The Duluth Wheel domestic-violence re-education programme
- a revised methodology for generic use by Tom Graves
The Duluth Wheel (in tabular rather than circular form):
There is never an excuse for any act of violence, by anyone to anyone: yet violence exists. There is never an excuse for crime of any kind: yet crime exists. Both remain issues that must be resolved, at both a personal and a societal level.
Strictly speaking, violence - or any criminal behaviour - is a choice. In practice, however, it is generally not so much a choice as habitual learned behaviour - in other words a non-choice or evasion of choice. If violence is learned behaviour, it can therefore be unlearned, and alternative, more constructive, behaviours learnt in its place. This philosophy forms the background to all non-punitive approaches to the problem of violence.
The Duluth Wheel map of violent and non-violent behaviour is one well-known example of such a methodology. It was devised by the Duluth Domestic Abuse Intervention Project, Duluth, Minnesota, USA, as the core of a 'perpetrator' programme to help men convicted of domestic assault to modify their behaviour away from violence and towards mutual co-operation with others. The programme is facilitated by a group of peers who use the Wheel's 'map' to help participants identify their own violent behaviours, who consistently remind participants of their responsibility for violence, and who model alternative behaviours and alternative solutions to conflict.
The 'map' divides violence into eight sectors: coercion and threats; intimidation; economic abuse; gender-privilege; isolation; using children; minimising, denying and blaming. The respective target behaviour for each sector is: negotiation and fairness; non-threatening behaviour; economic partnership; respect; shared responsibility; trust and support; responsible parenting; honesty and accountability.
The programme has been reasonably successful - certainly more successful than the previous 'lock-'em-up-and-throw-away-the-key' approach - but its methodology suffers from a number of serious flaws.
These problems are addressed in the following suggested revision of the Duluth Wheel methodology.
The revised version of the methodology which follows would be suitable for self-study, but would generally be best suited to a 'workshop' environment where alternative behaviours may be modelled directly and experientially.
Begin by defining basic principles and ground-rules.
State the purpose of the programme. State that violence arises from someone's refusal to be responsible for their own power: the purpose of the programme is therefore to assist participants in becoming responsible for their own power.
The specific meanings of the terms 'responsibility', 'power' and 'violence' in the context of the programme should be defined and, where necessary, more fully explained by example. Responsibility is defined as "response-ability", the ability to respond in the present, especially in a constructive or mutually empowering manner; it must be distinguished from blame, which is an attempt to evade responsibility in the present by assigning to others exclusive responsibility for the past, and as such is in practice generally an act of abuse. Power is defined as "the ability to do work, as an expression of choice", where the term 'work' is entirely open, and includes physical, emotional, mental, spiritual, social and many other forms. (To calm a fractious child, for example, or to reclaim hope from despair, is just as much 'work' as digging a hole or solving a technical problem.) Choices are personal, yet everyone has choice: to attempt to override (i.e. 'control') another's choice by force of any kind - physical, emotional or whatever - is an act of violence. Violence is defined as "any attempt, in any form and by any means, to empower the self, or to provide the illusion of empowering the self, by disempowering any other" (or, in a simpler though less precise form, any attempt to lift oneself up by putting another down is an act of violence). A lesser form of violence - abuse - is defined "any attempt to offload or 'export' responsibility for personal issues (such as fear) to any other without their express permission": children export responsibility for their safety to adults, for example, but it is usually the adults' choice to take on that responsibility. The forms which the violence or abuse may take - physical or non-physical - are not distinguished: it is the fact of violence which is considered significant.
State that power and violence cannot co-exist: other than at the level of surface appearances, it is not possible to be powerful and violent at the same time. Violence generally arises from a felt sense of powerlessness, combined with a socially-condoned illusion that to be violent 'is' powerful. The programme is concerned with assisting participants to find their own power and ability to create constructive responses to any kind of conflict situation.
State that feelings are not in question: feelings such as anger, sadness, love and joy arise from the fact of being human. It is not that people have a 'right' to their feelings, but that feelings must in themselves be acknowledged as fact. To deny one's feelings usually causes damage, to self and often also to others. What is in question is each participant's response to their feelings: how they respond is solely their choice, but they have both a personal responsibility and a social duty to find choices of response which are neither violent nor abusive, either to others or to themselves. The object of the programme is to help participants assess their choices, and move their behaviours more into line with that responsibility and duty. Within the programme, participants are invited to acknowledge and express fully whatever they feel, but are required to commit themselves to an agreement that they will allow others to do the same; that, whatever they feel, they will not harm another person or any property, including the building in which the programme is held; and to trust that others, including the facilitators, will do the same. If the programme is held in a non-custodial environment, participants are required to commit themselves to calling facilitators and/or other support groups for help if they consider themselves at risk of being violent with others outside of the programme.
State that responsibility for feelings, and especially for fear, is personal, not social: no-one has a 'right' not to be afraid, or to not experience feelings such as embarrassment or shame. (Note that there may be considerable resistance to this concept, especially from women.) Demonstrate by example - such as by reference to participants' experience of learning childhood skills, such as riding a bicycle - that fear is reduced only by facing it: others may - and where practicable, generally should - be responsible about others' fears, but cannot be responsible for them: this distinction needs to be explained, preferably by practical example. Attempting to offload responsibility for fear to others is not only counter-productive, but is usually a form of abuse. Since fear often leads to 'pre-emptive strikes' against imagined threats, it is a common source of violence: it is participants' responsibility to learn to distinguish clearly between real and imagined threats, and to respond appropriately to each. (Again, women may have considerable difficulty with these concepts, particularly because feminist theory rarely makes any distinction between real and imagined threats, and generally requires responsibility for fear to be taken by 'the other' rather than the self.)
State that violence is generally learned behaviour, and that no-one is being blamed for what they have been taught in the past. It is acknowledged that participants are likely to have been violent and/or abusive in the past: emphasise that the programme is not concerned with blame or with actions in the past, but with creating an understanding of present behaviour and the development of future behaviour. Participants should, however, be warned that facilitators are under legal obligation to report some kinds of violence, such as sexual abuse to children, and participants are required to acknowledge their legal responsibilities in all instances of violence and abuse.
Introduce the revised Duluth Wheel 'map'. Invite participants to look first at the 'gender-neutral' version, to discuss violence in generic terms. Move the discussion slowly from the abstract to the concrete, and from discussion of others' behaviour towards discussion of participants' own behaviour. At an appropriate point, invite participants to personalise this by looking at both gender-specific versions of the model - both the 'violence to females' version, and the 'violence to males' version. These are to be printed on opposite sides of the same sheet; emphasise that they are, in essence, opposite sides of the same coin. State that, as shown by the 'gender-neutral' version of the model, much the same issues apply in any relationship, whether heterosexual, homosexual, in a work environment, at a social event, or whatever.
State that the aim of the programme is to help participants to identify any behaviour of their own which occurs in the left-hand column, and to develop ways to change their own behaviour to create that shown in the right-hand column. Specifically, the aim is to suggest and experience ways in which their behaviour may be changed from aggressive and/or passive forms - which either are abusive and/or invite abuse - towards forms which are inclusive and assertive, and which are respectful both of others and of self.
The focus is always on participants' existing behaviour-patterns and participants' responsibility to create mutually constructive behaviour. Others' behaviour may be discussed, but only in the context of participants' exploring their own response to that behaviour.
Both versions of the table must be fully explored: the order is not particularly significant, but it must be made clear from the outset that both versions exist. Because of gender-stereotyping and other reasons, it is generally easiest for both sexes to begin with the 'violence to females' version: men expect to be made responsible for their own violence, and initially have difficulty understanding their responsibilities in reducing violence done to them; whilst women often understand the latter, but may have considerable difficulty in perceiving and accepting their own violent behaviours.
To explore the tables in the context of 'violence to others' (for example, for heterosexual males or homosexual females, the 'violence to females' table), go through each sector in turn, inviting participants to name their own behaviours which would fit in the respective category. Ask them to describe and, if appropriate, act out in role-play examples of this behaviour to past or present intimate partners. (Include incidents in which others were manipulated into acting out the violence on participants' behalf - such as providing false evidence to a court in support of a divorce claim or intervention order.) Note that this may be profoundly disturbing for many women: strong resistance may be expected, masking deeply-concealed fears and suppressed anger, and care should be taken to avoid triggering an explosive reaction and/or emotional collapse. If attempts are made to avoid responsibility by blaming others - "look, she started it, she hit me first" - bring back the focus to the participant: "yes, we accept that that's your experience, and we neither agree nor disagree: we're asking you what you could do to change the situation to something better for both of you if it happens again". Use the matching sector on the right-hand side of the table to develop alternative behaviours: facilitators should model these behaviours by various means such as role-play, directly involving the participants in each case, and showing how these behaviours are mutually empowering.
To explore the tables in the context of 'violence to self' (for example, for both heterosexual and homosexual males, the 'violence to males' table), go through each sector in turn, inviting participants to describe and, if appropriate, act out in role-play examples of the behaviour of past or present intimate partners which would fit in the respective category, and their own responses to and interactions with that behaviour. (Include incidents in which others were manipulated into acting out the violence - such as the other providing false evidence to a court in support of a divorce claim or intervention order.) Note that this may be profoundly disturbing for many men: strong resistance may be expected, masking deeply-concealed fears and suppressed anger, and care should be taken to avoid triggering an explosive reaction and/or emotional collapse. If attempts are made to take on inappropriate responsibility through self-blame - "he always tells me it's my fault, so I suppose I must be to blame" - bring back the focus to empowering the participant to find alternatives which are responsible rather than blaming: "yes, we accept that that's what you were told, and we neither agree nor disagree: we're asking you what you could do - what power you have - to change the situation to something better for both of you if it happens again". Use the matching sector on the right-hand side of the table to develop alternative behaviours: facilitators should model these behaviours by various means such as role-play, directly involving the participants in each case, and showing how these behaviours are mutually empowering.
In working through the 'violence to self' table, acknowledge that there are limits to everyone's ability to manage their responses to their feelings, especially under extreme conditions of stress or violent assault of any form. Emphasise, however, that even under the most severe provocation there is still never an excuse for violence, even if it can be labelled 'self-defence': participants' social duty to respond in a non-violent way applies to all circumstances. Participants should be reminded that the only person's behaviour they can change is their own: if others are acting in a violent manner, participants have neither a right nor a responsibility to change it, but only to change their own behaviour as best they can to empower all parties in the incident to reach a non-violent resolution. Emphasise that statements such as "it's all her fault" or "he made me do it" are not acceptable. Remind participants that alternatives to violence are always available: although to find such may often severely challenge the participants' beliefs and self-perceptions, a truly non-violent solution to conflict is always empowering, and is often the only powerful solution in any real sense. Considerable resistance to this concept can be expected, both from men and women; considerable help may be required by most participants to learn how to handle this kind of situation, and to fully understand their responsibilities and options for alternative actions.
Remind participants that the descriptions of suggested behaviour in the right-hand side of each table are essentially the same. Whether violence is done by them or to them, in both circumstances they have responsibility to move their own behaviour as best they can to support the mutual behaviour suggested in the right-hand side of each table.
The two tables may be explored by alternating sector-by-sector between 'violence to others' and 'violence to self', or by exploring the whole of one version and then exploring the other. Both versions must be fully explored to the same depth; it will also be advisable to go through both versions twice, to emphasise the essence of violence as an interaction.
Conclude by exploring other contexts in which the same behaviours and same problems occur: with other women, with other men, at work, in sport, with children, with parents or other relatives. Use the same 'violence to others'/'violence to self' self-analysis; use the right-hand side of the table to model alternative behaviours in each case.
Control and abuse (destructive) Equality (constructive) Using coercion and threats Negotiation and fairness - making and/or carrying out threats - seeking mutually satisfying to do something to hurt others resolutions to conflict - threatening to leave your partner, - accepting change to commit suicide, to report others - being willing to compromise to welfare or other external authorities - making your partner drop charges - making your partner do illegal things Using intimidation Non-threatening behaviour - making others afraid by using - talking and acting so that both looks, actions, gestures self and others feel safe and - smashing things comfortable expressing themselves and - destroying others property doing things - abusing pets - displaying weapons (such as knives) Using economic abuse Economic partnership - preventing others from getting or - making money decisions together keeping a job - making sure both others and self - making others ask for money benefit from financial arrangements - giving others an allowance - taking others' money - not letting family others know about or have access to family income Using emotional abuse Respect - putting others down - listening to others - making others feel bad about non-judgmentally themselves - being emotionally affirming and - calling others names understanding, both of self and - making others think they're crazy others - playing mind-games - valuing opinions of both self and - humiliating others others - making others feel guilty Using gender privilege and social Shared responsibility privilege - mutually agreeing on a fair - treating others like servants distribution of work - making all the big decisions - making family decisions together - acting like the 'owner' of others - assuming 'authority' from social stereotypes - being the one to define male and female roles, or other social or familial roles Using isolation Trust and support - controlling what others do, who - supporting both self and others' they see and talk to, what they goals in life read, where they go - respecting self and others' right - limiting others' outside to their own feelings, friends, involvement activities and opinions - using jealousy or envy to justify actions Using children Responsible parenting - making others feel guilty about - sharing parental responsibilities the children - being a positive non-violent role - using the children to relay model for the children messages - using visitation to harass others - threatening to take the children away Minimising, denying and blaming Honesty and accountability - making light of the abuse and not - accepting responsibility for self, taking others' concerns about it and about others seriously - acknowledging past use of violence - saying the abuse didn't happen - admitting being wrong - shifting responsibility for - communicating openly and truthfully abusive behaviour - saying others caused it
Note: adapted from the original Duluth Wheel by laying out the text out in a tabular rather than circular format, and converting to gender-neutral language.
Control and abuse (destructive) Equality (constructive) Using coercion and threats Negotiation and fairness - making and/or carrying out threats - seeking mutually satisfying to do something to hurt her resolutions to conflict - threatening to leave her, to - accepting change commit suicide, to report her to - being willing to compromise welfare - making her drop charges - making her do illegal things Using intimidation Non-threatening behaviour - making her afraid by using looks, - talking and acting so that she actions, gestures feels safe and comfortable expressing - smashing things herself and doing things - destroying her property - abusing pets - displaying weapons (such as knives) Using economic abuse Economic partnership - preventing her from getting or - making money decisions together keeping a job - making sure both partners benefit - making her ask for money from financial arrangements - giving her an allowance - taking her money - not letting her know about or have access to family income Using emotional abuse Respect - putting her down - listening to her non-judgmentally - making her feel bad about herself - being emotionally affirming and - calling her names understanding - making her think she's crazy - valuing opinions - playing mind-games - humiliating her - making her feel guilty Using gender privilege Shared responsibility - treating her like a servant - mutually agreeing on a fair - making all the big decisions distribution of work - acting like the 'master of the - making family decisions together house' - being the one to define male and female roles Using isolation Trust and support - controlling what she does, who she - supporting her goals in life sees and talks to, what she reads, - respecting her right to her own where she goes feelings, friends, activities and - limiting her outside involvement opinions - using jealousy to justify actions Using children Responsible parenting - making her feel guilty about the - sharing parental responsibilities children - being a positive non-violent role - using the children to relay model for the children messages - using visitation to harass her - threatening to take the children away Minimising, denying and blaming Honesty and accountability - making light of the abuse and not - accepting responsibility for self taking her concerns about it - acknowledging past use of violence seriously - admitting being wrong - saying the abuse didn't happen - communicating openly and truthfully - shifting responsibility for abusive behaviour - saying she caused it
Note: adapted from the original Duluth Wheel by laying out the text out in a tabular rather than circular format.
Control and abuse (destructive) Equality (constructive) Using coercion and threats Negotiation and fairness - making and/or carrying out threats - seeking mutually satisfying to do something to hurt him resolutions to conflict - threatening to leave him, to - accepting change commit suicide, to report him to - being willing to compromise welfare - making him drop charges - making him do illegal things Using intimidation Non-threatening behaviour - making him afraid by using looks, - talking and acting so that he feels actions, gestures safe and comfortable expressing - smashing things himself and doing things - destroying his property - abusing pets - displaying weapons (such as knives) Using economic abuse Economic partnership - preventing him from getting or - making money decisions together keeping a job - making sure both partners benefit - making him ask for money from financial arrangements - giving him an allowance - taking his money - not letting him know about or have access to family income Using emotional abuse Respect - putting him down - listening to him non-judgmentally - making him feel bad about himself - being emotionally affirming and - calling him names understanding - making him think he's crazy - valuing opinions - playing mind-games - humiliating him - making him feel guilty Using gender privilege Shared responsibility - treating him like a servant - mutually agreeing on a fair - making all the big decisions distribution of work - acting like the 'mistress of the - making family decisions together house' - being the one to define male and female roles Using isolation Trust and support - controlling what he does, who he - supporting his goals in life sees and talks to, what he reads, - respecting his right to his own where he goes feelings, friends, activities and - limiting his outside involvement opinions - using jealousy to justify actions Using children Responsible parenting - making him feel guilty about the - sharing parental responsibilities children - being a positive non-violent role - using the children to relay model for the children messages - using visitation to harass him - threatening to take the children away Minimising, denying and blaming Honesty and accountability - making light of the abuse and not - accepting responsibility for self taking his concerns about it - acknowledging past use of violence seriously - admitting being wrong - saying the abuse didn't happen - communicating openly and truthfully - shifting responsibility for abusive behaviour - saying he caused it
Note: adapted from the original Duluth Wheel by laying out the text out in a tabular rather than circular format, and inverting gender-specific language.