How Social Norms Contribute to Physical Violence among Ever-partnered Women in Uganda: A Qualitative Study

"The findings draw essential information for social change interventions that target improvement in women's and girls' wellbeing."

In Uganda, the lifetime prevalence of physical or sexual intimate partner violence (IPV) among ever-partnered women is 56%. There is a burgeoning body of scholarship on norm-shifting interventions to address IPV - for example, the SASA programme designed by Raising Voices and pilot tested in Kampala, Uganda. Despite the expanding body of work, this group of researchers saw a need to delineate the pathways through which social norms contribute to physical violence among ever-partnered women. OXFAM NOVIB in Uganda and Uganda Women's Network (UWONET) under the "ENOUGH: Together We Can End Violence against Women and Girls" campaign commissioned the study.

Data were collected in the seven districts of Lira, Arua, Isingiro, Kabarole, Kamuli, Kotido, and Kampala. Focus group discussions (FGDs) and in-depth interviews (IDIs) were used to collect data on physical IPV. Each method was designed to reach a separate group of ever-partnered adults (25 years and above) and young (18-24 years) women and men.

The paper presents results as follows: (i) descriptive norms (what most people in a group do) that influence physical IPV; and (ii) injunctive norms (what other people in the group approve of) that influence physical IPV. To understand mechanisms through which norms contribute to intimate partner physical violence, the paper reports on nuances, specific contexts, and meanings assigned to each norm identified.

For example, one of the descriptive norms identified is that "husbands beat their wives under given circumstances". Men sanction this norm when women fail or delay fulfilling their ascribed gender roles. Part of the justification for this action is the bride price, which entails control and ownership of a woman being transferred to a man, who is then responsible for ensuring her wellbeing, approving decisions, and disciplining her when she transgresses gender expectations. Discussions with ever-partnered women and men reveal that wife-beating is a private matter (between husband and wife) that does not call for the intervention of "outsiders".

Central injunctive norms hold that a wife should tolerate physical violence perpetrated by the husband, that "women have to behave in a way that upholds men's domination", and that "reporting physical abuse to police casts an evil spell onto the family".

The study did find evidence that some women (and men) think of contesting particular social norms. However, the norms rule out specific pathways for doing so (e.g., reporting the spouse to law enforcement agencies is thought to bring about an evil spell). "Some women exercise their agency to challenge the existing norms. However, this causes a change in the manifestation of the norm, not the meaning attached to the social norm. For example, women join the labor market."

Thus, this study reveals some of the mechanisms through which social norms contribute to the perpetuation of physical IPV in this setting. One key way is through maintenance of a culture of silence around the practice: "The norms construct physical violence as a private concern attended to by intimate partners or, in exceptional circumstances, a matter to be handled by the family. The implication is that norms define persons and institutions where matters of physical violence are reported and resolved, which places state institutions and actors at the margins as communities do not recognize their role in addressing women's experiences of violence. When women reach out to the state actors, they advise them to return to their private spaces."

In fact, the local discourse construes physical violence against women as an everyday practice to achieve a greater good within society. Consequently, women and girls are responsible for ensuring that men do not victimise them, and those victimised are blamed for their limited attention to the various informal rules that the social norms present.

In conclusion: "For social and behavioral programmes to change harmful norms, they have to deconstruct physical violence as a private matter, advance the de-normalization of physical violence, and dismantle acceptable boundaries within which violence happens."