1.4 Comparing definitions between the UK and China
1.4 Comparing definitions between the UK and China
After examining British and Chinese definitions of the term 'domestic violence',I have found some interesting similarities and differences between them.This helped me to understand why and how to conduct my research,and on what I should focus.Through the literature on definitions,we can see that different social systems or contexts and cultures will influence both phenomena and research -including definitions,methods,analysis and explanation or aetiology.Cross-cultural perspectives will help to contribute to the common purpose of exploring domestic violence and living without violence all over the world.British and Chinese definitions also illuminate the history of researching domestic violence in both two countries.Similarities and differences in definitions will be analysed below.
1.4.1 Who is included?
Both British and Chinese academics define the perpetrators and victims of domestic violence in a context separate to that of violence in more public spheres,i.e.,that involved in street crime,battle,or community violence.Those involved in domestic violence mostly tend to be adults and their relationships tend to be those of intimate sexual partners or biological relatives.Therefore,perpetrators and victims may be husband,wife,parents,parents-in-law,grandparents,uncles,aunts,children,siblings,gay men,lesbians,cohabitants,boyfriend,girlfriend,partner,lover,expartner or ex-husband or ex-wife,friend.
However,because of the different social systems,there are differences in categorising the different relationships between perpetrators and victims involved in domestic violence.British definitions tend to emphasise the relationship of intimacy,or sexuality.Such relationships cover couples and cohabitants (whether heterosexual or of the same sex).In contrast,Chinese definitions focus on the relationship of all family members,including couples but also other family members.Nevertheless,some new definitions in the UK also include the relationship of family members.As we have seen,the new Home Office definition (Hester et al.,2005) is a good case in point.
From the differences,we can see that British notions of 'intimate' relationships not only include consanguinity but also non-consanguinity,formalised (legal) marriages but also non-marital relationships,e.g.cohabitants,while Chinese studies focus mainly on relationships involving consanguinity,marital,and extended family member relationships.Therefore,the relationship involved in domestic violence is defined more broadly in the UK than in China.It further implies that UK law undertakes to ensure that all people who experience domestic violence will be protected legally.But the relationship involved in domestic violence is defined quite narrowly in China,and thus those who may be cohabitants and non-family members will be not protected by the law if they are subjected to domestic violence.
What causes these differences between British and Chinese definitions? Firstly,differences in social systems,some of which are also reflected within the law.For example,British Family Law[6] provides protection for cohabitants,whereas this is not the case in China.Although the phenomenon of cohabitation exists,it is not widely acceptable in China and that situation is seen as a behaviour running counter to morality.Therefore,cohabitants may be not protected when they experience domestic violence and intimate relationships outside marriage,including both heterosexual cohabitation and same-sex relationships,as these do not appear in the Chinese definition or legal codes surrounding domestic violence.
Secondly,Chinese people may have a stronger concept of family than British people (Ding,1999).According to Sino-foreign research into Chinese culture,many scholars argue that Chinese people consider 'family' as primary (Yang,2004)[7].As Chen Duxiu[8] (in New Youth,1915) pointed out,Western nations centre on self and individualism,whereas Eastern nations centre on family.Western people often pursue the self and personal development.According to the Aylward's survey (Zhong,2007),British people may have a stronger concept of work,which make them happier and be more challengeable.
In today's view of family,Chinese people still maintain the strong concept of family and think that family can be seen as one of the most important units for people because it is a basic unit of society (Han,2005).Western people may consider that the family concept of Chinese can be seen as 'family worship' (Yi,2007).For Chinese people,family honour is a lofty and important thing for every family member,and family members will usually give up or sacrifice their individual interests to the greater good.Typically,Chinese people pay more attention to their family once married (Davin,1976;Hershatter,2007;Wang,2002;Zhang &Ye,1989).In China,family members may enjoy depending on each other.Therefore,all Chinese definitions link mainly to the occurrence of domestic violence between family members,while the British definitions link mainly to the occurrence of domestic violence between two adults with a sexual relationship.
However,because of this concept of family,a gender issue cannot be seen so obviously in Chinese definitions although Chinese academics have begun to talk about domestic violence as related to gender inequality in practice.Wang (2002) argues that there is a distinction of gender and hierarchy,according to the concept of the Chinese traditional family,which still exists in actual Chinese families.Because of a gender division of labour 'man outside but woman in the home',women's roles and identities are constructed largely around family relationships,whether as daughters,wives and mothers.The norms of 'the three cardinal guides [sangang][9] and 'the three obediences [sancong][10] provide a regulating framework,mainly for women.These norms strengthen women's division of labour and location of role in both society and home.As the Confucian notion confirms,men are dominant but women are subordinate (Hester,2004).Accordingly,women are vulnerable and experience domestic violence more easily in the home because such violence is regarded as one of the legitimate means to discipline women/wives (Tang et al.,2002).
For thousands of years,the Confucian notion of the proper place of man and woman has impacted on generation to generation although it was criticised (Davin,1976;Hershatter,2007;Pan,1987).The issue of gender equality was spoken of within a traditional Chinese culture of home (Chu &Ju,1993) and might be pointed out by a potential awareness of biology.For example,during the Mao years,the Central government pronounced the emphasis on the question of women to contribute to society (Hershatter,2007).The quintessential slogan was 'women hold up half the sky',particularly Mao pronounced that 'Times have changed.Whatever men comrades can do,can women comrades do' (Ma,1999;Wang,2003).In this year,pursuing gender equality might neglect the specificities of women's bodies and their social experiences or position as girls and daughters and wives in the home or in their daily lives (Croll,1995;Hershatter,2007).
Within this cultural and political context,Chinese people may pay more attention to the relationships with collectives,including family,Danwei,and the State.The interests of collectives or organisations are above the interests of individuals.If an organisation said that victims should not divorce their husbands,they must comply with it.So,the victim (usually a wife) has to tolerate and suffer domestic violence repeatedly.This theme may therefore be reflected prominently in the Chinese definitions of domestic violence as well as in definitions of marriage and family discussed later.Gender and power issues may be reflected more or less and or indirectly in the Chinese definitions.However,issues of gender and power can be seen in the British definitions more openly due to the contrasting social systems and expectations within current UK society,and the concept of the perpetrator (usually male) using domestic violence to control and dominate another (the female) is widely seen a product and reinforcement of inequality and injustice (Hester et al.,2000).
Among these definitions,we can see that the British and Chinese academics define these behavour of domestic violence as extending to abuse beyond the more'typical' instances of physical assault to include any forms,including molestation or harassment,threats of coercion and restriction of personal freedom,indifference and non-communication,verbal abuse and ridicule,stopping or limiting sexual activity,etc.Apparently,such behaviours causing harmful injury or impact on victims in their body and health,including mental health particularly is a public issue of injury.
However,we can see that there are differences in defining these behaviours between the UK and China.For example,British definitions emphasise 'any' violence against victims covering a variety of violent types,which is in its broad meaning.However,Chinese definitions focus on 'specific' violence,in particular on physical violence although research on psychological violence is now emerging.Accordingly,British definitions provide a wide and abstract space for people to think about the issue,whereas Chinese definitions show a narrow and specific explanation in order to allow people to know the behaviours directly,which may be good for people's awareness of domestic violence but may restrict people's understanding within these limited violent forms defined by the academics and practitioners.