Tech-facilitated violence: thinking structurally and intersectionally

Abstract

Technologically-facilitated violence (TFV) can take many shapes and forms, In this thought piece, we reflect on TFV from structural and intersectional perspectives, examining how these might change our understanding of TFV, with particular attention to gender-based TFV. We are motivated to engage in this reflection for two main reasons. First, traditional understandings of violence, including gender-based violence, tend to prioritise physical acts (whether in word or in application), contributing to a trivialisation of the kinds of harms effected through digitised communications networks (Dunn, 2021). Second, if TFV is understood primarily in terms of individual interpersonal acts, our ability to understand how intersecting oppressions such as sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, colonialism affect the likelihood of being targeted and the experience of violence will be compromised. As Black feminist and critical race scholars such as Crenshaw (1991), Hill Collins (2017), and Jiwani, Berman and Cameron (2010) have ably demonstrated, individualistic single axis accounts of violence outside of technologised contexts have resulted in exclusionary and dangerous outcomes that selectively harm members of equality-seeking communities. The result of these individualised understandings of violence is that structural oppressions are ‘erased, trivialised, or contained within categories that evacuate the violation of [structural] violence’ (Jiwani, 2006, xi–xii). Among other effects, such erasure risks rendering invisible opportunities to intervene with respect to violence not carried out by individuals, often resulting in ‘remedies’ that emphasise interventions by the state against individual actors (for example, through criminal law), powers that already disproportionately target members of equality-seeking communities, and misses the potential need to intervene on capitalistic corporate systems and behaviours. In both cases, the prospect of achieving justice recedes.<br /><br />Key message<br /><ul><li>Essential to understand TFV through structural and intersectional lenses to better ensure just policy approaches and support mechanisms for all.</li></ul>

Technology-Facilitated Abuse Victimization: A Gendered Analysis in a Representative Survey of Adults

“…Arguably, these findings point to the critical importance of recognizing technology as a tool of abuse that is used by perpetrators within particular contexts of interpersonal violence and that when we ignore that context, and focus only on the extent of TFA behaviors, we miss potential vital explanations of the risks and impacts of these harms. Indeed, as Dunn (2021) has further argued, there is a tendency to minimise the harms of TFA because of its digital nature, rather than understanding its impacts within a broader context of gendered violence (see also Bailey & Burkell, 2021).…”

“…An emerging body of literature further identifies that women’s experiences of intimate partner and sexual violence increasingly feature technology facilitated forms of abuse (Bailey & Burkell, 2021; Bates, 2017; Dragiewicz et al, 2018; Dunn, 2021; Tanczer et al, 2021; Woodlock et al, 2020). However, much of this rapidly developing field comprises qualitative studies or small samples with women’s support services and women victims (e.g., Flynn et al, 2021; Woodlock et al, 2020).…”

“…Meanwhile, some studies have suggested that there is a different character or nature to the abuse experienced by men and women, such that many women’s experiences of general online harassment are more likely to feature sexualized and/or misogynistic abuse (e.g., Nadim & Fladmoe, 2021), or that women experience greater negative impacts from TFA relative to men (e.g., Brown et al, 2021; Henry et al, 2020). Indeed, given the embedded nature of technology in our everyday lives (including being vital for access to work, education, civic participation and social connection), TFA arguably contributes to structural gender inequality whereby women’s (and indeed other marginalized groups) digital participation is constrained due to violence and abuse; effectively silencing women’s voices (e.g., Bailey & Burkell, 2021; Dunn, 2021).…”

Structures Surrounding the ‘User’ in User Engagement: Gender-based Violence Design Engagements

“…(2020, p. 98) Still, it should be recognized that all genders can support and perpetuate violence (hooks, 1984, p. 118). At an intersectional level, Bailey and Burkell (2021) call our attention to how unpatterned understandings of violence can further expose people to violence across different systems of oppression. For example, women with disabilities are twice as likely to experience IPV than abled-bodied women, yet due to the marginalization of their experiences, have been left ill-equipped to recognize and respond to abusive behaviors (Save Lives, 2017).…”

Digital technologies and gender-based violence – mechanisms for oppression, activism and recovery

“…In their Open Space article 'Tech-facilitated violence: thinking structurally and intersectionally', Bailey and Burkell (2021) examine the relations between direct (interpersonal) and structural aspects of tech-facilitated violence, paying attention to intersecting power relations and both state enacted oppressions and corporate practices. They note that as law is mostly concerned with interpersonal violence and interpersonal remedies, it can fall short of addressing the structural underpinnings of technology and violence which disproportionately harm equality-seeking communities.…”