Dear Judith,
Thank you so much for taking the time to come out review our show. The
web site is an excellent idea and i congratulate all concerned. For my
own part in Gleanings i.e. 'Lines of Resistance I read your review with
interest. it is a line of argument that i have come across before from
people confronted with my work for the first time. whilst i see the
point of view and have debated with myself whether or not to change tack
and satisfy peoples expectations of resistance to violence, and indeed
can see faults in the work, fundamentally it is my opinion that the view
that you are expressing is that of a patriarchal and somewhat myopic
society. what i am attempting to do is expand peoples notions of what
violence and resistance to violence is and indeed what domestic violence
is, i.e. one person trying to control another person or persons. the
dilemma i am faced with is the same as so many others dealing in the
language of art, how do you change established views without introducing
reams of text? In the case of domestic violence these views are
incredibly well entrenched and supported at all levels of society.
Having grown up with domestic violence in a part of the world where
these views flourished ( Liverpool, UK), i like so many inherited those
views and have since had to challenge them and indeed those of my
siblings. When i first came across Lucys' story it was being presented
as part of a Ph.D. paper at Curtin University in front of a dozen other
people comprised of Ph.D. students and academics. The presenter had the
luxury of presenting it verbally and yet many people still struggled
with the concept of it being an act of resistance. The following is a
extract from my writing on the subject of domestic violence, it is based
on interviews, participating in group therapy sessions for victims of
D.V., research, my own experience as well as Lucys' story. i hope its of
interest and look forward to your response and helps to clarify my
position.
Best Regards: Cliff.           Gleanings reviewed by J. McGrath
 

Somewhere on the Galapagos Islands lives a flightless bird called the
blue footed booby bird. Having arrived as a species millions of years
ago Its development over time has largely been shaped by its
environment, the lack of any predators on the island diminished the need
for flight and indeed the fight or flight instinct that accompanies it.
It is possible to approach the blue footed booby bird and pick it up in
your hands without it showing any signs of stress or alarm. The bird
will sit there seemingly expecting that when you have finished doing
with it whatever it is you are going to do with it, you will simply put
it back where you found it. The blue footed booby bird has no concept of
predators and therefore no concept of its possible fate at the hands of
one.

People on the other hand cannot experience this concept for they are by
nature predatory and therefore view their world through the eyes of a
predator in a predatory world, a world where violence and resistance to
violence is known to be a part of every day life. It is from this view
point that we form our ideas of what violence and resistance to violence
are and it is from this view Point that we continue to reinforce this
idea through interpretations in the media, television, films, books,
art, etc. With access to so much information and so much imagery it
would not be difficult to conceive that the face of violence would be
easily recognisable. However violence has the ability to permeate and
weave in and out of our lives in any number of guises, many of which are
seemingly contradictory. Sitting in a stadium Watching two people beat
each other up in a boxing ring is ok, but punching the spectator next
you is a different matter altogether. If an armed robber holds up a
bank, society demands that he be locked up, if the same robber is shot
by police whilst trying to escape society would invariably look upon the
incident a being some what justified. In war to the phrase one mans
terrorist is another mans freedom fighter is a well-worn yet true adage.
It is therefore of little surprise that in a world were people both
applaud and deplore violence that its form and meaning become so
distorted that it can exist amongst us relatively unopposed and even
accommodated. This is Possibly nowhere more prevalent than in cases of
domestic violence, where even the terminology of domestic underlies the
seriousness of the crime.

American senator Joseph Bidden said, "The single greatest danger to a
woman's health is violence from men." Net.

Domestic violence has an image problem. This may sound like a strange
statement, however the image that is presented to society, that of the
victim/survivor being beaten or abused is in fact a small, although
significant part of domestic violence. Media, television, film and other
art forms are all complicit in presenting this image. Even those with
seemingly the best intensions present us with Public information posters
showing the bruised and swollen face of a woman, which intern is seen as
the front line of the domestic violence problem. Doctors, police and
social services often lend uninformed and yet authoritative weight to
this front line image. One possible reason for this is that the victims
contact with them usually only comes about during or after a bout of
physical violence and yet this is arguably the safest time for the
victim, having already survived the physical attack.

This emphasis on both the victim and the physical violence has the
effect of portraying a problem, in which the victim has straightforward
choices, either stay in the relationship and be beaten or leave and not
be beaten. This is not only a gross simplification of what domestic
violence is, it also allows our patriarchal society to largely ignore
and therefore become complicit in, the significant problems that
underpin domestic violence.

In Next Time She'll Be Dead - Battering & How to Stop It, author Ann
Jones describes the term domestic violence thus,

"Domestic Violence" is one of those phrases …designed to give people a
way of talking about a topic without seeing what's really going on. Like
"repatriation" or "ethnic cleansing," it's a euphemistic abstraction
that keeps us at a dispassionate distance, far removed from the
repugnant spectacle of human beings in pain."

So what is domestic violence?
People who have neither been a victim or are a survivor of domestic
violence cannot perceive the full implications of this form of abuse,
and yet as has already been discussed they can and indeed do have an
image of what domestic violence is. The physical side of domestic
violence is probably the easiest part to portray, particularly in terms
of visual media and is the part that everyone can relate to in some way.
We have all felt pain and we all know what it is like to be hit. We have
encountered images and or descriptions of physical and sexual abuse all
of which allows us to grab hold of some tenuous thread and snatch a
glimpse of the physical side of domestic abuse, or indeed any form of
physical abuse. However there is a much larger side to domestic violence
that is far harder to comprehend without direct experience of it. I
refer to psychological violence and anyone who has experienced domestic
violence will be all too aware of it. Whilst the physical violence can
in no way be dismissed in its seriousness, for this in its self causes
psychological damage, physical injury and can of course result in death.
However it has to be remembered that domestic violence is about control
and that physical violence is but one tool, all be it a powerful,
dangerous and all to often an integral one, used to gain that control
over another person or persons.

The physical violence becomes part of an ever-present threat, it is
something that may or may not happen. Imagine for a moment a pie chart
that could represent a victim or survivor's notion or picture of abuse,
physical and sexual assault is a small slice compared to the
psychological abuse. The physical and sexual abuse manifests itself with
a beginning, middle and an end. It is a pressure point at which the
psychological tension is momentarily broken and so in one sense
culminates in the abusers' power also being momentarily broken. Despite
this, however, the victim can of course be left with a whole range of
damaging emotions to deal with including shame, guilt, fear, anger, and
frustration to name but a few, as well as any physical injuries.

The period following a bout of physical abuse, assuming that the victim
has survived, can also be seen as a point of relative safety. This point
is of course invariably short lived as it actually signifies the
beginning of a new cycle. Often the beginning of this cycle is marked by
a period of remorse on the part of the abuser and this to could be seen
as a break in the psychological hold over the victim. However it can
also be seen as the abuser rebaiting the hook in order to reel in the
victim yet again. Although momentary, the break in the abusers' power
becomes an important part of the victim's life, which can reach a point
whereby it is constructed around those points of tension. A whole day
can be spent in fearful anticipation of one fleeting moment that may or
may not happen. For many the physical violence almost becomes an
excepted part of every day life, it takes on normality and excuses are
made to justify it, he was drunk, he was tired, he is sorry, he wont do
it again and so on. It can be packaged up and put aside, until the next
time.

Australian homicide statistics for 1990-91 revealed that:
v 42% of all female victims were killed by their spouses. (Stranger,
1992 cited in Healey, 98).
v 46% of victims were killed following separation or in the process of
separating. (Wallace, 1992 cited in Healey, 98).

Victims of domestic violence are often only to well aware of the
possible consequences of them leaving and it is this tension that is
ever present and cannot be put aside. This tension or fear can begin to
peak with something as seemingly innocuous as a car pulling into the
drive, a key turning the lock, a creak on the stairs or even the sound
of somebody whistling as they walk down the street. Life becomes like a
Hitchcock movie, the fear builds in anticipation of what might happen
and that if nothing does happen it still doesn't mean that it wont.

Whenever men perpetrate violence against women, society automatically
looks for a reason; it searches for a logical explanation. In doing so
it more often than not turns its gaze to the woman and asks what she did
to provoke the violence? Or what she did in response to the violence? In
the case of the perpetrator an explanation is sought to explain the
violence, these explanations usually seek to portray the abuser as
deviant or sick. This is done by citing reasons such as history of
family violence, alcohol, drugs, stress, inability to control anger or
other external problems, all of which seek to put the abuser outside of
the mainstream male population. In addition this also suggests that the
violence is not the mans responsibility but results from an external
source. Whilst these external sources may well be a contributing factor,
men who assault their partners do not generally exercise the same lack
of control else where in society. Rather, men choose to be violent
towards their partners in the privacy of their own homes.

A report by The Domestic Violence Resource Centre states that:
"Abusive men do not generally believe that they are doing anything
wrong. In fact, they justify the reasons for being abusive towards
women. They often claim that their partners had failed them by not
cooking as expected, by not consenting to sex, or by not knowing when to
shut up". Healey (1998, p. 3)

The report goes on to suggest that men who abuse women believe they are
entitled to control them and that domestic violence is part of a larger
social inequality that contributes to the power and control given to men
throughout society.

In the Steven Spielberg film Shindlers List, there is a scene, in which
the commandant of a Nazi death camp stands on the balcony of his home
inspecting the prison he controls. We know he uses this vantagepoint to
shoot at Jewish prisoners. The camera allows us to see what he is
seeing, we can choose to put ourselves in his shoes. What we see is the
Jewish workers going about their various enforced tasks, however,
whenever they are in open ground they run to the next point of cover
knowing that they could be picked of at any moment by the deranged
inspector. Whether or not they are aware of his presence seems
immaterial they have become self surveyling and would continue to work
and run regardless of whether the inspector could be physically seen on
the balcony. The tension builds and reaches its violent crescendo when
he begins to fire. He then casually puts the gun down and goes inside.
The tension is temporarily broken.

The scene subjects us to the fear and tension created by the threat of
physical violence and the control that this exerts on its victims and
the temporary post violence loss of control that goes with it. Fleeting
moments of random violence controlling every waking moment.
>From the construction of that scene we can pick out the notion of the
Panopticon and the control theory that accompanies it. The Panopticon
began as a prison design developed by Jeramy Bentham, the construction
of which involved a central tower, housing the inspector, from which all
the cells and therefore the prisoners could be surveyed. However the
prisoners could not see the inspector, which meant that no one in the
cells was aware at what point they were being watched and therefore
adopted a role of surveyling themselves.

Within the sphere of domestic violence the abuser takes on the role of
the inspector, an omnipresence within the victim's life, which will
progressively become overwhelmed by unreasonable unpredictable
repercussion, resulting in self-surveillance and therefore a form of
imprisonment.

Lines of Resistance.

" Henry was just so picky...one of his pets (hates) was 'tram tracks' in
his shirt sleeves ...It would take me ages to iron them... I had to make
sure for myself that there weren't any... because I knew what could
happen if he found any..."

Lucy, Victim of Domestic Violence, October 1997.

Lines of resistance deals with one victim's experience of this type of
control and her resistance to it. Our normal mindset of what violence
and resistance is, would probably challenge the fact that Lucy was
indeed resisting the violence but rather had become docile in the face
of that violence and perhaps even perversely complicit in it. When we
deal with domestic violence it is essential that the words violence and
resistance become fluid in their meanings. For what is violence? Is
violence a nuclear war, is violence the holocaust perpetrated against
the Jews or setting of a bomb in central London, or is it beating
somebody up in a bar, or throwing a brick through a neighbours window
because he didn't return your lawn mower? Violence is of course all of
these things and much more.

As violence takes on many forms so does resistance to violence. If a
woman is being raped, the attacker and the patriarchal society may well
expect her to struggle, shout, perhaps even fight, if she does this and
he is expecting it, is she resisting or being compliant? If she does not
struggle or resist but allows the rape to happen unhindered and
therefore behaves contrary to what her attacker and indeed are
patriarchal society may expect, is she complying, is she passively
resisting or is she actively resisting?

For Lucy's husband tram tracks was merely an excuse to reassert the
control he sought to gain over his wife, he expected at some point or
other to find tram tracks in his shirtsleeves. In ensuring that her
husband's shirtsleeves were free of tram tracks Lucy did not put a stop
to his violence, as he would inevitably seek another reason to be
violent. However she did actively resist the violence that was being
perpetrated against her, but in doing so became self-surveyling and
therefore constantly aware of the inspectors gaze.

In producing Lucy's story as an artwork the gaze of the inspector has
been given over to the viewer. Ironically the viewer then becomes
self-surveyling, by both seeking out the meaning of the work and
therefore locating themselves within that meaning and behaving in a way
deemed suitable for an art gallery
So if domestic violence is really about control why is not portrayed
that way?