Celine outlet reviews 6 dollar A Critical Analysis of the use of Attachment Theory in Cases of Domestic Violence Social policies and social work practices are increasingly influenced by attachment theory.
Women who have been subjected to domestic violence by male partners are being assessed within this discourse, which takes little account of societal perspectives, which sustain injustices and power differentials. Domestic violence is known to be a major social problem but when attachment theory is applied to women and their babies in domestic violence it negates knowledge based in lived experiences. Rather attachment theory is informed by non gendered family violence perspectives and research instruments, which frame domestic violence within an individualised perspective. In this way, women and their babies are observed and classified without regard for the societal factors, which affect them. In view of this, there is a need for critical social workers to question attachment theory and the positivist research instruments, which are being used to inform theory and practice. In both roles, she has become increasingly concerned about how some social workers and social work students are enthusiastically embracing attachment theory without considering applications of this theory through a critical lens. It is not repudiated that the relationships between women and their children are important. However, when women and their children are the sole focus of assessment and treatment based in attachment theory broader societal issues and a gendered analysis are eclipsed. Practitioners who currently embrace attachment theory include social workers, as well as nurses, occupational therapists, psychologists, and speech pathologists (Prior Glazer, 2006). Many are encouraged to do so by mainstream services, which simultaneously adopt a family violence perspective. This perspective excludes feminist knowledge of domestic violence as a gendered social problem by situating violence as an outcome of dysfunctional family relationships (Dobash Dobash, 2004). It is of concern when family violence and attachment theory perspectives combine to celine nano luggage price disavow deep knowledge based on lived experiences, which have informed the field of domestic violence over the past decades. Many feminists have taken issue with attachment theory, describing the attachment field prescriptive mothering role as unreasonable, the emphasis on mothering as politically motivated and the rational for focusing on mothering in isolation from context as patriarchal (Contratto, 2002; Morris, 2008). Similarly, feminists have criticised family violence approaches to domestic violence, which deny the gendered nature of abuse (Dobash Dobash, 2004; Flood, 2006). Although, the application of attachment theories to domestic violence have been critiqued (Buchanan, 2008), the family violence and attachment instruments, which are used to assess women who endure domestic violence have not, until now, been the subject of enquiry. Following an exploration of domestic violence and family violence perspectives, attachment theory applications are described and critiqued and the use of popular survey and assessment tools, which are used by researchers and practitioners to code and classify relationships between women and their babies are problemitized. A seminal study (Zeanah et al., 1999), and a recently published case study (Levendosky, Bogat, Huth Bocks 2011), which both investigate mother/child attachment in domestic violence are critiqued. Domestic Violence Defined as an Issue of Gender Defined within feminist understandings domestic violence is identified as ongoing physical, emotional, social, financial, and/or sexual abuse used to exert control and power by one partner over another in an adult relationship. This approach recognises a of abuse (Dobash Dobash, 2004, p. 334) where abusive acts consolidate to frighten, coerce, and intimidate. Elsewhere this pattern has been named as control which is gendered because the unequal distribution of responses and resources in society make women more susceptible to coercion and men more likely to use coercive tactics to maintain dominance (McKinnon, 2008; Stark, 2007). Historically critical, feminist enquiry has informed knowledge, which includes deep understandings about the definition, nature, prevalence and effects of domestic violence (Harding, 2007). It is noted that violence cannot be adequately understood unless gender and power are taken into account (Yllo, 2005, p.19). Such understandings of domestic violence consider social structures, which support gendered inequity and they define domestic violence as one way that patriarchy maintains dominance of women and children (Danmant et al., 2008). Participants in qualitative, feminist research who are encouraged to authentically locate real life struggles have informed these understandings. Research based in participants voices contests distortions, which can preside when knowledge is informed by scientific research (Hesse Biber, 2007). Feminist understandings of domestic violence, informed by the lived experiences of women, continue to resonate with women today. Through access to feminist practitioners, including social workers who base their knowledge in feminist research findings, women who have been abused begin to understand that the violence was not their fault (Loseke Kurz, 2005). Global appreciation of the gendered nature of domestic violence has been informed by research, which embraces lived experience as well as by multiple, celine outlet locations labcorp large scale quantitative research studies. In light of such extensive and varied research, The United Nations and The World Health Organization recognise gendered violence as the greatest health risk to women in the world (World Health Organization [WHO], 2005). Gendered violence is known to occur in all countries and in all socio economic strata of society with 25% of women experiencing domestic violence each year (WHO, 2005). A Broad Scope of Violence in Interpersonal Relationships Within feminist discourses, it is recognised that there are circumstances where women are violent to their male partners. Women use of violence in interpersonal relationships includes situations where women use violence to defend themselves and their children (Kelly Johnston, 2008). Emotional responses to separation are also found to lead to acts of violence by either men or women (Kelly Johnston, 2008). Elsewhere, in a review of multiple studies of women use of violence, it is found that a combined sense of being ignored, plus anger and powerlessness pre empted violent outbursts (Bair Merritt et al., 2010). In other situations, both partners resort to using violence in their relationships. However, when violence is mutual, fear is not generally an issue for either partner and violence acts tends to be less frequent and involve lesser forms of physical abuse (Johnson Leone, 2005). The incidences of violence where women perpetrate abuses are differentiated from violence where coercive control is a dynamic combination of bag celine price strategies, which are enacted and repeated, often escalating over the length of the relationship (Dobash Dobash, 2004; Stark, 2007). Further, it has been substantiated that women most often suffer persistent domestic violence and that children are harmed by living in situations where there is enduring abuse (Moe, 2009; Radford Hester, 2006; The Benevolent Society, 2009; Walby Allen, 2004). Findings concerning violence in other circumstances do not discount the existence of domestic violence as a gendered pattern of coercive control, which affects significant numbers of women and children. It is also evident that violence occurs in same sex partnerships. From a feminist perspective, this is understood to include coercive control, which is present in same sex partnerships because of the impact of dominant socio political systems, which oppress minority populations (McClennen, 2005). However, for the purposes of this paper, the focus is on heterosexual relationships because it is the mothering role of women who identify as heterosexual that is most often scrutinised from an attachment approach (Prior Glazer, 2006). While international institutions have adopted feminist definitions and findings, feminists have been turning inquiry to the proliferation of multiple oppressions (Chinn, 2003; Leung, 2011). Meanwhile, an alternative philosophical stance, which uses the term violence has gained favour. Some proponents of this discourse negate gender issues by situating domestic violence as a product of family conflict undifferentiated from child abuse, elder abuse and abuse of parents by their offspring across all parameters of culture and race (Ehrensaft, 2008). Viewed from the family violence perspective domestic violence is seen to have multiple causes. These causes appertain to various stresses within the family and to individualised responses based in pathologies, or are viewed as justified responses to provocation (Dutton, 2007). Within a family violence perspective, violent behaviour by men towards their female partners is sometimes perceived as inherited through poor parenting. With the increased popularity of attachment theory, the cause of violent behaviour is now being situated as a product of the individual insecure early attachment relationships with the primary care giver (Ehrensaft, 2008). The term care giver generally refers to women as mothers (Prior Glazer, 2006). Situating domestic violence as a problem inherent in dysfunctional families and/or caused by insecure early attachment fits neatly with a neoliberal perspective, which denies the need for structural changes to address social issues (McDonald, 2005). These views deny gender at the macro and micro levels (Hunnicutt, 2009). Thus, the impact of societal institutions on women and men and the inherent nature of gendered roles within the family are denied. The focus can then turn instead to perceiving deficits in individual women and men. Many women already feel responsible for the violence that is perpetrated against them and the family violence approach deflects them from seeing violence against them in a societal context. In addition, it encourages researchers to follow a line of enquiry, which furthers the status quo in an unjust society. As noted: Gender is a slippery construct, that is, if it is not front and centre within an analysis, it tends to become invisible. Just because some practitioners and theorists ignore or minimise gender (and its related power imbalances) as a variable does not reduce its impact. (McPhail, Busch, Kulkarni, Rice, 2007, p. These instruments have become popular with large studies because they are simple, quick and easy to use and do not require skill or sensitivity on the part of the researcher. The CTS and RCTS questionnaires are also favoured in attachment theory research into mother/child relationships affected by domestic violence (Bogat, Dejonghe, Levendosky, Davidson, Eye, 2006; Levendosky Graham Bermann, 2001; Levendosky et al., 2006). This is despite, or perhaps because, they are the only instruments, which find gender symmetry when used to measure domestic violence (Loseke, 2005). The use of the CTS and the RCTS has been widely criticised on many points, in particular it is noted that the context of violence is ignored and social, emotional, and psychological effects are not acknowledged (Dobash Dobash, 2004; Flood, 2006). Instead these instruments create a simplistic, distorted view. This view contrasts with feminist qualitative research results conducted with methods which are labour intensive because they are designed to elicit deep and meaningful data in relationship with research participants (Devault Gross, 2007). In effect, the CTS and RCTS are examples of how research can mislead and distort societal issues so that patriarchal power and control are deemed irrelevant (Dobash Dobash, 2004; Flood, 2006; Loseke, 2005). Concerns about the family violence perspectives and the use of the CTS and RCTS are well documented elsewhere (Dobash Dobash, 2004; Flood, 2006, 2010; Reed, Raj, Miller, Silverman, 2010). Here it is of note that the family violence analysis concurs with attachment theory in following a psychological perspective, which the gender based framework at the root of our understanding and consideration of domestic violence (Reed et al., 2010, p.348). Both family violence and attachment approaches do not look beyond the family for the origins of violence. Further, attachment theory firmly places women at the center of enquiry and applies a deficit model to the mothering role irrespective of the social contexts in which women mother. This paper now turns to attachment theory and popular instruments used by attachment theorists to assess mother/child relationships. The Development of Attachment Theory Adherents of attachment theory believe that proscribed standards of primary relationships, usually with the mother, are essential to maximize healthy development across the lifespan (Prior Glaser, 2006). Although gender is assumed, a gendered analysis is not offered. It is perceived that the early relationship with their mothers affects babies brain development, wellbeing, relationships, and interactions throughout the life cycle (Main, Hesse, Kaplan, 2005; Prior Glaser, 2006). The premise is that babies achieve optimal secure attachment relationships when their mothers provide secure base and a safe haven, through sensitive and responsive care giving (Marvin, Cooper, Hoffman, Powell, 2002). When attachment is assessed as insecure, it is perceived as less than ideal and the focus may turn to treatment so that the relationship can be repaired. The main categories of insecure attachment are named as avoidant, ambivalent and disorganized (Prior Glaser, 2006). The potential mental health problems for babies with disorganized celine outlet locations yoga attachment are seen as most concerning with predictions of borderline personality disorders in later life (Bateman Fonagy, 2004; Liotti, 2005). From a feminist perspective, attachment theory is seen as a discourse, which prescribes a narrow and conservative role for women as mothers and promotes beliefs, which extend the objectification of women (Contratto, 2002). Within attachment theory, the societal pressures on women are not considered as problematic, nor is the proscribed role of women as mothers critiqued (Morris, 2005). In the application of attachment based, expert opinion, deep, rich, complex, and varied perceptions are missed and it becomes easy to objectify and pathologize women (Lapierre, 2010). Social identities of ethnicity, culture, class, and multiple oppressions are ignored as a narrow lens is applied to categorise the mother/baby relationship and situate potential problems within that relationship. Attachment theory researchers and practitioners traditionally assess attachment patterns in a procedure with set tasks, where women and babies interactions are observed and coded by clinicians (Prior Glaser, 2006). In the second half of the twentieth century Ainsworth pioneered a twenty minute assessment tool for categorising attachment patterns, which is named strange situation procedure (Ainsworth, Bichar, Waters, Wall, 1978). Using this procedure, the baby is observed interacting with his or her mother in a clinical setting. The baby and mother responses and behaviours are critically examined throughout a process where the mother is directed to leave and re enter the room. Ainsworth, as creator of the strange situation procedure, used this procedure as an adjunct to lengthy periods spent in the homes of women and babies (Ainsworth Bowlby, 1991). Nonetheless, as Goldberg, Grusec, and Jenkins (1999) write, idea that a 20 minute laboratory session could replace hundreds of hours of home observations was naturally appealing (p. 481). As a result, the strange situation is now frequently used as the sole instrument for applying attachment categories to women and their babies. Ainsworth was dismayed by this development, as she did not see the procedure as a thorough means of defining mother/baby relationships (Ainsworth Bowlby, 1991). The strange situation procedure focuses on individual women and their babies in isolation from the real world. While claiming that this method is child centred there is no indication of how the baby reacts to others in the family and factors of poverty and levels of support are disregarded. In addition, Anglo centric, middleclass norms of childrearing are assumed (Contratto, 2002). Further, in applying the strange situation procedure the possible presence and impact of domestic violence on woman and baby are unidentified. The effects on babies of witnessing multiple abuses of their mother are overlooked. Instead unconscious behaviours displayed by women and babies are the object of enquiry. If the relationship is deemed insecure, the woman childhood experiences of attachment are then the subject of investigation (Hesse, 2008). Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) As well as the strange situation procedure, an instrument named the Adult Attachment Interview (AAI) (George, Kaplan, Main, 1985) has gained popularity when assessing individuals with regards to their ability to attach. The AAI takes the form of a multiple question, semi structured interview which focuses on adults subconscious perceptions about attachment in their family of origin to predict the quality of parent/child attachment in the present (Hesse, 2008). celine bags on sale This instrument is quasi clinical and has been validated by extensive research. However, the AAI focuses on childhood experiences and pays little regard to wider issues of adult lived experiences, societal contexts and the social identities that form and reform over the lifespan in response to injustice (Campbell Baikie, 2012). Finger, Hans, Bernstein, and Cox (2009) state that research has much to gain from adopting a wider contextual and ecological approach to the study of parent child relationships (p. 302).
With particular reference to the field of domestic violence, knowledge limited by focusing on the mother/child dyad precludes consideration of the compromising context of a controlling parental partnership and the social constructs which uphold power differentials within such relationships. Not only may domestic violence be missed in entirety but also, even if domestic violence is known to occur, the numerous constraints put on women who are enduring domestic violence are rendered invisible. .
Prev: celine outlet handbags kipling
Next: celine outlet reviews noise
|1||celine outlet kate...||Celine outlet locations 450 Advice on Trump from an ex Former Australian Prim|
|2||celine outlet locations quad...||Celine outlet reviews viking About the Selkirk College Silver King Campus Nelson|
|3||celine outlet reviews ultherap...||Celine outlet authentic key A drive for road safety We celine out|
|4||celine outlet tester...||Celine outlet handbags you change A somewhat sleazy Bee Gee With his goofy gr|
|5||celine outlet authentic navy...||Celine outlet woodbury ymca 8 of the best jumpers for women to wear When is C|
|6||celine outlet handbags trendin...||Celine outlet woodberry kitchen baltimore md Admission Requirements Note: Adm|
|7||celine outlet reviews toshiba...||Gafas celine outlet ABS boundary change hits Launceston population Of all the|
|8||celine outlet locations dallas...||Celine outlet in paris admits Red Rock star Jane McGrath She's used to being|
|9||celine outlet stores shops in ...||Celine outlet reviews 90 A Norfolk MP thinks so The Mid Norfolk MP, who chair|
|10||celine outlet handbags for gir...||Celine outlet store in california A vibrant and diverse evangelical Christian co|