Walking on eggshells? A reflexive account of studying male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV) in Zimbabwe

By Justice Medzani

Zimbabwe, as many other African nations, has a history of colonial occupation and domination, the consequences of which were manifold. Of interest herein is the incontrovertible reality that colonisation impacted gender relations among the people who inhabited the geographical place now called Zimbabwe.

Although scholars may differ regarding how men and women were impacted, there is a general sense of agreement that colonisation manipulated Zimbabwe’s inhabitants’ economy and tribal governance, thereby altering their culture (Bourdillon, 1987; Gelfand, 1973; Keller, 2005; Makahamadze, Grand & Tavuyanago, 2009). The commonly cited changes include but are not limited to land dispossessions and the adoption of tax laws requiring payment of hut and head taxes, which saw many men and women losing their chieftaincy, sources of livelihood and, importantly, their culture and identities. These changes had nuanced consequences for both men and women. For men who left the villages to be migrant labourers in cities and mines and on farms in order to raise tax money and provide for their families, most of their previously shared work in the villages had to be done by women and children who were left behind. This process of monetary rewards on men’s work put value on their work and, at the same time, eroded the value of work in the villages that had no monetary rewards and was mostly done by women.

Even in political circles, women’s influence compared to that of men became invisible as colonial administrators removed traditional leaders (some of whom were women), replacing them with men deemed loyal to them (Keller, 2005). This is, however, not to say patriarchy was not existential as an ordering system prior to colonisation. The subsequent nationalist fight for independence, which, by and large, was characterised by militarisation and masculinism (Mawere, 2019) (despite women’s participation), did not make the position and conditions of women in Zimbabwe any better.

While this summary of the context specifically focuses on Zimbabwe, what transpired and the implications thereof in other Southern African nations were not widely different. Generally, in post-colonial societies the colonial imprints are still manifest. In terms of gender ordering and gender relations, men dominate in major facets of life – be it economic, socio-political or religious. Such dominance is not without consequences. Often it informs the dominant perceptions of gender, people’s gendered experiences such as intimate partner violence (IPV) and their interpretations of such experiences.

IPV, as any other form of interpersonal violence, is a major focal subject for academics and policymakers alike. This is, by and large, due to the dire consequences often associated with the phenomenon. Some of the violence result in permanent physical and non-physical harm as well as loss of life. Programmes and initiatives aimed at preventing and addressing IPV also receive a great deal of funding. My research interests include family studies as well as violence in intimate relationships and I have conducted social research on IPV.

Studies documenting researchers’ own experiences of undertaking a qualitative inquiry on the subject are largely unknown. In this piece, I consider what it means to study men who report IPV in the African context. The piece is based on my personal reflections of the research process (from topic conceptualisation to analysis of findings) constituting my doctoral thesis, Intimate partner violence and male identity: Experiences and perceptions among male victims in Zimbabwe. The study explores personal inner experiences (emotions, feelings, thoughts and perceptions) that were evoked during various encounters throughout the research process. Particular attention revolves around interrogating comments, questions, responses, suggestions and other notable non-verbal expressions exchanged between the participants (men), members of the academic community, peers and friends, and me. The piece builds on the knowledge on common perceptions surrounding violence as experienced by men in heterosexual intimate relationships. I gathered evidence through the memoiring method and inferred possible meanings of the selected expressions using the descriptive reflection approach. The inferences pointed to the scepticism with which violence against men is perceived and the contentious nature of studying men’s victimhood in a patriarchal context. It would appear that undertaking a study on such a phenomenon is tantamount to walking on eggshells. But is it?

My interest in the IPV phenomenon became more pronounced when I was involved with Zimbabwe’s justice department where I would, from time to time, meet men who presented as victims of their partners’ abuse. From a preliminary literature search, I realised not much academic work on the subject existed in Zimbabwe and to satisfy my scientific fascination around the experiences and perceptions of these men, I set out to conduct an empirical study. This experience was enlightening in many ways, as would unfold in personal reflections on the data collection interactions with the participants as well as the comments passed, suggestions made and questions raised by colleagues and other individuals who considered themselves close to me to an extent that they could comment on my topic of research. Upon reflection, I developed a sense that in those comments, questions and suggestions were overtones of the dominant perceptions about violence against men and men’s victimhood in general.

Interactions with participants

During data collection, some of the participants would find it difficult to accept that someone wanted to hear their accounts. Although they were keen to share such, my request for interviews and participation was in some instances perceived with scepticism and suspicion. I guess this could be the case in any social research where individuals have to discuss their personal life situations and experiences (which they might be uncomfortable sharing) with strangers. To me, however, what stood out was the innuendoes of disbelief that, in fact, their experiences would be of interest to anyone. A sense of relief was also apparent among some of the participants, perhaps resulting from the thought that some form of assistance would ensue. Of course, this was not going to happen and clarifications (to the effect that it was a research exercise, and no help would be given other than the psycho-social support on standby for instances where distress resulted from the interviews) would often be given whenever such perceptions arose. What is of significance here is the ever-present sense of appreciation portrayed by the participants that someone indeed paid attention to the narratives of their experiences of and perceptions about IPV.

Questions, comments and suggestions: Personal experiences and reflections

As is generally the practice in academic research, I had formal (presentations on research proposal, findings and research report) and informal (conversations with friends and colleagues in the academic corridors) platforms to share my research topics and findings for feedback (which may or may not be a morale booster) and support. It is on these platforms where comments, suggestions and questions, which, after some reflection, felt poignant, were passed and raised.

In this piece, I focus on the most conspicuous ones which made me think deeply and, in some cases, ask myself questions. I try to answer these questions but am not sure I manage to do so. I start here with the questions raised by friends and colleagues and proceed to present the comments and suggestions on the topic and about the men (research participants).

“What if they are lying? They may just come up with spurious claims to get back at women.”

Get back at women? This question projects, to some extent, the questioner’s simplistic view regarding the gender relations between men and women. Its portrayal of offensive and counter-offensive encounters between two constituted opposite groups (men against women) is not a true reflection of IPV in real life situations. Rarely do individuals abuse their intimate partners in pursuit of a group gendered agenda. This is not to say that structural forces organising gender relations do not have a role in the instigation or responses to violence in intimate relationships between men and women. Relations between individual men and women are more complicated than the insinuated confrontation between constituted groups of men and women. Research has shown that often when individuals abuse or are violent to each other, multiple underlying idiosyncratic factors are at play that influence the parties.

“What if they are not telling the truth? How do you know they are telling the truth?”

Questions such as these touch on a number of aspects, including concerns around research methodology and the measures that ensure credibility of qualitative research results. If respondents were not telling the truth, then the rigor of my data collection and analysis was in question. I would not want to dwell on that because I employed sociologically recognised methodological safeguards meant to ensure the credibility of the research process. I also triangulated data sources, study methods and theoretical frameworks. While these procedures on their own may not guarantee the credibility of the research findings, they are part of multiple methodological procedures taken to reduce the risks associated with qualitative research practice.

The question, however, also alludes to the contentious issue of truth in social research. It had overtones of the questioner’s view about research participants’ gendered identities. The question implies that men’s accounts of having been victims of abuse should be viewed as lies or at least the veracity thereof should be questioned. It, in a subtle way, warns me to be on the look-out for the untruths by men. To the best of my knowledge and experience through the review of literature, there is yet to be a study which documents that men as a gender category misrepresent facts more than other genders. Moreso, there has not been any scientific research claiming that men have a propensity to make false claims about their experiences of violence in intimate relationships. Although it is not impossible for men to misrepresent experiences of violence, research shows that there are risks involved in doing so, such as being shamed, ridiculed and discriminated against (Barkhuizen, 2015, Lien & Lorentzen, 2019). What is noteworthy from the question, nonetheless, is that it exposes the inquirer’s negative gendered perception of men and especially those who claim to be victims of IPV. In a way it is also a refusal to accept the limitations of masculinities and perhaps it is also gatekeeping since IPV of men by women is a disruption of the patriarchal order.

“How are those actions by women violence?”

The forms of abuse reported by men in this study are largely non-physical. Hence, the signs are largely invisible. Studying men’s experiences of violence, thus, is largely perceived as laughable and a mere triviality deserving no serious research focus. Men themselves contribute to this perception, in most cases, through resisting to acknowledge vulnerability and in a bid to identify with and uphold the expectations of hegemonic masculinity. The question above clearly depicts a point of view from which behaviours which some men may regard as violent are not viewed as such by others.

“The men must have done something to be abused. Are they not poor, are they not weak, old and less masculine?”

It is clear that the inquirer here expresses total disbelief in men’s victimhood. For him, the men must have done something, or something must be wrong with them. These men must have some fault in them or some form of infirmity or abnormality that renders them inept. The sentiment expressed in this excerpt is that “normal” men should have some power to fight and defend themselves from anyone, especially women. Such perceptions are embedded with sexist innuendos which relegate women to being incompetent and without agency.

“It would be interesting if your topic reads, ‘claims of abuse’ instead of ‘male victims’. Put ‘male victims’ in quotation marks to make it interesting.”

This comment arose multiple times and on different platforms. I, at some point, considered it a great idea. However, I also felt that doing so would be tantamount to deeming those narratives as untruths and thus doubtful. Being critical of ideas or narratives is a common if not conventional academic practice. However, criticising one’s narrative is not the same as considering it as a misrepresentation or lie. The above suggestion in so many ways meant that I needed to be suspicious, distrustful and cynical of the men’s accounts of violence. I needed to be on guard and very watchful of men’s lies. Moreso, I needed to academically tiptoe around the subject of men’s victimhood in order not to offend anyone. I ought to have been circumspect and proceed furtively when researching men as victims of IPV. Considering the number of instances in which the suggestion was raised, it occurred to me upon reflection that studying IPV against men in heterosexual relationships may be a precarious endeavour that is analogous to walking on eggshells.

Possible explanations

The role of the media

One wonders what the drivers of the above presented perceptions around IPV could be. But, before long, one knocks on the door of gender activists, academics and the media, inter alia. The major drivers of societal perceptions, who in most cases are the academics and media, often use language that is non-neutral and non-inclusive, thus, propagating and portraying interpersonal violence as one-sided. The media is pivotal in shaping societal perceptions and once a certain narrative is perpetuated, it will stand out to communities as the only existential narrative.

In an example from the United Kingdom, but with implications that are relatable in Africa, Mark Brooks (2010) narrates how a remark by Britain’s then Home Secretary, Theresa May that “she was considering allowing the police to randomly visit people convicted of domestic violence to stop them from reoffending” was then reported in the British media. Brooks (2010) notes that while the minister’s remark was gender-neutral, media headlines were not. Some headlines read, “Wife beaters could face random police to visit to discourage reoffending, Theresa May says (Daily Telegraph, 15 June 2010), Police could get more power to do spot checks on homes of men convicted of domestic violence (Daily Mail, 15 June 2010)” (Brooks, 2010).

Such media reports are not only misleading but have an inevitable effect of excluding a segment of the victim population. The media in general also have power to influence public policy at both national and sometimes international levels, apart from informing common perceptions among members of society.

Dominant culture

Dominant social perceptions of IPV depict women as the legitimate victims. As Lien and Lorentzen (2019) note, historically, women as a group have been oppressed by men, economically, socially and ideologically. When it comes to the question of violence, it has been regarded as a fact that men are the instigators of most violence, both at a collective and social level as well as on an individual level. The man as aggressor is a predominant cultural construct. The perpetrator is male, and the victim is female. Men are not victims or subordinate; accordingly, victims are not men. This phenomenon, called the “feminisation of victimisation” and the “masculinisation of oppression” (Mendel, 1995:92) influences dominant perceptions around the instigation and perpetration of violence in intimate relationships.

Others think that society more readily accepts violence perpetrated by women than violence perpetrated by men, because women most probably are “fighting back” and are less capable of causing severe injuries to their partners (Carmo, Grams & Magalhães, 2011). I am nonetheless of the view that such violence is not necessarily accepted but rather viewed as non-existent or, in the event that there is evidence, viewed as insignificant and a problem that men themselves should address.

The invisibility of violence and of male victims

The nature of abuse and violence that men commonly experience is also sometimes a contributory factor to the precarity that I as a researcher had to navigate. Invisible and covert forms such as emotional, psychological, and economic abuse and violence are not readily noticeable by the external world. Hence, men who claim such are viewed with scepticism. The forms of violence themselves, as well as their severity and frequency, are very subjective because they are based on one party’s personal assessment, understanding and descriptions of the actions of the other party. They are unlike physical or sexual abuse where the effects and signs of harm are visible for third parties to see.

Although emotional, psychological and financial abuse are not criminal behaviours, they are forms of domestic violence and can lead to criminal abuse (Barkhuizen, 2010). Even when victims acknowledge that emotional abuse occurs in their intimate relationships, the depth of the “inner bruises”, the emotional pain, and eroded sense of the self often remain invisible to others. The effects of emotional abuse are more profound than that of physical beatings and many victims, regardless of gender, find emotional abuse difficult to describe or even talk about. They often contemplate its seriousness because, unlike bruises or broken bones, emotional scars cannot directly be observed. Individuals who are emotionally violated consider their biggest challenge to be the dismissal of their reported experiences as trivial and as “normal” domestic conflict. Society often does not view this form of violence as serious enough to warrant the allocation of “victim” status to those who experience it. I believe for this same reason, researchers who set out to conduct empirical studies on this subject would not be taken seriously.

It should also be noted that patriarchy also disadvantages men, as little or no room is afforded for them to define themselves in the manner they choose. Rather, men ought to accept certain prescribed ways of being or they will not be able to partake in the privileges of manhood. This becomes a colossal challenge especially when they become victims of violence in intimate relationships and have to admit such vulnerability in order to get assistance. The easy and usual gateway for such men is to be mum about their experiences, at the immense cost of the invisibility of their victimhood in general.

So, what am I saying?

I have endeavoured in this piece to relay the complexities associated with researching men’s vulnerability, especially their experiences of gender-based violence perpetrated by their intimate partners. A lot has been said and written about working with men and engaging men to address gender-based violence. Many of the approaches employed in such engagements centre on working with men as perpetrators while there is little or no acknowledgement of other dimensions of engagement, such as those where they may be victims of violence.

I suggest that working with men to end gender-based violence would be enriched if both dimensions are taken into consideration. This would portray inclusivity. Usually, when individuals feel included and feel part of an initiative, they naturally follow up with genuine engagement. Men who are perpetrators together with those who are victims of violence should all form part of the efforts to address IPV. Including the victims would likely encourage others in the same situation to buy into the idea of addressing gender-based violence and not to view it as merely a campaign against men in general.

The serious dichotomy between visible and invisible victims is prominently based on their ‘gender identity’ and leads to structural discrimination against male victims of IPV. To overcome this situation and develop more inclusive instruments, a reconceptualisation is needed of the meaning and use of concepts like IPV and gender-based violence. Furthermore, a more intersectional approach to IPV should be adopted, understanding that victims present with multiple and diverse identities such as gender, ethnicity or religious affiliation that may make them particularly vulnerable to suffering (Gorris, 2015).

How would our society be different if our understanding of violence in intimate relationships was inclusive of victims of diverse genders?

We would realise that IPV towards male presenting individuals is a real lived experience of many males rather than the exception. We would no longer tolerate humorous or entertaining media images of males or females as victims of violence or biased journalism that neglect other classes of IPV victims. We would recognise that, regardless of our own theoretical standpoints, male victims have their own voice and their own meanings for their experiences. If we remain ignorant and sceptic of and disregard or fail to explore their stories, we will miss much of what we need to engage them in the working-with-men approach. Most importantly, we would not interrogate social researchers studying men, disregarding the believability of their research findings and in the process making them feel like their research endeavours are tantamount to walking on eggshells.

References

Barkhuizen, M. 2010. The physical and emotional victimisation of the male partner within a heterosexual marriage or cohabitating relationship: An explorative study. Doctoral thesis, University of South Africa, Pretoria, South Africa.

Barkhuizen, M. 2015. Police reaction to the male victim of domestic violence in South Africa: Case study analysis. Police practice and research, 16(4), 291-302.

Bourdillon, M. F. 1987. The Shona peoples: An ethnography of the contemporary Shona, with special reference to their religion, Gweru: Mambo Press.

Brooks, M. 2010. The media’s invisible men: Domestic abuse victims. https://www.mankind.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/Invisble-Men.pdf Accessed 04 May 2020.

Carmo, R., Grams, A. & Magalhães, T. 2011. Men as victims of intimate partner violence. Journal of Forensic and Legal Medicine, 18(8), 355-359.

Gelfand, M. 1973. The genuine Shona: Survival values of an African culture. Gweru: Mambo Press.

Gorris, E. A. P. 2015. Invisible victims? Where are male victims of conflict-related sexual violence in international law and policy? European Journal of Women’s Studies, 22(4), 412-427.

Keller, M. 2005. The hammer and the flute: Women, power and spirit possession. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Lien, M. I. Z. & Lorentzen, J. 2019. Men’s experiences of violence in intimate relationships. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.

Makahamadze, T., Grand, N. & Tavuyanago, B. 2009. The role of traditional leaders in fostering democracy, justice and human rights in Zimbabwe. African Anthropologist, 16(1&2), 33-47.

Mawere, T. 2019. Gendered and sexual imagi(nations), the 2018 Zimabwean e(r)ections and the aftermath. Pretoria: CSA&G Press, University of Pretoria.

Mendel, M. P. 1995. The male survivor: The impact of sexual abuse. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.