https://cdnapisec.kaltura.com/html5/html5lib/v2.63.3/mwEmbedFrame.php/p/1905581/uiconf_id/36151871/entry_id/1_opc3nsvk?wid=_1905581&iframeembed=true&playerId=kaltura_player&entry_id=1_opc3nsvk&flashvars[streamerType]=auto&flashvars[localizationCode]=en&flashvars[leadWithHTML5]=true&flashvars[sideBarContainer.plugin]=true&flashvars[sideBarContainer.position]=left&flashvars[sideBarContainer.clickToClose]=true&flashvars[chapters.plugin]=true&flashvars[chapters.layout]=vertical&flashvars[chapters.thumbnailRotator]=false&flashvars[streamSelector.plugin]=true&flashvars[EmbedPlayer.SpinnerTarget]=videoHolder&flashvars[dualScreen.plugin]=true&&wid=1_2h3oyxa0 

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.

A small-n approach to my project would likely take the form of a typology where my dependent variable would measure victims of intimate partner femicide (IPF) on a high/low (or moderate) basis. Through a typological method I would take independent variables and match them to cases and outcomes in order to understand patterns of causes which produce IPF. Typology would allow me to include multiple variables to understand the various causes involved in high, low, and moderate variations of femicide rates. To measure countries’ rates of IPF I would use the Global Burden of Armed Violence (GBAV) 2011 Survey in conjunction with the Brazilian report of femicide worldwide, Mapa Da Violência 2015: Homicídio De Mulheres. [1] [2] While the Mapa Da Violência report measures 83 countries and GBAV measures 54, I would choose cases that fit requirements of the IVs I select. Although I use similar databases for small-n as I did for large-n research, herein lies the differentiation between the large-n and small-n applications of my project: the large-n approach operationalizes my dependent variable (DV) as femicide per capita compared to the small-n application of my research where the DV is operationalized based on a qualitative high/low variation.

A possible case for my typology research design would be the country of Ecuador. A case study was conducted by Boira et all using seven focus groups and eight in-depth interviews with native Ecuadorians. [3] The scholars point to independent variables I aim to use myself: patriarchal culture, religious values, and the influence of indigenous culture. [4]

Another possible case would be South Africa. A specific qualitative data source is the study, “Intimate Partner Femicide in South Africa in 1999 and 2009.”[5] The study conducted a national survey to identify IPF committed in 2009 and contrasted that data with femicides committed in 1999. [6] The study found that IPF rates were not significantly different and the authors contribute these findings to the effects of legislation, in particular the 2000 passing of the Firearms Control Act. [7] The extent to which laws are implemented is another angle I propose to examine as causal factors of femicide through a typology research design.

NOTES

[1] Global Burden of Armed Violence. “When the Victim Is a Woman.” Geneva Declaration. Chapter 4, pp. 129. 2011.

[2] Waiselfisz, Julio Jacobo. “MAPA DA VIOLÊNCIA 2015.” FLACSO Brasil (2015): 28.

[3] Boira, Santiago & Tomas-aragones, Lucia & Rivera, Nury. Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide in Ecuador. Qualitative Sociology Review. no.8: 33. (2017).

[4] Ibid 34.

[5] Abrahams, Naeemah, Shanaaz Mathews, Lorna J. Martin, Carl Lombard, and Rachel Jewkes. “Intimate Partner Femicide in South Africa in 1999 and 2009.” Edited by Edward J. Mills. PLoS Medicine 10, no. 4 (April 2, 2013).

[6] Ibid.

[7] Ibid.

[8] Seedat, M., A. Van Niekerk, R. Jewkes, S. Suffla, and K. Ratele. “Violence and Injuries in South Africa: Prioritising an Agenda for Prevention.” The Lancet 374, no. 9694. pp. 1011. (2009).

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abrahams, Naeemah, Shanaaz Mathews, Lorna J. Martin, Carl Lombard, and Rachel Jewkes. “Intimate Partner Femicide in South Africa in 1999 and 2009.” Edited by Edward J. Mills. PLoS Medicine 10, no. 4 (April 2, 2013).

Boira, Santiago & Tomas-aragones, Lucia & Rivera, Nury. Intimate Partner Violence and Femicide in Ecuador. Qualitative Sociology Review. no.8. (2017).

Global Burden of Armed Violence. “When the Victim Is a Woman.” Geneva Declaration. Chapter 4. 2011.

Seedat, M., A. Van Niekerk, R. Jewkes, S. Suffla, and K. Ratele. “Violence and Injuries in South Africa: Prioritising an Agenda for Prevention.” The Lancet 374, no. 9694. (2009).

Waiselfisz, Julio Jacobo. “MAPA DA VIOLÊNCIA 2015.” FLACSO Brasil (2015).

I propose to research variation in femicide because I want to explain why women are murdered by inter-partner violence at disparate rates to help my readers understand how to combat international femicide.

Something to note when researching femicide is the lack of sufficient or accurate data. Adriana Quiñones, UN Women’s Country Representative in Guatemala, says “we don’t have comparable data on femicide at a global level… Much of the data that is collected on homicides is not disaggregated by sex. ” [1] Despite this fact, a list has been compiled that details the 25 states most affected by femicide. [2] Fourteen of the 25 states with the highest rates of femicide are found in Latin America. [3] The conversation surrounding femicide in Latin America has developed due to local feminist activists, primarily mothers of victims, who play a visible role in holding the state accountable for continued violations against women and girls. [4]

Though not nearly as high on the list of 25 states with the highest rates of femicide, European states have also called attention to femicide. In Italy, media outlets pointed to femicide as a nationwide epidemic. [5] However scholars found that femicide rates had not increased, even though the public was taking notice of the issue. [6] In Italy, one femicide is committed every two days. This equates to 124 women killed on a yearly basis as a result of inter-partner violence. [7] In El Salvador, 647 femicides were counted in 2011 alone. [8] Thus El Salvador holds the record for highest rate of femicide worldwide, a staggering increase from the already comparatively high rate of 200 femicides per year recorded in 2000. [9]

Herein lays my puzzle: states within different regions are home to similar discourse yet maintain varying rates of femicide. To what can this variation in femicide be attributed?

There is significant disagreement among scholars that seek to explain femicide. Most scholars point to one of three theories: the cultural, economic, or political aspects of the state. The broadest idea assesses culture, which also comprises religious traditions. [10] A common explanation points to cultural norms and practices as being among the most accepted of such theories. Alison Brysk explained that “international abuse of women grows from preexisting domestic practices of commodification of female reproductive labor… and patriarchal control of women’s movement, education, and employment- enforced by gendered violence.” [11] Thus, the cultural norm of hegemonic masculinity is thought to engender a patriarchal society which assigns women to an inferior, killable status thus making them susceptible to inter-partner femicide.

Other scholars dismiss this idea due to the fact that it fails to view femicide as a dynamic issue. Scholars Maya Mikdashi and Lila Abu Lughood argue that gender-based violence is not merely caused by the broadly encompassing term “culture,” but by a woman’s political status. [12] Such scholars identify gender-violence as “dense and multifaceted. It is economic, political, military, and sexual.” [13] This argument critiques the automatic assignment of “culture” as the universal culprit of women’s issues. [14] Scholars also claim that gender-violence can be attributed to the failure of recognizing women as political actors but rather as victims of the stronger, masculine sex. [15]

Lastly, scholars attempt to explain femicide through an economic lens and often rely on data collected by the UN or the WHO. The UN reported that “low social and economic status of women can be both a cause and a consequence of this violence.” [16] Economic risks of perpetrating femicide include unemployment and high school versus university education. [17] Economic equality in terms of gender and social spending on areas such as health and education are argued to be factors that lessen a woman’s risk of femicide. [18]

The puzzle I wish to research is significant because, as aforementioned, on an international level experts do not hold accurate data on femicide. By understanding why femicides occur at varying rates, my research would bring more knowledge to an ongoing question.

Generally, I want to explain variation in femicide.

Specifically, I want to understand why femicide rates differ significantly despite the fact such states maintain similar discourse surrounding the issue.

NOTES

[1] “Take Five: Fighting Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. February 2017.

[2] “When the Victim Is a Woman.” Geneva Declaration. Global Burden of Armed Violence. Chapter 4, pp. 119. 2011.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Driver, A. “‘We Want to Stay Alive’: Ending Feminicide in Juárez, Mexico.” World Policy Journal 33, no. 4 (2016): 45.

[5] Bandelli, Daniela, and Porcelli, Giorgio. “‘Femminicidio’ in Italy:  A Critique of Feminist Gender Discourse and Constructivist Reading of the Human Identity.” Current Sociology. Vol. 64, no. 7: 1071–1073. 2016.

[6] Ibid.

[7] Lalli, Pina, and Chiara Gius. “‘I Loved Her so Much, but I Killed Her’ Romantic Love as a Representational Frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in Three Italian Newspapers.” ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies 7. pp. 55. December 1, 2014.

[8] “Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. April 4, 2013.

[9] Ibid.

[10] Goodhart, Michael. Human Rights: Politics and Practice. Oxford University Press, USA. pp. 30. 2009.

[11] Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. 1 edition. Oxford ; New York: Oxford University Press. pp. 82. 2013.

[12] Mikdashi, Maya, and Lila Abu Lughood. “Tradition and the Anti-Politics Machine: DAM Seduced by the ‘Honor Crime.’” Jadaliyya جدلية.2012

[13] Ibid.

[14] Ibid.

[15] Ibid.

[16] “Violence against Women.” UN Report. Chapter 6, pp. 127. 2015.

[17] “Femicide” Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women. World Health Organization, 2012.

[18] Ibid.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Bandelli, Daniela, and Porcelli, Giorgio. “‘Femminicidio’ in Italy: A Critique of Feminist Gender Discourse and Constructivist Reading of the Human Entity.” Current Sociology. Vol. 64, no.7. 2016.

Brysk, Alison. Speaking Rights to Power: Constructing Political Will. Oxford; New York: Oxford University Press. pp.82. 2013.

Driver, A. “‘We Want to Stay Alive’: Ending Feminicide in Juárez, Mexico.” World Policy Journal 33, no.4:45. 2016.

“Femicide.” Understanding and Addressing Violence against Women. World Health Organization. 2012. 

Goodhart, Michael. Human Rights: Politics and Practice. Oxford University Press, USA. pp.30. 2009

Lalli, Pina, and Chiara Gius. “‘I Loved Her so Much, but I Killed Her’ Romantic Love as a Representational Frame for Intimate Partner Femicide in Three Italian Newspapers.”  ESSACHESS – Journal for Communication Studies 7. pp. 55. December 1, 2014.

Mikdashi, Maya, and Lila Abu Lughood. “Tradition and the Anti-Politics Machine: DAM Seduced by the ‘Honor Crime'” Jadaliyya . 2012.

“Take Five: Fighting Femicide in Latin America.” UN Women. 2017. 

“When the Victim Is a Woman” Geneva Declaration. Global Burden of Armed Violence. Chapter 4, pp.119. 2011.

“Violence against Women.” UN Report. Chapter 6, pp.127. 2015