Abstract
Previous studies have consistently shown that men who perpetrate intimate partner femicide (IPF) have particular ways of discursively constructing the events leading to and including the crime of murder. These studies have shown that men’s talk about intimate partner violence functions as a resource for them to accomplish something. These studies have shown that these men’s talk performs certain functions rather than being pure descriptions of the “truth” about what happened. Their discursive manoeuvres are designed to manage their identity through talks and to portray a positive image, to elicit sympathetic responses from the listener and audience.
The current study explored how IPF perpetrators use language to retrospectively make sense of the relationship that ended in IPF. It looked at how male perpetrators of intimate partner femicide (IPF) used language to discursively construct their relational selves and make meaning of events that led to the murder. Particularly, how perpetrators constructed their relational experiences in the context of their masculinity and social positioning. Of particular interest was how hegemonic masculinity might have informed the performance of these narratives in the interview context and prison context. This study was grounded within the social constructionist theoretical framework using discursive psychology as an analytic tool and ruling masculinity to frame the analysis. It was located within the interpretivist/constructivist paradigm using a critical lens. Semi-structured interviews were used as a data collection technique.
A discursive psychology analytic approach was used to explore the narratives of these participants as they make sense of their relational selves. The analysis revealed four themes: (i) an “unstable” ideal man identity, (ii) relational context of IPF, (iii) violence as a tool to regain relational power and control, and (iv) religion and morality as an account for the violence and murder. In accounting for their violent behaviour, they discursively performed inclusive and “soft” versions of masculinity, thus distancing themselves from ruling (hegemonic) masculinity. They constructed relational versions of themselves as reasonable, caring, loving, accommodating, negotiable, rational, and hardworking men. In contrast, their partners were positioned as disrespectful, irrational, demanding, unfaithful, and conflict-seeking. Consequently, violence was constructed as an uncharacteristic behaviour that was triggered by the partner`s ...