Domestic Violence (DV) Service Provision and the Architecture of Rural Life: an Australian Case Study
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
This may be the author’s version of a work that was submitted/accepted for publication in the following source: Owen, Santi& Carrington, Kerry (2015) Domestic violence (DV) service provision and the architecture of rural life: An Australian case study. Journal of Rural Studies, 39, pp. 229-238. This file was downloaded from: https://eprints.qut.edu.au/79685/ c Consult author(s) regarding copyright matters This work is covered by copyright. Unless the document is being made available under a Creative Commons Licence, you must assume that re-use is limited to personal use and that permission from the copyright owner must be obtained for all other uses. If the docu- ment is available under a Creative Commons License (or other specified license) then refer to the Licence for details of permitted re-use. It is a condition of access that users recog- nise and abide by the legal requirements associated with these rights. If you believe that this work infringes copyright please provide details by email to [email protected] Notice: Please note that this document may not be the Version of Record (i.e. published version) of the work. Author manuscript versions (as Sub- mitted for peer review or as Accepted for publication after peer review) can be identified by an absence of publisher branding and/or typeset appear- ance. If there is any doubt, please refer to the published source. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrurstud.2014.11.004 Accepted version of paper published in Journal of Rural Studies, 2014, p 1-10 Domestic Violence (DV) Service Provision and the Architecture of Rural Life: An Australian Case Study Santi Owen Phd graduate, School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Tel: +856(2) 2812 2971; Email: [email protected] Kerry Carrington School of Justice, Faculty of Law, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia Tel: +61 (7) 3138 7112 Email: [email protected] Highlights This paper examines domestic violence service provision in rural Australia. Shame is a significant deterrent to service use by rural women. Family privacy pose unique operating challenges for rural service providers. Rural services must overcome barriers imposed by geographical distance. Service models are urbancentric and ignore the architecture of rural life. Abstract This article uses the concept of the architecture of rural life to analyse domestic violence service provision in rural Australia. What is distinctive about this architecture is that it polices the privacy of the rural family. A tight cloak of silence is carved around instances of domestic violence. Imagined threats to rural safety are seen as coming from outsiders (i.e. urban influences or Indigenous), not insiders within rural families. This article draws on key findings from a study conducted in rural New South Wales, Australia. The study interviewed 49 rural service providers working in human services and the criminal justice system. The application of architecture of rural life as a conceptual tool demonstrates challenges with service provision in a rural setting. The main results of this study found that this architecture operates as a silencing form of social control in three distinctive ways. Firstly, shame about being a victim of domestic violence encourages rural women’s complicity in remaining silent. Secondly, family privacy maintains a veil of silence that accentuates rural women’s social and economic dependency on men. Thirdly, community sanctions act as a deterrent to women seeking help. Keywords Rural service provision Domestic violence Rural social order 1 1. Introduction This article is based on a study into the way the peculiarities of rural life in Australia impact on the quality, efficiency and availability of domestic violence (DV) service provision. It begins by explaining why any singular definition of rurality remains illusory. Next it explains why the concept of the architecture of rural life has advantages over blunt rural/urban homogenising dichotomies. The distinctiveness of the rural in Australia – both as a cultural signifier about an imaginary rural landscape – and in terms of its particular socio-demography is then described. Unlike Europe, Australia is a vast sparsely settled continent at the foot of Asia in the southern hemisphere that has no history of agrarianism, but two centuries of history of white colonisation that have shaped the architecture of rural life. This article then presents the findings of a qualitative study into the challenges experienced by DV service providers in rural Australia. There is a vast gulf of difference between rural and urban Australian settlements which creates challenging consequences for the provision of DV services. This article makes a contribution to the growing body of research that challenges the modernisation thesis. First, the construction of a crime free rural life is historically inaccurate, as violence and the use of force has been deployed by many a rural community to settle disputes, seek justice or revenge honour. Second, in contemporary Australia and America, crime rates in rural areas are much higher than commonly believed (Barclay et al, 2007; Bourke, 2000; DeKeseredy, 2011; DeKeseredy and Schwartz, 2013; Hogg and Carrington, 2006; La Nauze and Rutherford, 1997; Neame and Heenan, 2004; Websdale, 1998; Women’s Services Network, 2000). The paper argues that the architecture of rural life in Australia shapes DV service provision in several unique ways. Lastly it concludes that urbancentric policy models are inadequate for addressing the issues faced by DV service providers in rural Australia. 2. Basic definitions and the theory of violence and the architecture of rural life 2.1 What is rural? Rurality is a contested concept that remains somewhat arbitrary and open to debate (Hogg and Carrington, 2006). All definitions rely on some concept of linking spatiality with what is rural and all have their limitations (see Lockie and Bourke, 2001: 5-9). Hence the search for a singular definition is illusory (Halfacree, 1993).The main point to arise from these debates is that rurality is a considerably complex phenomenon (Cloke and Little, 1997: 1), and one that is dynamic (Donnermeyer and DeKeseredy, 2 2013: 5-6). Yet, the intellectual study of the rural has been obsessed with romantic images of the countryside as depicted in Figure 1. Cloke and Little suggest that rural studies have been ‘hung up on agriculture; by a fascination with the neat morphological unit of the nucleated village; by an obsession with gemeinschaft social relations; (or) by a persistent questioning of the local-newcomer schism as the key division’ (Philo, 1997: 24). These images compress the richness of rurality into an homogenising template, neglecting the existence of ‘other rurals’ (Philo, 1997: 22) that embody different socialities, sexualities, ethnicities and subjectivities. The rural/urban dichotomy is thus too crude and homogenising a concept to satisfy the requirements of a theoretical framework that might adequately grapple with these complexities. This is why we prefer to use the post-structuralist concept of the architecture of rural life as an alternative to using blunt rural/urban dichotomisations. Photo: Owen, 2006 Figure 1: A typical image of a quiet main street in a rural Australian town often associated with a crime free community. The architecture of rural life in Australia is as much cultural and imagined as it is physical and inscribed in rural landscapes, townships and the social ordering of everyday life. Hogg and Carrington (2006) use the term ‘the architecture of rural life’ to describe an interaction between broader historical and contemporary international, national and regional processes and localised practices. This concept, inspired by post-structuralism, refers to the ways meaning and identity are bound up and (re)articulated in rural townships and vast rural spaces that distinguish the Australian continent (Hogg and Carrington, 2006). While cautious of homogenising constructions of rurality, the aim of this paper is to analyse how service providers of DV interventions are affected by the vagaries of the architecture of rural life in Australia. For the purposes of analysing service provider responses in a rural setting, a working definition of ‘rurality’ is operationalised by using the Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) geographical standard measured as a certain distance from ‘urban’ centres (ABS, 2006). This is the measurement often used in Australian policy documents. It is called the ‘Remoteness Structure’ and differentiates between Major Cities, Inner Regional, Outer Regional, Remote and Very Remote locations (ABS, 2006). This is not an ideal instrument, but it does serve to distinguish rural and regional from urban Australia, at least spatially. 3 2.2 What is rural in Australia? Australia is a vast sparsely populated continent with huge expanses of unoccupied territory, inflicted by the 'tyranny of distance' and unpredictable forces of nature - drought, flood, and bushfire. Australia is also one of the most urbanised nations in the world, with only 30 per cent of its inhabitants living outside capital cities (Dufty-Jones and Connell, 2014: 1). What is distinctive about rural Australia is that it has produced a gender order that is typically more pronounced than it is the urban settlements (Alston, 1995; Poiner, 1990). Another distinctive feature of the architecture of rural Australia is that is far less multicultural than metropolitan Australia. Australia was colonised by the British in 1788 just over 225 years ago. This history of colonisation has produced two distinctive Australian ruralities – one Indigenous and the other non-Indigenous (Cowlishaw, 1998, 2004). Unlike Europe, Australia never had a pre-modern agrarian past. Initially it was a convict settlement – a dumping ground for the unwanted from Britain. Then it became an outpost in the southern hemisphere which presented its European colonisers with a fresh plate upon which to build ‘imaginary’ agrarian communities, based on the quaint yeoman model of settlement.