QUALITATIVE DATA // INTERPRETIVIST RESEARCH
Through an interpretivist approach to my project, I propose to analyze the official discourse surrounding intimate partner violence (IPV) in Italy to explain the change in discourse which I pinpoint as first occurring in 1976 and again in 2011 in order to help my reader understand why IPV persists despite the enduring and active conversation aimed at ending this phenomenon.
What first marked a change in discourse was Italy’s participation at the 1976 International Tribunal on Crimes against Women.[1] From the proceedings I will analyze how the conversation regarding IPV began. Since this event, Italian IPV discourse has expanded to include “femicide,” as the term was first introduced at the Tribunal.[2]
The second key event that marked a change in the Italian IPV discourse occurred later in 2011 at the Istanbul Convention when Italy ratified Treaty 210: the Convention on Preventing and Combating Violence against Women and Domestic Violence.[3] Through the Convention, Italy ratified legislation that prohibits IPV, thus furthering the discourse to criminalize IPV.[4] Since 2011, the IPV discourse in Italy has also changed through the use of media, the reporting of IPV cases, and public statements by governmental leaders. An example of the change in discourse occurred in 2014 when Laura Boldrini, former President of the Chamber of Deputies of Italy, called a meeting to the parliament floor to discuss the emergent case of IPV in Italy.[5]
I therefore propose to analyze the official discourse while examining its relation to media discourse. In recent years the media has constructed IPV through a cultural lens, attributing such violence to Italy’s rigid patriarchal culture.[6][7] Moreover, IPV is usually discussed in terms of passion and honor, which has long constructed the perception of the crime as a justifiable one.[8] Today, crimes of IPV and intimate partner femicide are reported through Italian media outlets that represent women as victims and men as passionate and angry lovers.[9]
I choose to analyze the discourse surrounding IPV based on the time frame that begins in 1976, changes in 2011, and continues today. The discourse will include the role of men and the role of women within IPV, and the importance and prevalence of IPV itself.
I plan to use the primary sources of the International Tribunal on Crimes against Women and the Istanbul Convention as signals that established changes within the Italian discourse regarding IPV. To examine the discourse I will use print and visual media (the Maltese and Cilento newspaper articles and the Boldrini statement as previously cited) that has been published in Italy throughout the 42-year period I propose to analyze. [10]
NOTES
[1] International Tribunal on Crimes against Women. [Reports from the] International Tribunal on Crimes against Women [Held at] Brussels. 4-8 March 1976. s.l. s.n., 1976: 123
[2] Ibid., 92.
[3] Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Istanbul, 11.V.2011., Treaty Series- No.210., 2011. https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list.
[4]Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 210.” Treaty Office of the Council of Europe. October 11, 2018. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list.
[5] Boldrini, Laura. “Violenza Donne, Boldrini: ‘Sfregio Alla Società, Uomini Non Restino a Guardare.'” Repubblica. November 25, 2015. https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2017/11/25/news/giornata_violenza_donne-182089957/.
[6] Cilento, Francesca. “Le cause culturali del femminicidio.” Accessed November 10, 2018. http://www.crescita-personale.it/violenza-psicologica/2895/cause-culturali-femminicidio/4093/a.
[7] Maltese, Antonin, and Noemi Marino. “Il Femminicidio nel mondo.” Sipario. Last modified Dicembre 2016. Accessed November 10, 2018. http://www.sipario.it/siparioscuolasociale/item/10308-il-femminicidio-nel-mondo.html.
[8] Bandelli, Daniela, and Giorgio Porcelli. “‘Femminicidio’ in Italy: A Critique of Feminist Gender Discourse and Constructivist Reading of the Human Identity.” Current Sociology Vol. 64, no. 7 (2016): 1078.
[9] Ibid., 1072.
[10] An important element to note is that as an Italian there are no language or cultural barriers in my research; as the researcher, I am part of the world I am studying.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Boldrini, Laura. “Violenza Donne, Boldrini: ‘Sfregio Alla Società, Uomini Non Restino a Guardare.'” Repubblica. November 25, 2015. https://www.repubblica.it/politica/2017/11/25/news/giornata_violenza_donne-182089957/.
Cilento, Francesca. “Le cause culturali del femminicidio.” Accessed November 10, 2018. http://www.crescita-personale.it/violenza-psicologica/2895/cause-culturali-femminicidio/4093/a.
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence. “Chart of Signatures and Ratifications of Treaty 210.” Treaty Office of the Council of Europe. October 11, 2018. https://www.coe.int/en/web/conventions/full-list.
Council of Europe Convention on preventing and combating violence against women and domestic violence, Istanbul, 11.V.2011., Treaty Series- No.210., 2011. https://www.coe.int/fr/web/conventions/full-list.
International Tribunal on Crimes against Women. [Reports from the] International Tribunal on Crimes against Women [Held at] Brussels. 4-8 March 1976. s.l. s.n., 1976.
Maltese, Antonin, and Noemi Marino. “Il Femminicidio nel mondo.” Sipario. Last modified Dicembre 2016. Accessed November 10, 2018. http://www.sipario.it/siparioscuolasociale/item/10308-il-femminicidio-nel-mondo.html.
Theodora,
I find your topic very interesting. However, I think it would be most beneficial to focus on one specific type of discourse. I only suggest this because of the nature of our research. I’m not entirely sure if you’d be able to (Or if I would be able to) intertwine two discourses in one semester. Similarly, I suggest not sticking to your time frames just yet. After more research, you may soon realize that those were not the time frames you should be focusing on. Overall, though your topic/plan for your interpretivist RD sketch is truly intriguing. See you in class!
Theodora — the primary sources you discuss here are very good for starting to conceptualize your research project in the interpretivist methodology. As Lauren notes, though, you should be careful about assuming that there is some sort of relationship between the official discourse and the media discourse (this needs to be demonstrated empirically). Even if there is, the focus on depth of understanding in this methodology would suggest that examining either the official or the media discourse might be a better approach. As you continue your research, work on making the core of the puzzle — the middle part of your problem statement that identifies the specific discourses you propose to analyze — more precise. Right now, with “…to explain the change in discourse which I pinpoint as first occurring in 1976 and again in 2011…” the statement is still a bit vague. What specific meanings / identities / symbols changed? Consider, for example, how Carabine might have written her problem statement: “I am researching discourses about one mothers in Britain because I want to find out why lone mothers were represented as immoral individuals in the New Poor Laws of the 1830s in contrast to prior representations as deserving of support in order to help my reader understand why lone mothers were stigmatized, isolated, and even institutionalized in the 1800s (and beyond).” Notice how the middle part focuses precisely on the discourses/meanings that she has identified in the primary sources and that she proposes to analyze? Make sure to keep this in mind as you continue your reading and research!