超越「危險」與「安全」：從個案抗拒探討親密伴侶暴力防治建制

Beyond Risk and Safety: Client Resistance to the Intimate Partner Violence Prevention

程婉若(Wan-Juo Cheng)

主體性 ； 抗拒 ； 受害者 ； 建制民族誌 ； 親密伴侶暴力 ； intimate partner violence ； institutional ethnography ； subjectivity ； resistance ； victim

輔導與諮商學報

41卷2期（2019 / 11 / 01）

1 - 23

繁體中文

1998年台灣成為亞洲第一個實施家庭暴力防治法的國家，從此親密伴侶暴力成為國家得以公權力介入的公共議題，免於暴力危險與受暴婦女人身安全為防治首要任務。本研究是以個案研究的方式，藉由一位「抗拒」的受暴女性案例，以她的經驗為立足點，從建制民族誌觀點探討親密伴侶暴力防治意識形態透過文本如何重塑個案的主體性，及從個案的「抗拒」探討其中的社會權力關係。研究發現親密伴侶暴力是從犯罪視角解讀，建制中各式量表及介入手段形塑個案的「被害人」主體並排除她的真實經驗，且強調暴力為唯一事實及維護受暴女性個人安全與福祉的親密伴侶暴力防治意識形態，不僅使得個案對鑲嵌於經濟及性別脈絡之暴力行為發生的理解不被聽見，更是拒絕承認同時存在其他的主體位置，並排除源自於日常真實互動所產生的知識與能動性。個案的抗拒其實是對親密伴侶暴力防治建制邏輯的簡化及拒絕理解的反抗。此外，透過危險意識提升及安全計畫實施發展個案維護自身安全的責任，使得親密伴侶暴力防治建制成為新自由主義的代言人，強調個人選擇、責任及福祉，支配專業人員與個案的工作方向，促成專業服務關係的糾結。因此，若能以受暴女性作為知識主體，納入她們的知識，才有可能發展出切合不同需要的個案且較為彈性地親密伴侶暴力防治觀點與方式。

Intimate partner violence has no longer been seen as a private matter but a significant social issue that the State has the right to interfere with since the Domestic Violence Prevention Act was enacted in 1998. The primary prevention strategy is to assess risks battered women might be involved in and to develop a safety plan to avoid future violence. This case study adopts institutional ethnography, i.e. taking the standpoint of the battered woman to examine how the institutional ideology of intimate partner violence shapes the subjectivity of the battered woman, who is characterized ＂resistant＂ and ＂something wrong with her＂ from the perspectives of the services providers, through texts, and further explicates the power relations embedded in the domestic violence prevention practices. The results indicate that intimate partner violence is viewed as a crime in which the victim-subject is made and safety is the primary focus of all professional practices mediated by the texts in the institution of intimate partner violence prevention. Her reluctance may be viewed as a confrontation with the institutional logic that excludes the actual experiences she has been doing as a wife, mother, and daughter-in-law. Additionally, embracing the values of neoliberalism, the prevention strategies, such as safety planning, entail a shift from ＂victim＂ to ＂survivor＂ with a focus on the battered woman's empowerment and agency through which she is responsible for keeping herself safe. It seems that justice has been done by making the batterers accountable for their violent behaviors that should be sanctioned. However, the battered woman's main concern for preserving the relationship with her husband and commitment to maintaining the family intact have remained unacknowledged given that the main focus of the dialogues between parties (e.g., the battered woman, the batterer, counseling psychologist, social worker) is placed on violence. Accordingly, the path to decreasing the resistance and developing preventive strategies that will fit with their social situations is through acknowledging battered women as knowing subjects and making plans based on their knowledge of living.

1. 王珮玲(2010)。親密伴侶暴力案件保護令成效與相關因素之研究：以禁制、遷出及遠離令為例。社會政策與社會工作學刊，14(2)，1-47。
   連結：
2. 洪娟娟(2015)。回應〈受暴女性為何無法逃脫？—從「家庭暴力」到「高壓控管」〉。中華心理衛生學刊，28(4)，499-503。
   連結：
3. 唐文慧,廖珮如(2015)。超越「加害人」的觀點：婚暴處遇男性的建制民族誌分析。台灣社會學，29，133-178。
   連結：
4. 梁莉芳(2015)。文本作為探究支配關係的中介：以外籍居家看護聘僱需求評估為例。台灣社會研究季刊，102，115-141。
   連結：
5. 齊偉先(2019)。建制民族誌「為何」書寫？探索建制民族誌的系譜、方法特質與挑戰。台灣社會研究季刊，112，147-170。
   連結：
6. 鄭詩穎(2015)。受暴女性為何無法逃脫？—從「家庭暴力」到「高壓控管」。中華心理衛生學刊，28(4)，481-497。
   連結：
7. Caesar, P. L.(ed.),Hamberger, L. K.(ed.)(1989).Treating men who batter: Theory, practice, and programs.New York:Springer.
8. Crenshaw, K. W.(1991).Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, identity politics, and violence against women of color.Stanford Law Review,43(6),1241-1299.
9. Davies, J.(2008).When battered women stay…Advocacy beyond leaving(Building Comprehensive Solutions to Domestic Violence).Harrisburg, PA:The National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.
10. Davies, L.,Ford-Gilboe, M.,Hammerton, J.(2009).Gender inequality and patterns of abuse post-leaving.Journal of Family Violence,24,27-39.
11. Domestic Abuse Intervention Project. (2011). Wheel gallery. Home of the Duluth Model. Retrieved October 15, 2018, from http://www.theduluthmodel.org/training/wheels.html
12. Dunn, J. L.(2004).“Victims” and “survivors”: Emerging vocabularies of motive for “battered women who stay.”.Sociological Inquiry,75(1),1-30.
13. Eckstein, J.(2011).Reasons for staying in intimately violent relationships: Comparisons of men and women and messages communicated to self and others.Journal of Family Violence,26(1),21-30.
14. Epstein, D.,Bell, M.,Goodman, L.(2003).Transforming aggressive prosecution policies: Prioritizing Victims’ Long-Term Safety in the Prosecution of Domestic Violence Cases.American University Journal of Gender, Social Policy, and Law,11(2),465-498.
15. Foucault, M.(1978).The history of sexuality.New York:Random House.
16. Foucault, M.(1982).The subject and power.Critical Inquiry,8(4),777-795.
17. Kuennen, T.(2013).“Stuck” on love.Denver University law Review,91(1),171-185.
18. Martinez, P. R.(2011).Feminism and violence: The hegemonic second wake’s encounter with rape and domestic abuse in USA (1970-1985).Cultural Dynamics,23(3),147-172.
19. Merritt-Gray, M.,Wuest, J.(1995).Counteracting abuse and breaking free: the process of leaving revealed through women’s voices.Health Care for Women International,16,399-412.
20. Mohanty, C. T.(ed.)(2003).Feminism without borders: Decolonizing theory, practicing solidarity.Durham, NC:Duke University Press.
21. Rankine, J.,Percival, T.,Finau, E.,Hope, L.,Kingi, P.,Peteru, M. C.,Powell, E.,Rabati-Mani, R.,Selu, E.(2017).Pacific peoples, violence, and the power and control wheel.Journal of Interpersonal Violence,32(18),2777-2803.
22. Roberts, J. C.,Wolfer, L.,Mele, M.(2008).Why victims of intimate partner violence withdraw protection orders.Journal of Family Violence,23,369-375.
23. Smith, D.(1990).The conceptual practices of power: A feminist sociology of knowledge.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
24. Smith, D.(1987).The everyday world as problematic.Toronto:University of Toronto Press.
25. Smith, D.(2005).Institutional Ethnography: A sociology for people.Oxford:Altamira Press.
26. Sokoloff, N. J.,Dupont, I.(2005).Domestic violence at the intersection of race, class, and gender: Challenges and contributions to understanding violence against marginalized women in diverse communities.Violence Against Women,11(1),38-64.
27. Stringer, R.(2014).Knowing victims: Feminism, agency and victim politics in neoliberal times.New York, NY:Routledge.
28. The National Domestic Violence Hotline (2013). 50 obstacles to leave: 1-10. Retrieved October 17, 2018, from https://www.thehotline.org/2013/06/10/50-obstacles-to-leaving-1-10/
29. United Nations(1994).United Nations. (1994). Declaration on the elimination of violence against women (Resolution No. A/RES/48/ 104). New York: United Nations..
30. Walker, L. E.(1979).The battered woman.New York:Harper and Row.
31. Yoshihama, M.(2005).A Web in the Patriarchal Clan System: Tactics of Intimate Partners in the Japanese Sociocultural Context.Violence Against Woman,11(10),1236-1262.
32. 王如玄,李晏榕(2008)。性別主流化—邁向性別平等之路。研習論壇，76，18-26。
33. 成蒂(2003)。心理諮商與家暴案件。司法改革雜誌，46，51-52。
34. 何春蕤(2017).性別治理.桃園市:中央大學性／別研究室.
35. 林美薰,丁雁琪,劉美淑,江季璇(2004).家庭暴力防治工作人員服務手冊.台北:內政部家庭暴力及性侵害防治委員會.
36. 許可依(2017)。台北，國立政治大學社會工作研究所。
37. 葛書倫(2013)。她說？他說？再思親密關係暴力的權控論述：以北投經驗為例。社區發展季刊，142，264-272。
38. 彰化縣政府社會處（2018）。家庭暴力加害人處遇方案。2018 年 9 月 30日，取自 https://social.chcg.gov.tw/07other/other01_con.asp?topsn=1297&data_id=11258 1297&data_id
39. 衛生福利部（2015）。家庭暴力案件開結案評估指標。2018 年 10 月 2 日，取自 https://www-ws.pthg.gov.tw/Upload/2015pthg/18/relfile/6341/19066/e615f57c-dec3-441e-89bc-51688dbbde8b.pdf