Abstract
This article analyzes the conceptual structure of domestic violence and critiques various influential accounts of domestic violence operating in the criminal justice system, legal and sociological academia, and the domestic violence advocacy community. Part I presents a preliminary philosophical analysis of domestic violence with the goal of furthering our understanding of the correct use of 302 WILLIAM AND MARY JOURNAL OF WOMEN AND THE LAW [Vol. 12:301 1. Jody Raphael, Rethinking Criminal Justice Responses to Intimate Partner Violence, 10 VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN 1354, 1361 (2004). 2. The analysis set forth in this article need not be limited to the criminal justice system’s responses to domestic violence, but within this context an answer to the question of what counts as domestic violence may prove most helpful in furthering debates regarding matters such as pro-arrest policies and mandatory victim participation in domestic violence prosecutions. See infra note 4. 3. ‘Gender prevalence’ herein refers to the rate at which males commit domestic violence against females as compared to the rate at which females commit domestic violence against males. Suzanne Steinmetz sparked the debate regarding gender prevalence in domestic violence by claiming in her early work to document the allegedly widespread phenomenon of “husband battering.” Suzanne K. Steinmetz, The Battered this concept. This analysis centers around three key elements of domestic violence: violence, domesticity, and structural inequality. Part II develops an explanatory model of domestic violence based upon these key elements. Part III examines and critiques four principal accounts of domestic violence, each of which reflects the conflicting ways in which the concept of domestic violence is used in the language and methodology of the criminal justice, academic, and advocacy communities. Finally this article endorses an account of domestic violence that roughly corresponds to the one employed in the recent work of sociologist Michael Johnson.