Category: UR PGR/ECR Network

Emma Armstrong and Paul Alker

Teesside University

Despite being a global issue for centuries, violence against women and girls (VAWG) has often been dismissed by governments as a private or peripheral concern rather than a systemic problem (Andrews and Ellis, 2022). The term VAWG encapsulates a wide range of offences disproportionately perpetrated by men against women and girls, including domestic abuse, sexual violence, and so-called ‘honour-based’ abuse. Additionally, the rise of smartphone technology, social media and artificial intelligence has not only reshaped existing forms of violence and abuse, but has also given rise to new ones – what has been dubbed Technologically Facilitated Sexual Violence, which takes myriad forms. This includes non-consensual sexting (more commonly known as revenge porn), cyber-flashing, cyber-stalking and the creation of deep-fake pornography (Henry and Powell, 2018).
 
While activists and scholars have long drawn attention to these harms, policy responses have historically been reactive and inconsistent. In recent years, a series of high-profile cases have forced the issue into the public consciousness, leading to widespread calls for change. In response, the Labour government declared VAWG a national emergency and pledged to halve its prevalence within a decade. While this commitment signals a shift in political will, the question remains: will such interventions address the root causes of VAWG, or continue tackling symptoms while systemic violence remains unchallenged?
 
As scholars such as Treadwell (2013) and Yardley and Richards (2023) point out, crime and harm do not occur in a vacuum, but in a context that is influenced by social, economic, cultural and political factors. With this in mind, this blog series will examine VAWG through an integrated multi-level framework (Hall and Wilson, 2014; Lloyd, 2018) that provides us with the theoretical tools to explore VAWG from a uniquely parallax perspective, by examining the issue at a macro, meso and micro level. In adopting this approach, alongside drawing upon the ultra-realist theoretical framework, we aim to provide a comprehensive analysis of why such violence occurs and why it remains such a persistent issue. Ultra-realism is particularly well-suited to this task, not only for its return to the question of offender motivation, but also due to its willingness to transcend analytical boundaries – bridging the personal and structural. In the seminal ultra-realist book, Revitalizing Criminological Theory, Hall and Winlow (2015) note how the progress from feminist and critical criminology laid crucial groundwork for understanding harm and power beyond legalistic definitions, yet argue that a deeper ontological and structural analysis is now required to account for the evolving conditions of late modernity. Ultra-realists have certainly embodied this goal in various contexts, such as Lloyd’s (2018) research into the harms of neoliberal work, or James’ (2020) application of the theory to the harms of hate. To our knowledge, however, this is the first attempt to apply ultra-realist theory specifically to the problem of VAWG.
 
It is our contention that much of the research and commentary on VAWG, while illuminating, tells only part of the story. Simply analysing this violence and harm on an individualised micro level, as much of the mainstream media has a tendency to do, is problematic in that it obscures the structural conditions that underpin such violence (Kelly et al., 2022). At the same time, broad explanations that attribute VAWG solely to the dominance of patriarchy or the presence of ‘toxic masculinity’ fail to account for wider structural and cultural changes associated with neoliberalism and consumerism. These forces have fostered harmful subjectivities across the gender spectrum, imbuing the individual with a kind of ‘toxic sovereignty’ (Tudor, 2020) – a form of individualism where self-interest is prioritised at the expense of others, what Hall (2012) has termed special liberty – a libertine drive to satisfy one’s own interests regardless of the harm it may cause to others (Kotzé and Lloyd, 2022) for both expressive and instrumental purposes (Kotzé, 2024). As Yardley and Richards (2023) point out, this has intensified a sense of entitlement within the perpetrators of VAWG to inflict such harm. Much of the academic and cultural commentary has failed to acknowledge these factors. Additionally, the development of policing strategies, governmental promises to address the pandemic of VAWG and calls for changes to legislation may have some impact, but will only serve to address the symptoms of what we believe is a far deeper issue.
 
Ultimately, this blog series seeks to make sense of VAWG by providing a critical analysis of issues present at the macro, meso, and micro levels. We appreciate that there are nuances across the broad spectrum of offences encapsulated under this umbrella term and across cases that we will not have space to delineate here. However, we hope to offer a robust starting point which not only demonstrates the utility of the ultra-realist theoretical framework for understanding VAWG, but also contribute to what we believe to be some much-needed discussion on the level of intervention required to begin to meaningfully address the issue of violence against women and girls. Therefore, in the spirit of the ultra-realist return to the fundamental question of motivation, this blog series poses a fundamental question: why do individual men seek to inflict harm upon women in both a symbolic and subjective form? Once we have attempted to answer this question via three posts tackling each level, we will then consider what exactly is to be done to challenge VAWG in a meaningful way in the concluding post.
 
References
 
Andrews, S., and Ellis, A. (2022) ‘Incel masculinity.’ In Atkinson, R., and Ayres, T. (Eds). Shades of Deviance. (2^nd Ed). Abingdon: Routledge.
 
Hall, S. (2012) Theorizing Crime & Deviance: A New Perspective. London: Sage Publications.
 
Hall, S., and Wilson, D. (2014) ‘New foundations: Pseudo-pacification and special liberty as potential cornerstones for a multi-level theory of homicide and serial murder.’ European Journal of Criminology. 11(5). Pp. 635-55.
 
Hall, S., and Winlow, S. (2015) Revitalising Criminological Theory: Towards a New Ultra-Realism. Abingdon: Routledge.
 
Henry, N., and Powell, A. (2018) ‘Technology-facilitated sexual violence: A literature review of empirical research.’ Trauma, Violence, and Abuse. 19(2). Pp. 195-208.
 
James, Z. (2020) ‘Gypsies’ and travellers’ lived experience of harm: A critical hate studies perspective.’ Theoretical Criminology. 24(3). Pp. 502-20.
 
Kelly, C., Lynes, A., and Hart, M. (2022) ‘”Graze culture” and serial murder: Brushing up against “familiar monsters” in the wake of 9/11.’ In Fanning, S. E., and O’Callaghan, C. (Eds). Serial Killing on Screen. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan.
 
Kotzé, J. (2024) ‘On special liberty and the motivation to harm.’ The British Journal of Criminology. 65(2). Pp. 314-27.
 
Kotzé, J., and Lloyd, A. (2022) Making Sense of Ultra-Realism. Leeds: Emerald Publishing Ltd.
 
Lloyd, A. (2018) Harms of Work: An Ultra-Realist Account of the Service Economy. Bristol: Bristol University Press.
 
Treadwell, J. (2013) Criminology: The Essentials. London: Sage Publications.
 
Tudor, K. (2020) ‘Toxic sovereignty: Understanding fraud as the expression of special liberty in late-capitalism.’ In Kuldova, T., Hall, S., and Horsely, M. (Eds). Crime, Harm, and Consumerism. Abingdon: Routledge.
 
Yardley, E., and Richards, L. (2022) ‘The elephant in the room: Toward an integrated, feminist analysis of mass murder.’ Violence Against Women. 29(3-4). Pp. 752-72.