Drawing on findings of an original 12-month ethnographic study, this article presents the challenges that Bolivian women face in accessing a new law that has been designed to protect them, Law 348 to “Guarantee Women a Life Free from Violence.” Data reveal that while the law creates opportunities for the (re)conceptualization of violence, mobilizing the law is fraught with difficulties and a culture of impunity prevails. The challenges of implementation are both nationally and internationally significant as other countries seek to enact similar legal strategies. In Bolivia, this article suggests, civil society organizations and women’s voices are central to the full realization of the law.
AsencioM. W. (1999). Machos and sluts: Gender, sexuality, and violence among a cohort of Puerto Rican adolescents. Medical Anthropology Quarterly, 13, 107-126.
5.
BastiaT. (2011). Migration as protest? Negotiating gender, class, and ethnicity in urban Bolivia. Environment and Planning, 43, 1514-1529.
6.
BaxterJ.EylesJ. (1997). Evaluating qualitative research in social geography: Establishing “rigour” in interview analysis. Transactions of the Institute of British Geographers, 22, 505-525.
7.
BeattieP. M. (2002). Beyond machismos. Men and Masculinities, 4, 303-308.
8.
BhasinK. (2006). What is patriarchy. New Delhi, India: Women Unlimited.
9.
BloomA. (2018). A new “shield of the weak”: Continued paternalism of domestic violence services in Uruguay. Violence Against Women, 24, 1949-1966.
10.
BornsteinR. (2006). The complex relationship between dependency and domestic violence: Converging psychological factors and social forces. American Psychological Association, 61, 595-606.
11.
BouldingA. (2014). NGOs, political protest and civil society. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
BourdieuP. (1987). The force of law: Toward a sociology of the juridical field. Hastings Law Journal, 38, 805.
13.
BraunV.ClarkeV. (2006). Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3, 77-101.
14.
BurmanM.Brooks-HayO. (2018). Aligning policy and law? The creation of a domestic abuse offence incorporating coercive control. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 18, 67-83.
15.
BurtonM. (2008). Legal responses to domestic violence. London: Routledge.
16.
ButlerJ. (1990). Gender trouble: Feminism and the subversion of identity. New York: Routledge.
CampbellC.MannellJ. (2016). Conceptualising the agency of highly marginalised women: Intimate partner violence in extreme settings. Global Public Health, 11, 1-21. doi:10.1080/17441692.2015.1109694
19.
CanessaA. (2008). Sex and the citizen: Barbies and beauty queens in the age of Evo Morales. Journal of Latin American Cultural Studies, 17, 41-64.
20.
CarlineA.EastealP. (2014). Shades of grey-domestic and sexual violence against women: Law reform and society. London, England: Routledge.
21.
ChristieN. (1986). The ideal victim. In FattahE. (Ed.), From crime policy to victim policy (pp. 17-30). Basingstoke, UK: Palgrave Macmillan.
22.
ChunnD. E.BoydS. B.LessardH. (2007). Reaction and resistance: Feminism, law and social change. Toronto: University of British Columbia Press.
CokerD. K. (2001). Crime control and feminist law reform in domestic violence law: A critical review. Buffalo Criminal Law Review, 4, 801-860.
25.
DagistanliS. (2015). In defence of culture? Racialised sexual violence and agency in legal and judicial narratives. International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy, 4, 57-72.
26.
De La CancelaV. (1986). A critical analysis of Puerto Rican machismo: Implications for clinical practice. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 23, 291-296.
27.
Del OlmoR. (2017). Limitations for the prevention of violence: The Latin American reality and its criminological theory. Justice, Power and Resistance, 1, 80-97.
28.
DobashR. E.DobashR. (1980). Violence against wives: A case against patriarchy. Shepton Mallet, UK: Open Books.
ElsonD. (2006). Women’s rights are human rights: Campaigns and concepts. In MorrisL. (Ed.), Rights: Sociological perspectives (pp. 94-110). London, England: Routledge.
31.
EngelD. M.MungerF. W. (2003). Rights of inclusion: Law and identity in the life stories of Americans with disabilities. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
FreidricK. (2011). La Violencia Adentro (Violence in the interior): Gender violence, human rights, and state-community-NGO relations in Coastal Ecuador. Tucson: University of Arizona.
37.
FriedmanL. (1975). The legal system: A social science perspective. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
38.
GadeD. W. (2001). The languages of foreign fieldwork. Geographical Review, 91, 370-379.
39.
GalanterM. (1983). The radiating effects of courts. In BoyumK.MatherL. (Eds.), Empirical theories of courts (pp. 121-146). New York: Longman.
40.
GherardiN. (2016). Otras formas de violencia contra las mujeres que reconocer, nombrar y visibilizar [Other forms of violence against women to recognise, name and make visible]. Serie Asuntos de Género, 141. Retrieved from https://repositorio.cepal.org/handle/11362/40754
41.
GoldfarbS. F. (2011). A clash of cultures: Women, domestic violence, and law in the United States. In HodgsonD. (Ed.), Gender and culture at the limits of rights (pp. 55-78). University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
GoldsteinD. M. (2000). Names, places and power: Collective identity in the miss Oruro Pageant, Cochabamba, Bolivia. Polar, 23(1), 1-23.
44.
GoldsteinD. M. (2012). Outlawed: Between security and rights in a Bolivian city. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.
45.
GoodaleM.MerryS. E. (2007). The practice of human rights: Tracking law between the local and the global. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
46.
GutmannM. (2006). The meanings of macho: Being a man in Mexico City. Berkley: University of California Press.
47.
HannaC. (2009). The paradox of progress: Translating Evan Stark’s coercive control into legal doctrine for abused women. Violence Against Women, 15(12), 1458-1476.
48.
HolderJ.HarrisonC. (2003). Connecting law and geography. In HolderJ.HarrisonC. (Eds.), Law and geography (pp. 3-16). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
49.
HughesC. (2017). Legislative wins, broken promises: Gaps in implementation of laws on violence against women and girls (Research report). Oxford, UK: OXFAM.
HumeM. (2008). The myths of violence: Gender, conflict and community in El Salvador. Latin American Perspectives, 35, 59-76.
54.
HumphreysM.WatsonT. J. (2009). Ethnographic practices: From “writing-up ethnographic research” to “writing ethnography.” In YbemaS.YanowD.WelsH., & Frans Kamsteeg (Eds.), Organizational ethnography: Studying the complexities of everyday life (pp. 40-55). London, England: Sage.
55.
IsekeJ. (2013). Indigenous storytelling as research. International Review of Qualitative Research, 6, 559-577.
56.
KatzC. (1991). Sow what you know: The struggle for social reproduction in rural Sudan. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 81, 3488-3514.
57.
KellyL. (1987). Surviving sexual violence. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.
58.
KleinH. S. (2003). A concise history of Bolivia. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
59.
KovachM. (2009). Indigenous methodologies: Characteristics, conversations, and contexts. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
60.
LagardeM. (2006). Feminicidio: una perspectiva global [Feminicide: A Global Perspective] (Vol. 7). Mexico City, Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México.
61.
LandmanT. (2005). Protecting human rights: A comparative study. Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press.
62.
La Patria. (2017). Hanalí: Nació la ley de lucha contra la violencia [Hanalí: The law for the struggle against violence was born]. Retrieved from http://lapatriaenlinea.com/?nota=167573
63.
Lee Van CottD. (2000). A political analysis of legal pluralism in Bolivia and Colombia. Journal of Latin American Studies, 32, 207-234.
64.
LeisenringA. (2006). Confronting “victim” discourses: The identity work of battered women. Symbolic Interaction, 29, 307-330.
65.
LewisP. J. (2006). Stories I live by. Qualitative Inquiry, 12, 829-849.
MauthnerN. S.DoucetA. (2003). Reflexive accounts and accounts of reflexivity in qualitative data analysis. Sociology, 37, 413-431.
68.
MerryS. (1995). Resistance and the cultural power of law. Law & Society Review, 29, 11-26.
69.
MerryS. E. (2000). Colonizing Hawai’I: The cultural power of law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
70.
MerryS. E. (2003). Rights talk and the experience of law: Implementing women’s human rights to protection from violence. Human Rights Quarterly, 25, 343-381.
71.
MerryS. E. (2006). Transnational human rights and local activism: Mapping the middle. American Anthropologist, 108(1), 38-51
72.
MerryS. E. (2009). Human rights and gender violence: Translating international law into local justice. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
73.
MichalskiJ. H. (2004). Making sociological sense out of trends in intimate partner violence: The social structure of violence against women. Violence Against Women, 10, 652-675.
74.
MillettK. (1970). Sexual politics. New York: Doubleday.
75.
MirandeA. (1998). Hombres y machos: Masculinity and Latino culture. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
MurrayW.OvertonJ. (2003). Designing development research. In ScheyvensR.StoreyD. (Eds.), Development fieldwork: A practical guide (pp. 17-36). London, England: Sage.
78.
NelkenD. (1981). The “gap problem” in the sociology of law: A theoretical review. Windsor Yearbook of Access to Justice, 1, 35-61.
79.
NelkenD. (1984). Law in action or living law? Back to the beginning in sociology of law 1. Legal Studies, 4, 157-174.
80.
OakleyA. (1972). Sex, gender and society. London, England: Temple Smith Gower.
81.
OrgillJ.HeatonT. B. (2005). Women’s status and martial satisfaction in Bolivia. Journal of Comparative Family Studies, 36, 23-40.
82.
ParmarA.SampsonA. (2007). Evaluating domestic violence initiatives. British Journal of Criminology, 47, 671-691.
83.
ParsonN. (2013). Traumatic states: Gendered violence, suffering, and care in Chile. Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University Press.
84.
ParsonN. (2015). In the good times and the bad. In GoelR.GoodmarkL. (Eds.), Comparative perspectives on gender violence: Lessons from efforts worldwide (pp. 87-98). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
85.
PeaseB. (2015). Disengaging men from patriarchy: Rethinking the man question in masculinity studies. In FloodM.HowsonR. (Eds.), Engaging men in building gender equality (pp. 55-70). Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.
86.
PenaM. (1991). Class, gender, and machismo: The “treacherous-woman” folklore of Mexican male workers. Gender & Society, 5, 30-46.
87.
PosteroN. (2010). Morales’ MAS government: Building indigenous popular hegemony in Bolivia. Latin American Perspectives, 37, 18-34.
88.
PradaP. (2016). NiUnaMenos. Información y Género [Not one more. Information and gender]. Retrieved from http://eprints.rclis.org/29234/
89.
J.RadfordM.FriedbergL.Harne (Eds.). (2000). Women, violence and strategies for action: Feminist research, policy and practice. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
90.
J.RadfordD. E.Russell (Eds.). (1992). Femicide: The politics of woman killing. Buckingham, UK: Open University Press.
91.
Roach AnleuS. L. (2010). Law and social change (2nd ed.). London, England: Sage.
92.
RobbenA. C.NordstromC. (1995). Fieldwork under fire: Contemporary studies of violence and culture. Berkeley: University of California Press.
93.
RobinsonV. (2003). Radical revisionings: The theorizing of masculinity and (radical) feminist theory. Women’s Studies International, 26, 129-137.
94.
Rodríguez CárcelaR. (2008). Del crimen pasional a la violencia de género: evolución y su tratamiento periodístico [From a crime of passion to gender-based violence: Its development and journalistic handling]. Ámbitos, 17, 171-188.
95.
RogersA. (2017). Claiming the law: An ethnography of Bolivian women’s access to justice and legal consciousness (Doctoral thesis). University of Stirling, UK.
96.
RothmanE. F.HathawayJ.StidsenA.de VriesH. F. (2007). How employment helps female victims of intimate partner violence: A qualitative study. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12, 136-143.
97.
RousseauS. (2011). Indigenous and feminist movements at the constituent assembly in Bolivia: Locating the representation of indigenous women. Latin American Research Review, 46, 5-26.
98.
RussellD.HarmesR. (2001). Femicide in global perspective. New York: Teacher’s College Press.
99.
SanínJ. R. (2018). The law and violence against women in politics. Politics & Gender, 14, 1-5.
100.
SantosB. S. (2002). Toward a multicultural conception of human rights. In BertaH. T. (Ed.), Moral imperialism: A critical anthology (pp. 39-60). New York: New York University Press.
101.
SaratA.KearnsT. (1993). Law in everyday life. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
102.
ScharrerE. (2001). Men, muscles, and machismo: The relationship between television violence exposure and aggression and hostility in the presence of hypermasculinity. Media Psychology, 3, 159-188.
103.
Schilling-VacaflorA. (2011). Bolivia’s new constitution: Towards participatory democracy and political pluralism?European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies, 90, 3-22.
104.
SchlosserK. (2014). Problems of abstraction and extraction in cultural geography research: Implications for fieldwork in Arctic North America. Journal of Cultural Geography, 31, 194-205.
105.
SherifB. (2001). The ambiguity of boundaries in the fieldwork experience: Establishing rapport and negotiating insider/outsider status. Qualitative Inquiry, 7, 436-447.
106.
SiederR. (2013). “Emancipation” or “regulation”? Law, globalization and indigenous peoples’ rights in post-war Guatemala. In BrandtstädterS.WadeP.WoodwardK. (Eds.), Rights, cultures, subjects and citizens (pp. 71-97). London, England: Routledge.
107.
SiederR.McNeishJ. A. (2013). Gender justice and legal pluralities: Latin American and African perspectives. Abingdon, UK: Routledge.
108.
SikkinkK. (2005). Patterns of dynamic multi-level governance and the insider outsider coalition. In PortaD. D.TarrowS. G. (Eds.), Transnational protest and global activism (pp. 151-174). Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.
109.
SilbeyS. (2005). After legal consciousness. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 1, 323-368.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: How men entrap women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
112.
StevensE. (1973). Marianismo: The other side of machismo in Latin America. In PescatelloA. (Ed.), Female and male in Latin America: Essays (pp. 89-102). Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.
113.
TilleyL. (2017). Resisting piratic method by doing research otherwise. Sociology, 51, 27-42.
114.
TorresJ. B. (1998). Masculinity and gender roles among Puerto Rican men: Machismo on the U.S. mainland. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 68, 16-26.
115.
TorresJ. B.SolbergV. S. H.CarlstromA. H. (2002). The myth of sameness among Latino men and their machismo. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 72, 163-181.
116.
Tuhiwai SmithL. (2004). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous methodologies. London, England: Zed Books.
117.
VanhalaL. (2011). Making rights a reality: Disability rights activists and legal mobilisation. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
118.
VidalM. P. (2013). La despolitización de la violencia de género a través de la terminología [The depoliticisation of gender-based violence through terminology]. Asparkía: Investigació Feminista, 24, 176-194.
119.
VillerealG. L.CavazosA.Jr. (2005). Shifting identity: Process and change in identity of aging Mexican-American males. Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare, 32, 33-41.
WalbyS. (2005). Improving the statistics on violence against women. Statistical Journal of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, 22, 193-216.
YegorovaO. (2017). # NiUnaMenosBolivia fights back: A discourse theoretical analysis on the struggle against gender-based violence in Bolivia (Master’s thesis). Upsala Universitet, Sweden.
