“People as normal as possible”. Analysis of the construction of subjects in materials for the prevention of gender violence among teenagers in Spain
In educational materials about the reality of gender violence among teenagers, there are many explicit and implicit choices when constructing the subjects. This study analyses how the figures of victim and aggressor are constructed, in relation to three aspects: the construction of the aggressor-vic...
| Authors: | , |
|---|---|
| Format: | article |
| Publication Date: | 2023 |
| Country: | España |
| Institution: | UVic-UCC |
| Repository: | RiUVic. Repositori institucional de la UVic-UCC |
| OAI Identifier: | oai:dspace.uvic.cat:10854/180819 |
| Online Access: | http://hdl.handle.net/10854/180819 https://doi.org/10.1111/chso.12643 |
| Access Level: | Open access |
| Keyword: | Violència envers les dones Interseccionalitat (Sociologia) Joves 316 |
| Summary: | In educational materials about the reality of gender violence among teenagers, there are many explicit and implicit choices when constructing the subjects. This study analyses how the figures of victim and aggressor are constructed, in relation to three aspects: the construction of the aggressor-victim binomial in relation to gender; what agency is attributed to women and men in the reproduction or transformation of gender violence; and whether the subjects are presented as falsely universal or as occupying specific positions in relation to other axes of inequality. The fieldwork is based on the study of materials for the prevention of gender violence among youths published in Spain between 2010 and 2020, which illustrate different discursive frameworks present in the context. Mainstream materials establish the male aggressor/female victim binomial but leave room to show other subjective positions of teenage boys and girls. Moreover, they create ‘the paradox of agency’ since all responsibility is attributed to the men in the maintenance of a violent relationship, but in the resolution of the violent situation, all responsibility is attributed to women. Intersectionality was named in the majority of texts but heterosexual, cisgender, and autochthonous subjects tended to be constructed as falsely universal, under the pretext of wanting to avoid stigmatising specific social groups. |
|---|