:::

詳目顯示

回上一頁
題名:「病人」、「犯人」或「個人」?男性家暴「加害人」之再認識
書刊名:社會政策與社會工作學刊
作者:王美懿林東龍 引用關係王增勇 引用關係
作者(外文):Wang, Mei-yiLin, Dong-longWang, Frank T. Y.
出版日期:2010
卷期:14:2
頁次:頁147-193
主題關鍵詞:家庭暴力加害人處遇計畫解釋性互動論去脈絡化主體性Domestic violenceOffender’s treatment programsInterpretive interactionismDe-contextualizationSubjectivity
原始連結:連回原系統網址new window
相關次數:
  • 被引用次數被引用次數:期刊(8) 博士論文(1) 專書(0) 專書論文(0)
  • 排除自我引用排除自我引用:8
  • 共同引用共同引用:292
  • 點閱點閱:152
本文的目的是對現今家庭暴力防治體制對家暴事件去脈絡化地將加害人獨立出來承擔起家暴責任的理解視框進行反思。加害人的暴力行爲被視爲因個人身心病理因素或認知上的父權心態所致,需接受專業人員輔導與教育的「協助」,導正偏差的暴力認知與行爲。在這種個人歸因的理解架構下,加害人的聲音在現行家暴防治體制中是不被聽見與理解的。本研究從加害人主觀經驗出發,以解釋性互動論分析六位已完成加害人處遇計畫的男性個案。研究結果有三:一、家暴防治體制單一化和簡化的視角,將加害人經驗邊緣化,漠視加害人極力澄清自己是「壞人」的烙印、表達自己也是受害者、是需要幫忙的心聲:二、相對於加害人是家庭破壞者的刻板印象,加害人也努力想維繫完整的家,但認爲家庭暴力防治體制所想像的協助方式,不但無助鈴家庭關係的維繫,反而破壞家庭:三、加害人是父權制度與勞動市場雙重壓迫下的受害者,特別是,當中下階層的加害人遭受勞動市場壓迫時,更無力遊刃於現代與傳統男性角色之間。本研究建議,加害人處遇計畫的專業者,應反思由家暴防治體制所複製的個人化矯治和輔導視框,以李重和接納的態度來理解加害人的生命經驗,開顯加害人「多元」主體性與輔導策略。
The current domestic violence prevention mechanism puts domestic violence into a de-contextualization framework, which singles out the offenders as solely responsible for the domestic violence. The violent behavior of the offenders is deemed originated from psycho-physiological disorder or patriarchal attitude, and so the offenders need assistance and education from the professionals to correct their perception and violent behavior. This study focused on the offenders' subjective experience and, in the context of interpretive interactionism, analysed six cases of male offenders who already completed offender's treatment programs. There were three major results: 1. the domestic violence prevention mechanism's approach was over simplified. It marginalized the offenders' experience, and the offenders' own wishes and needs were neglected, such as wishing to remove the label of 'villain', or the feeling that they were also victims and needed help. 2. The offenders made effort in the hope of maintaining their family, however they felt that the assistance imposed by the domestic violence prevention mechanism was not only unhelpful, but destructive to the preservation of the family. 3. The offenders fell victim under the two-fold pressure from traditional patriarchal value and the labor market. In particular, when the middle-lower class male offenders suffered from the suppress from the labor market, it became immensely difficult for them to find a standpoint between the traditional and the modern role. This study proposes that the professionals who work in the offender's treatment programs shall reflect upon their framework of correction and assistance developed by the domestic violence prevention mechanism. It is also suggested that the professionals shall understand the offenders' life experience with respect and acceptance.
期刊論文
1.張芳榮、李娟娟、謝宏林、王梅麗、張達人(20050600)。家庭暴力加害人非自願性團體治療之團體歷程探討。中華團體心理治療,11(2),1-13。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.莫藜藜、王行(19960300)。已婚男性的家庭價值觀及其對家庭的需求之探究。東吳社會工作學報,2,57-114。new window  延伸查詢new window
3.翁開誠(20021200)。覺解我的治療理論與實踐--通過故事來成人之美。應用心理研究,16,23-69。new window  延伸查詢new window
4.陳若璋(19920300)。臺灣婚姻暴力之本質、歷程與影響。婦女與兩性學刊,3,117-147。new window  延伸查詢new window
5.王行(20070600)。文化與政治下的權力與暴力輔導被認定的施虐者之思辨敘事。應用心理研究,34,229-252。new window  延伸查詢new window
6.McKendy, J. P.(1993)。Ideological Practices and The Management of Emotions: The Case of “Wife Abusers。Critical Sociology,19(2),61-80。  new window
會議論文
1.王炳煌(2008)。〈警察在家暴防制工作中的角色與功能〉。台北。  延伸查詢new window
2.趙曉娟(2008)。〈以「被害人安全為目標」的婚姻暴力加害人處遇計畫〉。台北。  延伸查詢new window
研究報告
1.Healey K. C. Smith and C. O’Sullivan(1998)。Batterer Intervention: Program Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies。Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Justice。  new window
2.王珮玲、黃志忠(2005)。家庭暴力加害人處遇模式成效評估之研究 (計畫編號:PG9403-0368094000000AU691003)。台北市:台灣社會政策學會。  延伸查詢new window
3.Hubble, M. A., B. L. Duncan and S. D. Miller(1999)。The Heart and Soul of Change: What Works in Therapy。Washington, D.C.:。  new window
學位論文
1.鄧純芳(2000)。藍鬍子現身--揭開加害人面具的婚姻暴力加害人處遇計畫(碩士論文)。國立臺灣大學。  延伸查詢new window
2.林裕珍(2007)。婚姻暴力加害人參與加害人處遇計畫婚姻生活經驗之研究(碩士論文)。國立嘉義大學。  延伸查詢new window
圖書
1.Smith, Dorothy E.(2005)。Institutional Ethnography: A Sociology for People。Toronto, Canada:University of Toronto Press。  new window
2.Mills, L. G.(2003)。Insult to injury: Rethinking our responses to intimate abuse。Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press。  new window
3.Fagan, J.(1996)。The Criminalization of Domestic Violence: Promises and Limits。Washington, D.C.:National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice。  new window
4.Denzin, Norman K.、張君玫、孫中興(2000)。解釋性互動論。弘智文化事業有限公司。  延伸查詢new window
5.Touraine, Alain、舒詩偉、許甘霖、蔡宜剛(2002)。行動者的歸來。臺北:麥田。  延伸查詢new window
6.潘淑滿(20070000)。親密暴力 : 多重身分與權力流動。臺北:心理。new window  延伸查詢new window
7.de Montigny, G. A. J.(1995)。‘The Power of Being Professional’。Knowledge, Experience, and Ruling Relations。Toronto:。  new window
8.Jenkins, A.(1990)。Invitations to Responsibility: The Therapeutic Engagement of Men Who Are Violent and Abusive。Adelaide。  new window
9.Pranis, K.(2002)。‘Restorative Values and Confronting Family Violence’。Restorative Values and Family Violence,。Cambridge。  new window
10.Smith, Dorothy E.(2000)。‘Institutional Ethnography’。Qualitative Research in Action。London。  new window
11.Swift, K.(1995)。Bad Mothers’: A Critical Perspective on Child Neglect.。Toronto:。  new window
12.Tolman, R. M. and J. L. Edleson(1995)。‘Intervention for Man Who Batter’。Understanding Partner Violence: Prevalence, Causes, Consequences and Solutions。Minneapolis, MN:。  new window
其他
1.高雄市政府家庭暴力暨性侵害防治中心(2002)。《九十一年度家庭暴力相對人裁定前鑑定專業人員培訓基礎訓練手冊》,高雄。  延伸查詢new window
圖書論文
1.文崇一(1988)。從價值取向談中國國民性。中國人的性格。台北市:桂冠。new window  延伸查詢new window
2.王增勇(2005)。導讀:傅柯與社會工作的對話。傅柯與社會工作。臺北:心理出版社。  延伸查詢new window
3.黃志忠(2001)。權力與控制對兩性關係的影響。家庭暴力相對人審前鑑定制度工作手冊。台北:內政部家庭暴力防治委員會。  延伸查詢new window
 
 
 
 
第一頁 上一頁 下一頁 最後一頁 top
:::
無相關著作
 
QR Code
QRCODE