as the actions of misguided individuals, rather than critically assessed as a reflection of American cultural norms and traditions.

Influence of European Traditions

In order to look at issues of domestic violence as they pertain to the culture of White European-Americans, it is valuable to look at historical traditions of numerous European cultures whose remnants continue to inform the socially constructed category of whiteness as it exists in the United States. Weitzman (2000) writes that women have historically been seen as property and men have been legally allowed to beat and rape their wives. For evidence of historical and cultural influences on modern times, one has to look no further than the traditional marriage ceremony in which a father walks his daughter down the aisle to symbolize “giving her away” to her new husband. The phrase “rule of thumb” continues to be part of everyday speech, although it references British common law that said a man could abuse his wife with a rod no larger than the size of his thumb (p. 40). The phrase “a man’s home is his castle” is another colloquialism reinforcing patriarchal norms that a man holds ultimate power in his private home. The historical ideals across many European cultures in which women were subservient homemakers to their husbands are, to varying degrees, aspects of “family values” that continue to influence dominant culture women in the United States today (pp. 38–41).

In dominant culture partnerships, women typically continue to do the majority of unpaid domestic labor and childcare even when they also spend a comparable number of hours performing paid work (Gershuny, Bittman, & Brice, 2005). In addition, WMHW are still socialized to feel responsible for creating a happy and harmonious home more so than their male counterparts. Consequently, when domestic violence occurs, women are still apt to blame themselves for the abuse. Social work has inadvertently played into this system of self-blame by placing more emphasis on treating the “victims” of domestic violence than on rehabilitating perpetrators, in part because the victims more often seek voluntary treatment than do the perpetrators. The legal system and social services have struggled to effectively challenge patriarchal norms that enable domestic violence (p. 42).

Privileged Men Who Batter

The privileges of battered dominant culture women often work simultaneously to women’s benefit and detriment. Although dominant culture women represent a privileged location, they must also navigate sexism in the context of intimate partnerships with men who represent the most privileged population in American society. In these instances, domestic violence is an abuse of power by men who have a great deal of unearned advantage throughout their lives.

While domestic violence may be privately tolerated within the social milieus of dominant culture women, it is not, generally speaking, publicly accepted. Victims of domestic violence therefore hold information that potentially threatens the status and reputation of their partners. This environment serves to silence women and hide abuse in order to protect the image of privileged men. Systems of privilege that give dominant culture women access to resources frequently serve to protect the public image of dominant culture men. From this perspective, privilege that fosters women’s reluctance to expose abuse and that better allows them to conceal it protects the status of men in power.

Material Privilege

Dominant culture women who are battered have the apparent advantages of their socioeconomic status. Many benefit from their networks with access to resources. They often have select friends or family members who are able to privately offer help. Pratt and Sokoloff (2008) observe that having class privilege is a strong protective factor and state that 80% of women on public assistance have experienced domestic violence. Davidson and Jenkins (1989) make the point that battered women with economic resources do not have to endure the same discomforts as marginalized women, such as the conditions of living in a shelter which include the use of secondhand items and sharing a space with strangers (p. 492). Even so, these privileges can have negative impacts on dominant culture women when they are battered. Weitzman (2000) counters that the material resources which enable a victim to spend a weekend at a hotel, rather than seeking support from a shelter or personal contact, frequently isolate battered dominant culture women. Those who seek access to shelters are more often denied, since the few beds available are typically reserved for women who do not have socioeconomic resources. Privileged battered women may be advised to instead seek treatment from a private therapist. While their socioeconomic status gives them access to resources that are denied to more marginalized women, for example, a private therapist, these resources maintain systems that privatize domestic violence within dominant culture and protect the status of men who batter (p. 32).

Embodiment of Feminine Norms

Dominant culture women also benefit from representation by mainstream feminist movements. Richie (2008) makes the case that national dialogue on domestic violence beginning in the late 1970s, led largely by White European-American feminists, has further oppressed African-American women and other women-of-color. From a Black feminist perspective, she argues that White feminists’ advocacy to end violence against dominant culture women made violence against women-of-color invisible to the public eye. Richie clarifies, “[W]hen the national dialogue on violence against women became legitimized and institutionalized, the notion that, ‘It could happen to anyone’ meant that ‘It could happen to those in power’” (p. 53). This lead to the proliferation of resources devoted to domestic violence based on the interests of dominant culture women. They neglected to identify how privilege informed their perspective of women’s rights. Dominant culture women have benefited from feminist advocates who represent their own cultural contexts and who have had enough access to resources and power to gain some recognition for the problems they strive to address.

A primary strategy of the mainstream feminist movement was to focus on the legal system as a means of protecting battered women. This tactic was most relevant to dominant culture women, who already saw the criminal justice system as a viable source of protection. It is not as accessible to battered women-of-color or lesbian, gay, bisexual, trans and Queer women, who have historically experienced the legal system as oppressive rather than just. The accomplishments of mainstream feminists, such as establishing the legitimacy of battered women’s syndrome, were largely based on the experiences of privileged women, and therefore women who continue to seek justice of the court are penalized if they do not represent the female norm of dominant culture. Allard (2008) explains that, “To successfully defend herself, a battered woman needs to convince a jury that she is a ‘normal’ woman—weak, passive, and fearful” (pp. 196–197). She writes that Black women are typically seen as threateningly strong and independent, which remains to their disadvantage in the courtroom.

Internalized Superiority

Many WMHW have achieved success and accomplishment throughout much of their lives. They may be particularly goal-oriented and value a strong work ethic. Dominant culture women have the perception of being able to influence or control various aspects of their environment more so than other groups with systemic disadvantage. In the context of domestic violence, these characteristics potentially amplify their level of self-blame. Their lived reality has often taught them that if they work harder they can reach their goal, in this case by ending abuse to save their intimate partnership or family. Domestic violence is frequently experienced as a personal failure. Consequently, this population may have marked difficulty acknowledging abuse in the context of marriage which is idealized as a lifelong commitment (Weitzman, 2000). They may be especially prone to denial, a defense against a difficult aspect of reality that the client is not yet able to recognize (Fernando, 2010).

There is also a strong correlation between domestic violence and feelings of humiliation. Battered dominant culture women may rationalize their abuser’s behaviors, blaming themselves as the cause of domestic violence (Amada, 2010). This defense mechanism reflects women’s internalized expectations that being abused is somehow inexcusable for women of their socioeconomic status. There is added shame for the battered woman who feels that what she is going through is unfamiliar to her peers (Weitzman, 2000). “Lynne, a law student, said, ‘It’s a class thing … I didn’t know anybody that this happened to. I had kind of an elitist belief that it didn’t happen to women like me—you know, professional women living on the North Shore’” (p. 25). In addition, this population may be accustomed to being perceived as successful and free of problems, leading to worry about how domestic violence will threaten their public image along with their professional networks and careers. In a separate instance, a woman told Weitzman, “I didn’t want anyone to know that about me … I wanted them to think, ‘She’s wonderfully happy; she’s wonderfully successful; she’s a good wife’” (p. 26). This is an instance of what Winnicott (1971) described as a false self, where a client’s public persona conflicts with their emotional well-being. This internalized experience of privilege can prevent women from tapping into their support systems.

Weitzman (2000) has pointed out that many battered women with these privileges do not recognize “domestic violence” in their lives due to their acceptance of stereotypes about women who are abused. Their privilege fosters projection–externalization in which the harm of domestic violence in their own lives is overlooked and this abuse is seen only as an issue affecting women with less status in society (Amada, 2010). This internalized sense of superiority is not only harmful to dominant culture women; it further oppresses more marginalized women by perpetuating stereotypes. Internalized privilege prevents many dominant culture women from identifying with marginalized women who have survived comparable trauma. Weitzman advocates that the field of social work popularize the term “upscale violence,” so that middle- and upper-class women more readily seek services. Throughout her many interviews on upscale marital abuse, women repeatedly identified with “upscale violence” and felt distanced from the term “domestic violence.” This population of women recognized that they would be more receptive to identifying the seriousness of their problems if a class-specific term was used. It is to their detriment that many would respond to this classist term, one that distances them from other battered women and risks further marginalizing already disadvantaged women, rather than challenge the stereotype and acknowledge the existence of domestic violence in dominant culture.

Maintaining an Image

Members of privileged populations best maintain their unearned advantage by helping to preserve the status of their group. For dominant culture women, this means maintaining an image of superiority, one in which domestic violence is nonexistent. Battered women often face tremendous pressures to keep their abuse hidden and to preserve a false self at the cost of their psychological growth growth. “[O]ne of the hallmarks of upscale violence is the great pains to which these battered wives will go to hide it” (Weitzman, 2000, p. 23). Women who violate this norm by exposing their experience of abuse risk being ostracized by their communities. Women who defy the norms of the culture and threaten its status, such as the mainstream dominant culture feminists who advocate for social change, are systemically penalized with rejection from members of the dominant culture. Although battered dominant culture women have access to resources beyond their marginalized counterparts, these privileges operate as additional incentives to keep domestic violence hidden in the interest of the status quo.

Recommendations for Further Research

More research is needed to assess domestic violence in the lives of WMHW partnered with men who share their privileges in order to accurately measure the prevalence of this abuse in American society. Increased research about domestic violence in dominant culture would allow for a more comprehensive analysis of domestic violence in society overall. It would also provide insight into developing more culturally competent treatment options for relatively privileged women. Furthermore, it would challenge prevailing notions that “culture” plays a role in the perpetuation of domestic violence only within marginalized groups.

More broadly speaking, additional research is needed to identify cultural factors relevant to the treatment of clients from “dominant cultures” and to critique risk factors tied to systemic privilege. When privilege is presumed to function as a protective factor, social workers overlook the impact of complex environmental systems on the lives of their clients. Furthermore, as long as marginalized cultures are scrutinized in the literature while dominant cultures go unnamed, the social work profession will continue to pathologize culture. Advancing research about dominant cultures has the potential to increase understanding about the role of culture as it impacts the lives of clients who face systemic oppression as well as privilege.

Limitations

Although battered dominant culture women deserve access to additional resources, in reality, their privilege does afford them options that are not available to more marginalized women. Therefore, it is not in line with the NASW Code of Ethics to redirect limited resources away from more marginalized women and toward this population, which would essentially perpetuate existing systems of inequality. In the current economic and political climate, where already underresourced social services face additional cuts, it would be an injustice to redistribute resources. Agencies that are not able to meet the needs of battered WMHW can take steps by developing protocol for responding sensitively to inquiries from this population and appropriately providing referrals to resources accessible to their demographic, such as contact information for private therapists specializing in issues of domestic violence, and specific community resources that accept private pay or provide services regardless of a client’s income.

Implications for Practice

Social workers can become more effective in their practice by accounting for cultural factors in the lives of all clients, including dominant culture women. Clinicians can implement these theories by identifying how the client is impacted by systems of privilege and oppression as part of a biopsychosocial–spiritual assessment. Critical considerations about the role of culture are required to provide comprehensive treatment in cases where privilege does not consistently operate as a protective factor. In work with battered dominant culture women, for instance, it is mistaken to either wholly disregard privilege or to only see social status in terms of advantage. In order to provide truly culturally competent treatment, privilege that keeps domestic violence hidden from public view must be understood as a system that serves to both protect the elevated status of men who batter and maintain their systemic privilege due to race, class, and sexual orientation.

Conclusion

In an effort to become more culturally competent, social work scholars have placed a greater focus on researching marginalized cultures. However, they have neglected to name and explore experiences of privilege. As a result, the social work profession has inadvertently pathologized culture, which is particularly evident in the area of domestic violence. Cultural factors in domestic violence with relatively privileged women operate to simultaneously benefit this population as well as protect the status of dominant culture men by concealing abuse. As social workers advance knowledge about cultural factors in the lives of relatively privileged clients, they will develop more effective treatment options for battered dominant culture women and increase cultural competency in social work practice overall.