| Abstrakt: |
To address male violence in relationships it is necessary to understand its roots in the social construction of different masculinities (Connell) and in masculinity as a context and unitary reference (Bourdieu). "Field work" can read the dynamics that lead to violence by tracing violent behavior back to context of meanings that is at its root. The pervasive nature of the phenome-non requires combining the response to the single act with an intervention ca-pable of addressing the shared culture. Interventions with perpetrators of vio-lence today encounter mistrust if not open hostility. There is a fear that ac-companying those who have committed violence on a path of awareness will lead to attenuation of social condemnation, legitimate justifications or lead to the reduction of sentences. But relying on the mere repressive response is illu-sory and regressive. A second suspicion is that their implementation induces the victims to withdraw from the path of escape from violent relationships. A third doubt concerns the effectiveness of methodologies considered indeter-minate. without analytical clarification the approaches can be contradictory: assuming a common sense that considers violence as disorder can lead to pro-posing self-control to men, espousing a "nostalgia" for a lost norm. The refer-ence in the legislation to these paths risks producing distortions in practice, timing and role and purposes. The risk is that the long and complex path of change bends to the legitimate needs of the judicial system, causing the CUAVs to lose autonomy in choosing a cultural approach oriented towards complexity, to more or less consciously assume the role of consultancy bodies of the process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR] |
