This article originally appeared in T&S Issue 39, Summer 1999.
In 1998 the possibility of doing a piece of research to demonstrate the prevalence of violence against women in Ghana became a reality. The national study — which involved searching agency records, focus groups, interviews with key people, and a survey of women — was audacious in its scope for any context. When you take into account that many of the participants were illiterate, that Ghana is a huge country with may different languages and patterns of family relations, the achievement is even more remarkable. The final report is being written: here we print a speech by Kathy Cusack, the Project Coordinator of the Ofamfa Project, to WomanKind Worldwide on the challenges they faced, and some of the key themes that have emerged.
There is only time in this presentation to give you some tasters of the research project. I will give a very brief overview of the why and the how of what we did, then outline three themes in our findings, and end with a brief discussion of how we intend to move forward.
One of the constant themes in our project has been starting points. Violence against women is a ‘new’ issue in the public arena in Ghana, and there have been and continue to be many new starting points. Almost two years ago to the day, a group of women came together to discuss the issue of violence in Ghana. When the Gender Centre picked up the issue in their work two years ago — the issue was unnamed, unacknowledged, unidentified, but it was not unknown. But since it was never named it was invisible, this was true even amongst groups working on women’s issues or working with women. In our initial discussions with these groups there was a complete lack of awareness about violence and its consequences for the women and children they were working with; no one was talking about it. So there was an almost complete lack of information and documentation about the extent and depth of the problem, and my organisation was also relatively new to this area of work. Our plan was to develop a national campaign. But we all agreed that this needed to commence with research to help us to understand the patterns, causes and remedies in the social and cultural context of Ghana. This had to be a national study in order to recognise and include the ethnic diversity in the country. We also wanted to contribute to an international body of research on violence against women from the west African experience.
The research was always understood as the first of many phases of work to tackle the issue. What we have completed to date is the data collection and some of the preliminary analysis. This is enough for us to put together a draft report and to have recommendations which enable our project partners to begin to plan approaches
Creating a research practice
The guiding principle of the research was that it would be action based, and one of the ways we tried to achieve this was by involving NGO staff as research assistants. This had two purposes: there was so little understanding of the issue and little recognition of the depth of its existence or the need for efforts to eliminate or prevent it, so working on the study would be part of our introductory efforts at sensitizing the NGO sector to the issue of violence against women, and participation would involve them in planning and implementing a response to the multitude of issues related to violence against women and children. We did this mainly by using women’s testimonies.
Our aim was to gather a nationally representative understanding of the prevalence of violence against women, and to some extent against children, and to investigate social responses to violence. We collected data from three different sources in order to ensure greater accuracy and a representation of multiple perspectives. We began with a five year review of official records including police, health, courts and social welfare. We used these official records to see what types of violence were being reported, the numbers of reports, what information was recorded by agencies, and what they did. We conducted 205 focus group discussions and 70 key informant interviews, which we used to discover the perspectives of community leaders and workers on the use of violence and to identify factors which influenced and restricted women’s responses, and to explore the way forward. The final part was a survey of women, which had 349 questions.
Where to draw the line
The first big theme which we have struggled with is defining violence. There was no easy starting point for us, since in Ghana there is not a culture that says that violence is unacceptable in any form. So whilst there are strong moves in many western societies to say ‘no tolerance’, we had to begin from the point that in Ghana there is a fundamental belief that violence is unquestioned and therefore acceptable. More than this, that chastisement is a parental and spousal right. One participant in a focus group of social welfare workers said:
Children can be beaten by anybody in society. As we see it there is nothing wrong with spanking, caning, and banging their heads together when they misbehave. A child is your property to correct in any way that you want.
The group of educationalists confirmed that traditionally the child is considered the property of the parents. One said: ‘a child must feel pain as a consequence of his bad actions’. Beatings are used to correct or to get immediate change in a child’s behaviour.
Very similar attitudes emerged about women or wives, as these quotes illustrate:
The man thinks that as the woman is his wife, she is his property and therefore he can do whatever he likes to her.
or more graphically:
One thing that has been established by our tradition… is the fact that man and woman are not equal. This tradition allows the superior to abuse the inferior, it assigns specific roles to both sexes, for example, digging graves for men and cooking for women. Therefore, there is no reason for the man not to slap or beat the wife if she fails to cook having been given chop money.
We found a great deal of confusion and difficulty in drawing a line between chastisement and abuse for both women and children. This surfaced first in our initial training session and was a constant theme throughout all of our discussions. It became clear that the project itself was, to a large extent, about developing an understanding of where that line is perceived to be in Ghanaian society.
What we have discovered is that it is considered acceptable to correct and discipline women and children, so long as the chastisement is seen as proportionate to the disobedience or the failure of women and children to fulfil socially defined expectations. These include, for instance, obedience, respect, submission, and duties such as cooking and cleaning, and for women also childbearing and sexual availability. Violence is only unacceptable when the chastisement was disproportionate and the measure of this was often the nature of the injuries sustained, such as the drawing of blood. This was the common defining line between appropriate and inappropriate, but such distinctions are entirely subjective. It was also clear that the unacceptable line is reached more quickly in relation to children than with adult women. One social welfare worker explained that whilst society in general does not approve of wife beating, it depends on the cause. If it is a case of the wife flirting, the community may ignore a beating whatever the injuries sustained.
We had expected that when we asked participants to define violence, they would focus mainly on physical force. But the focus group discussions indicated that there was a broader understanding, including aspects of psychological, sexual and socio economic abuse as well as some traditional practices which were considered to be harmful and degrading to women. We even had new terms introduced to us such as ‘sexual neglect’ which was described by one Queenmother [1] as:
men can go out for other women to satisfy themselves, but a woman cannot do that. When a woman does that the whole community will curse her. So some women are staying with their husbands, in the same house, for years without having sex.
What a woman is
Another emerging theme has been the social expectations of women. The acceptance of chastisement and punishment for disobedience, raises the question of what counts as disobedience. Many of the behaviours deemed as ones that would warrant correction, such as refusing to do or complete some household duties like cooking, cleaning, washing, looking after the children, involve refusing to be submissive to the male head of household. As one female elder put it ‘when a man says one word and the woman will say three’. Another example of disrespect was women refusing to seek permission to trade in the market, visit friends, parents or relatives and/or visit the family planning clinic — over 83% of our participants said they required their husband’s permission to do these things. Many of the women experienced these restrictions, and their men’s refusal to be sexually available, as forms of violence.
Many women indicated that it was difficult for them to live up to the expectations placed on them socially; there were many reasons which militated against their actually being obedient or living up to their defined responsibilities. For example, women’s financial dependence on husbands meant they had to ask for ‘chop money’ which would in turn lead to beatings. The result of some women’s attempts to break out of this pattern of financial dependence, was described by one chief:
When men are unable to find work and women are forced into petty trading and in effect become the head of household serious conflict erupts, often with violence being the result, because men in this situation begin to feel disadvantaged.
Another area of tension was family planning and reproductive control issues. Women have little control over when they get pregnant and the number of pregnancies. This creates an ever increasing workload that they find difficult to keep up with. If they do keep up with it they are often exhausted and not interested in sex at night, but will be beaten for refusing.
Despite women’s perceptions that their gendered responsibilities were unattainable, they (like almost all other participants) saw the causes as predominantly women’s fault. This victim-blaming whereby women see themselves as the principal cause of men’s violence, at the same time as excusing perpetrators, was a fundamental theme running through all of our discussions and research. As a consequence women’s proposed solutions to violence often involved them taking responsibility to ensure that there is nothing to give rise to men’s use of violence; they had to be more tolerant, more patient, more understanding and less demanding.
Out of control
The last major theme was the extent to which women recognised that they lacked control over their lives. There were three main structures which accounted for this: the family; tradition; and state (institutions).
It was very clear that women have internalized the message that they are inferior, and that children still absorb the dominant ideology that man is superior and woman is inferior. One participant argued that a wife should see her husband as ‘lord and boss, mothers should provide for the needs of their children’. At the same time in our focus groups with children and adolescents, alongside these stereotypical views, they thought they had rights, and called for parents and teachers to respect girls and treat them as they would their own children. We found little evidence amongst men of an understanding of women’s experiences of particular forms of violence, such as sexual harassment, or women’s position on polygamous marriages.
In traditional communities there is a very entrenched view that men’s violence against women is a private matter. But we did pick up the beginnings of a difference between fundamentalist traditionalists and some fairly radical views. From fundamentalists we heard opinions such as that women should humble themselves and be patient, follow traditional values and norms, pray to resolve the issues, and learn how to deal with violence. There were extremely strong messages about subservience from this group, yet despite this, even here we began to see some acceptance of the need to address the issue of violence with programmes. Even in the most unlikely places, there was a bit of a shift, recognition (although not publicly) that the issue existed and needed addressing. Suggestions included: counselling skills for chiefs; community meetings; conflict resolution in communities; and awareness raising about the issue of violence. This has to be understood, however, in the context of not seeing men as responsible, but locating the problem with external factors such as the lack of jobs, poverty, foreign films, and the economy.
Some of the more radical responses from traditional communities came from the queenmothers. They talked about the need for: properly registered and legalized marriages; a one man one wife policy. Here there was also a shift away from victim blaming, and some recognition of the need to break the culture of silence and shift the status of women. It has to be said though that no traditionalists really addressed the issue of men’s use of violence.
Slightly greater awareness of violence against women was found amongst practitioners, but at the same time, they were also immersed in the social attitudes of the communities they were part of. The depth of knowledge varied and was fragmented, based mainly on what they knew from practice. For example, social workers and health saw violence as very common, reflecting the fact that they deal with a lot of maintenance and paternity cases and cases of severe injury. The judiciary, on the other hand, view it as uncommon, only isolated incidents, probably reflecting the very limited access that women have to the criminal justice system and the stigma and ostracisation that women experience if they make a formal report. In addition institutionalized factors, such as having to pay for a police investigation, also militate against reporting. It was in the worker group that explicit talk about rights of the individual was evident, but awareness of the issue is impeded by their perspectives on the causes of violence against women and children which drew on a much more traditional perspective, that women and men were not created equal. Whether this was ascribed to biblical writings such as women being created from the rib of man or to traditional roles — that men dig graves and women do the cooking — the end result was that the perception of women as property in effect gives men the right to chastise, to use violence against women and children. We found no evidence amongst agencies of men being called to account for their violent behaviour and institutions do not see it as their role to directly confront the perpetrator.
The possible solutions offered by practitioners reflected these tensions and contradictions. A large number focused on women’s behaviour as a means of preventing further violence, including: learning patience; accepting and fulfilling their traditional roles; dressing appropriately; learning to uphold moral values; even instilling the fear of God into women and children. At the same time violence was recognised and other proposals included: the provision of counselling; education in anger management and conflict resolution; provision of community care services; arguments for wages on which a man can support his family; arguments for women to make a wage and thus to be less dependent upon their husbands.
Where we go from here
In thinking about responses, our guiding principle for response will be a collective approach which targets both victims and perpetrators. We have to move violence against women and children from being a private issue to a social issue in Ghana.
Our thinking at the moment involves a three phase intervention using the ‘three p’s’ from Zero tolerance — prevention, provision and protection: a mass awareness raising campaign aimed at prevention; upskilling practitioners and strengthening infrastructures in order to ensure the provision of services; advocacy and legislative changes to increase the protection of women. Within these we will attempt some inter-agency work with police, health and social welfare.
Notes
[1] Queenmothers are either the mother, the sister, the aunt, or cousin of the reigning Chief of King. She is the most highly placed woman of the royal lineage and rules with the Chief or King and is elected by the same people who elect the King or Chief. The Chief must be named by the Queenmother first. The Queenmother nominates him and he is presented to the Council of Elders for their approval. When it comes to choosing the King she is the most important person. The Council of Elders consult her first; they either veto or accept her nomination. Usually they accept.
She is the one who knows the genealogy in the selection of the Kings or Chiefs. She enjoys great prestige as a genealogist and is responsible for maintaining tradition and preserving custom. She also has her own stool, holds her own court (the silver stool) meaning she is like a Chief in her own right. She holds prerogative far greater than that of any man, being the only person who can reprimand the King to his face or in public. She is like an advisor par excellence and has her own Council of Elders. She is the head of all the women. She directs and supervises all matters concerning women. She is the also the custodian of the consecrated stools — i.e. the stools of all the royal predecessors of Kings, Chiefs and Queenmothers. She has her own palace. She has the privilege of naming the successor to a vacant stool. She will act as Chief or King when the stool is vacant. The title Nana shows her position — like ‘Her Royal Highness’. She does not officially marry. Since she is supposed to be a menopausal woman, this is not a big factor. She does not become Queenmother when young. Not much importance is thus attached to their partner. It is her children that are important. ↩
From: Dr. Mansah Prah ‘Nana Yaa Asantewa’ Women in World History (Yorkin Publications, 1998)