The social construction of gay male partner abuse: Power, discourse and lived experience

Recent research has found high rates of abuse in gay male relationships; however, little is known about their lived experience. This study aims to explore (1) the social construction of abuse in gay male relationships, (2) its discursive effects on clinical practice and (3) the lived experience of gay men involved in abusive relationships. This study included three sets of data. Using a discourse analysis, articles published in popular queer media and academic literature were analyzed to understand the social construction of partner abuse. Three focus groups, with 16 service providers, were conducted to examine the discursive effects of partner abuse on clinical practice. In-depth interviews with 21 gay men involved in partner abuse were conducted to understand their lived experience. Transcripts of the focus groups and interviews were reviewed in detail to highlight themes and concepts. Analysis revealed that gay male partner abuse is not a self-evident or natural category but, rather, socially constructed. Current discourse created two opposite categories (the victim who is powerless and helpless; the perpetrator powerful and evil) that both informed and limited the way in which service providers saw and, thus, worked with gay men involved in partner abuse. Yet, as shown in the analysis, the lived experience of partner abuse does not always fit neatly into the rigid victim and perpetrator roles. Instead, the roles are frequently unclear and contradictory. We social workers need to be aware of the discursive effects of gay male partner abuse and critically examine how they impose certain assumptions on us. Instead of seeking a “true” experience of partner abuse, we need to help these men search for meaning within the events that are relevant to them, regardless of how they fit into the normative discourse of gay male partner abuse.Ph

Remembering Amy Rossiter: The Governing Effects of Self-Esteem Knowledge on Social Work Practice

Amy Rossiter has long called our attention to the governing effects of social work knowledge (i.e., how it directs both discursive thinking and the daily actions of people). For her, knowledge itself is neither neutral nor true but is produced and maintained by discourse that defines what is considered acceptable and true. The production of knowledge is a relation of power; therefore, social work knowledge itself should be a topic of scrutiny. Taking her argument to heart, we seek to show how the governing effects of knowledge discursively operates in a practice setting, using a pilot program training manual designed to help East Asian Canadian immigrants to build self-esteem as a case example. Instead of viewing the training manual as having discovered some truths regarding the nature of self-esteem, we take it as knowledge that reflects the dominant discourse of self-esteem that is constituted historically, materially, and discursively. In so doing, we attempt to show how the concept of self-esteem is produced and how it organizes and governs social work practice

"You have to make it cool": How heterosexual Black men in Toronto, Canada, conceptualize policy and programs to address HIV and promote health.

BackgroundBlack Canadian communities are disproportionately impacted by HIV. To help address this challenge, we undertook research to engage heterosexual Black men in critical dialogue about resilience and vulnerability. They articulated the necessity of making health services 'cool'.MethodsWe draw on the analyses of focus groups and in-depth interviews with 69 self-identified heterosexual Black men and 12 service providers who took part in the 2016 Toronto arm of the weSpeak study to explore what it means to make health and HIV services 'cool' for heterosexual Black Canadian men.ResultsOur findings revealed four themes on making health services cool: (1) health promotion as a function of Black family systems; (2) opportunities for healthy dialogue among peers through non-judgmental interactions; (3) partnering Black men in intervention design; and (4) strengthening institutional health literacy on Black men's health.ConclusionsWe discuss the implications of these findings for improving the health of Black Canadians