People hit family members because they can

Family Abuse Violence is an all-pervasive element of the historical and contemporary world. With the advancement social organization and modern societies in large parts human violence instincts have been curbed and directed into more productive measures. Still, it’s clear that violence remains a prevalent issue within contemporary culture. While violence between individuals still is a daily occurrence in large part humans are held in check through laws and regulations. An even more notable occurrence of violence occurs among family members. This essay explores the issue of violence among family members and why individuals that would not abuse non-family members oftentimes perpetrate it. Consider a couple named Chet and Margorie that had been married for ten years. Oftentimes Chet is a very domineering husband and many times has hit and abused his wife because he believed she did not do an adequate job of cleaning the house. While it’s easy to consider that Chet is just a violent person, one must also consider what would occur if Chet had a janitor that did not properly clean his office. In these regards, it seems clear that Chet would not attack the janitor. While Chet’s exact motivations are not easily discernable, Jacobson (1998) indicates that spousal abuse is oftentimes linked to dysfunctional relationship patterns and modes of communication within the household. Markowitz (2000) also indicates that spousal abuse more readily occurs, or is deemed ‘ acceptable’ as compared to public violence, as the abuser is able to rely on the abused person’s emotional or financial dependence to ensure they will not receive punishment. In these regards, the abused person is often unable to leave or inform the authorities about the abuse because they rely on the abuser for their survival. While the earlier instance considers spousal abuse, family abuse also occurs in other forms. Consider the instance of David and Marie. This couple has a three-year-old son named Peter. After Peter knocked the television set onto the floor, David struck Peter and gave him a skull fracture. It’s clear that if a customer was his store their three-year-old son broke a television then David would not strike that child. This issue of family abuse is clearly complicated. Douglas (2005) indicates that oftentimes parents that engage in abuse on their children do so in the belief that it is proper discipline. In these regards, it seems that in-part David might be motivated out of a belief that his actions are actually disciplinary actions in an effort to teach Peter a lesson. Another consideration is that David recognizes as Peter’s father he is able to abuse his child and escape punishment for the actions. Ultimately, these reasons contribute to David’s motivations for violence against his child. In conclusion, this essay has considered the nature of abuse among family members. Through considering two scenarios – spousal abuse and child abuse – a number of considerations have been advanced. Ultimately, it’s argued that these instances of family abuse occur when it would not occur in public is because of a complex combination of emotional dependence and lack of punishment consequences. References Douglas, James. (2005). Abusive Relationships. New York: Templeton. Jacobson, Neil. (1998) ” When Men Batter Women: New Insights into Ending Abusive Relationships”, New York: Simon & Schuster. Markowitz, Sara (2000). ” The Price of Alcohol, Wife Abuse, and Husband Abuse”. Southern Economic Journal (Southern Economic Association) 67 (2): 279– 303.