Abstract

As we can appreciate from the discussion about Domestic Violence (DV) so far, it seems there is no conclusive concept of this so-called social problem. However, policymakers, international bodies, and NGOs are currently taking urgent steps to tackle this problem, even if it is often unclear how exactly they hope to reduce ‘the figures.’ In this regard, definitions are relevant, not only to form a better understanding of the phenomenon, but also in order to address it appropriately, either by social, legal or institutional means. Nevertheless, we should bear in mind two important facts about any public policy scheme (those related to DV included): i) there are very different conceptions of and perspectives on the same problem, especially at the normative level; and ii) although unexpected, there are approaches that may frustrate the struggle to eliminate DV rather than contribute to it. As Linda Gordon (1988, 27- 8) has expressed, “Antifeminists often dominated not only among those who would deny or ignore the problem but also among those who defined and treated it.” Thus, this paper aims to draw attention to a selection of current representations of DV and to analyse the social and public policy implications they entail. I will follow Carol Lee Bacchi’s method of assessing policies: “what’s the problem?” approach. Thereafter, I will work through some of the concerns related to feminist institutional co-optation, common to most of the problem definitions that will be analysed here. Finally, I will assess the main drawbacks and merits of four different DV problem representations, namely: (i) “Family Violence”; (ii) “Assault” or, simply, “Violence”; (iii) “Violence Against Women”; and (iv) “Control” or “Power struggle.” I will suggest that by conceiving DV as a struggle for power, we can overcome the more significant shortcomings of other lines of argument.