Ecological and intersectionality perspectives

The published work of Heise (1998) provides a theoretical model of analysis that seeks to deepen our understanding of the aetiology of violence against women, capturing it as a complex multidimensional phenomenon. The integrated ecological model suggests that adopting a single factor explanation of violence is inadequate and limiting, and proposes an alternative perspective: a “theory must be able to account for both why individual men become violent and why women as a class are so often their target” (Heise, 1998, p.263). Her proposed model examines a complex array of interconnected factors that influence the manifestation of intimate partner violence (2011, 1998).

Heise (1998) model is developed from Belsky’s (1980) interrelated multidimensional ecological approach − a nested systems theory derived from her conception of violence as a complex and multifaceted phenomenon, largely influenced by individual factors, family, community and societal (socio-cultural) factors. Heise own theory suggested that at the individual level (i.e. the innermost circle, the micro-system represents the personal history and factors of each individual, that determines his or her behaviour and relationships. For instance, being male, witnessing marital violence and conflict as a child, paternal absenteeism, rejection by one’s father, being abused as a child, and alcohol misuse, may all be linked to male violence against women.

The next circle reflects the micro-system, which represents the immediate context in which abuse takes place at the family level, and how that influences intimate and acquaintance relationships. For example, Heise (1998) explores how violence may stem from marital conflicts, spurred by male dominance and control of wealth and decision making processes by men in the family. This situation is further complicated by the compounded interlocking presence of other factors such as poverty and unemployment, and these structural elements may constitute as the contributing factors to violence in the family. Further, at the community level (i.e. the third level, the ecosystem, which

encompasses the institutions and social structures, both formal and non-formal, embedded in the micro-systemic level. This includes the workplace, neighbourhood, social networks and peer influences. Here at this level, violence may occur in situations where women and the family are isolated, and men may become influenced by delinquent peers and conform to hegemonic tendencies and norms under the influence of those peers. Also, low socio-economic status may complicate or aggravate the situation.

The macro-system represents the final level as Heise (1998) suggests it represents the societal level, reflecting the general systemic level or worldviews that influences attitudes, practices and norms perpetuating VAW. VAW can be traced to several interlocking underlying structural factors and forces that interact and prevail as normalised elements of a given society. These may include the acceptance and tolerance of hegemonic norms, traditions, and laws which grant men power and control over females. The normalisation of violence as an accepted means of resolving domestic conflicts (Heise 1998, pp.263-265) is a challenge has been problematised by other scholars. Here I refer to similar theory on violence against women as advanced by Connell’s (2005) whose notion of ‘hegemonic masculinity’ as a form of masculinity that exercise male dominance, power and control and the use of aggression, is similar to Heise (1998, 2011) own conception of the causes of VAW at this systemic level. For instance, Connell (2005) writes about male gendered norms (dominance and control) fuelling violence against women and girls.

According to Connell and Messerschmidt (2005) own conception of hegemonic masculinities reflect their understanding of “masculinities are not simply different but also subject to change” (Connell & Messerschmidt 2005, p.835) and these pair of scholars recognise multiple masculinities and “diversity in masculinities” which I concur with, because there is evidence from the literature (Lapsansky & Chatterjee 2013, p. 41) that contributed to our understanding of “masculinity as fluid social construct (as opposed to an unchangeable natural construct)” which in many ways presents the opportunity to create and implement programme policies and interventions to prompt critical reflective engagements that spur resistance and non-conformity to th notion of dominant hegemonic masculinity (Lapsansky & Chatterjee 2013, p. 41). A growing recognition and call to avoid universalising and essentialising a single or dominant form of ‘masculinity’, but rather to develop an understanding of “diversities of masculinity” (Connell &

Messerschmidt, 2005). There is need to explore creative ways to support women’s agency and resistance within a given socio-cultural milieu, recognising the dynamic potential for change. A useful reference is Tamale (2008, p.64) contribution in the debate in which she calls for the needs to conduct analysis reflecting cultural specificities. In so doing, it is possible for culture to be viewed from a “dynamic and unritualised” perspective, thus examining the linkages between its positive aspects and its emancipatory potential for advancement of women’s rights.

The global discourse, and activism towards freeing women from violence have been problematised the issues of violence against women by men (Fulu et al., 2015, p.1440), yet in the Gambia, despite national and international agencies’ interventions, there are limitations in registering the effectiveness of these interventions that seek to influence the women’s rights agenda of mainstreaming women in development processes. These are key areas that remain under-researched, despite years of programmes that claim to address gender-based abuses across themes such as child marriage, FGM/C, women’s socio- economic rights. Interesting though, one key success is the ban on FGM demonstrating the positive influence of gender and human rights activism in the Gambia, in the pursuit of national and international advocacy interventions aimed at preventing against harmful traditional practices. While I argue that the banning the practice of chid marriage and FGM/C in the Gambia is a good start, however, it is not, on its own, an adequate means of preventing and eventually ending the practice of FGM/C. More needs to be done to provide the resources and political commitment to fund programming at various levels, and also to conduct evidence – based research to generate baseline data on prevalence of the problem and to evaluate programme interventions in order to track changes over a period of time, as well as identifying the negative factors and barriers to change. Additionally, research is useful in drawing out positive factors that prevent harmful traditional practices and VAW, exploring the connection of violence with intersections to HIV/AIDS. This remains a gap and needs to be addressed. My own research will contribute to providing data and to propose relevant recommendations based on the findings of my research which explores the link between violence and HIV in the experiences of women living with HIV in the Gambia.

I envisage a process in which I would be utilising a multi-dimensional approach to carry out research and conduct analysis examining overlapping and interacting factors

contributing to violence against women for appropriate policy and practice interventions. While I agree that male dominance is a foundation for any realistic theory of violence I also realise that ‘a single factor explanation’ is inadequate and unrealistic (Heise, 2011, 1998) given the diversity of factors and pathways to gender-based violence against women. Hence, I recommend that research using an ecological and intersectional frameworks (Crenshaw, 1991 Crenshaw, 1989; Hill-Collins, 1991) may offer researchers useful insights into the multifaceted phenomenon of violence, teasing out in our analysis more complex interplay of forces (personal factors, the role of immediate and extended family, the peer influences) affecting women’s lives.