Domestic Violence: The Mainstream Topic after the 1995 Conference

China Development Brief No 61 (Fall 2014)

中文 English

Editor’s noteIn September 2014, while this topic was being edited, China’s first large-scale anti-domestic violence documentary, “China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Chronicle” aired during primetime on CCTV’s society and law channel (CCTV-12). During this short and precious moment, “anti-domestic violence” once again attracted national attention. As a mainstream topic of women’s NGOs after the World Conference on Women, “anti-domestic violence” has earned a broad audience. National legislation is in the works, a rich and diverse group of organizations and practices related to this work have been launched, and three articles have been released with “anti-domestic violence” as their theme, aiming to explore the characteristics of developing women’s NGOs working against domestic violence as well as difficulties encountered and future prospects for the organizations, in the hopes that the Chinese grassroots women’s movements continue accumulating important experience and funding.  

Today, the term “domestic violence” has become a normal part of most Chinese peoples’ vocabulary. However, at the time of the 1995 World Conference on Women, the concept of “domestic violence” was just beginning to be talked about in China. Local participants who attended the conference were completely unfamiliar with the idea, and could not find a suitable Chinese word to accurately translate the English concept. In other words, in China at the time the phenomenon of “beating one’s wife” had not been widely recognized, and the social consensus surrounding anti-domestic violence issues was non-existent. So did this concept become universally known in China and how did corresponding social movements gain such considerable achievements in little more than a decade? Some answers can be found in the strategy developed by the international feminist movement in the last twenty years of the twentieth century as well as in the strategic choices Chinese feminists made within a unique national and social relations framework.

“Opposing domestic violence” is one of the manifestations of the “Violence Against Women” movement (known below as VAW)1. The emphasis put on the question of VAW by international women’s rights movements can be traced back to the mid-1980s. The concept was first brought up at the 1985 World Conference on Women in Nairobi, but at the time it was only broadly mentioned, as the discussion focused on trafficking of women. In the following 10 years, this concept began to enter the mainstream discourse of international women’s movements, and its influence became increasingly strong. By 1993, CEDAW (Convention on the Elimination of All Discrimination Against Women) incorporated VAW in its content, marking the concept’s mainstreaming.

“Opposing VAW” was used as the framework of the women’s movement, which had two points of strategic significance. First, violence against women is a cross-regional, cross-governmental, and cross-cultural universal phenomenon, and under the command of this subject women with different experiences can unite together to issue unified demands. Secondly, the discourse of “opposing violence against women” in addition to criticising violence in the public sphere (such as war, trafficking, and sexual harassment in the workplace), also can be used as a powerful critique of the private sphere (family) where women have suffered injustice. This particular point has gained prominence in the “anti-domestic violence” discourse”. This gives women’s right’s movements a good weapon of discourse to criticise the modern capitalist dichotomy of “the public vs. the private sphere”, an issue which is at the theoretical core of Western feminism.

Looking back at 1995, according to Chinese women’s movement activists who had only recently heard of “domestic violence” and “opposing violence against women” at the time, using the concept of “domestic violence” to lead the movement also had a third point of strategic significance: the criticism of patriarchy emanating from the private realm could “individualize” the societal problem of women’s rights., thereby depoliticizing the highly political issue of “rights”. In light of China’s specific national conditions, this discourse was more conducive to winning support for the development of grassroots activities. After this a string of grassroots movements focusing on “opposing VAW” and “opposing domestic violence” flourished in China, confirming the rationality of this strategy.

In 1994, the Changsha city Women’s Federation became China’s first Women’s Federation to advocate for anti-domestic violence legislation at the provincial level; in 1995 the Peking University Women’s Legal Studies and Service Center began representing domestic violence cases; and in the same year Hebei’s Qianxi county began a pilot program to establish a women’s legal center, to publicize the anti-domestic violence effort, and to coordinate with the local police department to intervene in domestic violence cases.

In 1997 the Ford Foundation’s five Asia-based offices organized a regional conference around the theme “The opposition of domestic violence as a public health problem” in India. A number of Chinese organizations and individuals participated in the conference, including “Rural Women”, “The Maple Women’s Hotline”, the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences’ (CASS) law department and other organizations. At the meeting, representatives from India, the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia presented their experiences working against domestic violence in each of their respective countries, including multi-sectoral institutional cooperation to establish domestic violence centers. After the meeting, Chinese participants began to plan and prepare to carry out similar work in China.

Meanwhile, the All-China Women’s Federation also began to carry out anti-domestic violence work throughout the country. But at the time, the Women’s Federation did not have the same monopoly over administrative and economic resources it had before. Through the accumulating power of the civil sector, the emerging issue of “domestic violence” began to surge forward.

In 1999, a group of experts and scholars in Beijing formed the “Anti-Domestic Violence Network” (ADVN), the convener was none other than the CASS Law department professor Chen Mingxia, who attended the India conference. This new network combined the power of existing gender equality organizations, incorporating previously established civil organizations (including “Maple Women”, “Rural Women”, the Peking University Women Legal and Research Center and others), the Academy of Social Sciences, University-level academic research centers, and the Beijing Women’s Federation into the network. However, at the beginning stages of its development this network organization was very lose. It received project funding support from international development agencies such as the Ford Foundation, Oxfam Netherlands, the Swedish International Development Agency and the Norwegian Agency for Development Cooperation.

In 2002, experts from the “anti-domestic violence network” participated in the production of the television series broadcast on CCTV, “Don’t talk to strangers”. It met strong reactions from the public, and perpetrator figure, “An Jiahe”, played by Feng Yuanzheng, was described as having had “a deep impact on people’s hearts”. This is a highly successful example of a social movement influencing popular culture. Since then, “domestic violence” has officially entered the public discourse, and the recognition of “domestic violence” has moved from beyond the realm of scholars and movement leaders to become subject in popular culture. Conversely, this has strengthened the breakthroughs of women’s NGOs focusing on anti-domestic violence and has brought pressure and impetus for anti-domestic violence to enter the legislative and public spheres.


  1. See Kaufman, Joan. 2012. “The Global Women’s Movement and Chinese Women’s Rights.” Journal of Contemporary China 21 (76) (July): 585–602. 

反家暴:后世妇会时代的主流议题

编者按: 2014年9月,即本专题编辑期间,中国第一部以反对家庭暴力为主题的大型人文纪录片《中国反家暴纪事》登陆中央电视台社会与法频道(CCTV-12),于黄金时段播出,“反家暴”这一议题再次受到全国范围内的瞩目。作为世妇会后妇女NGO的主流工作议题,“反家暴”受众广泛、全国性立法在即、开展相关工作的组织与手法丰富多元,专题此后三篇文章均以反家暴为主题,旨在探索开展反家暴工作妇女NGO的发展特征、所遇困境乃至未来前景,希望为中国民间妇女运动继续前行积蓄重要的经验与财富。

今天,“家庭暴力”这个词对大多数国人来说,可谓寻常。但在1995年世妇会前后,“家庭暴力”(Domestic Violence)的概念初次进入中国时,本土参会活动家对此十分陌生,她们在中文中甚至找不到一个现成的词来对应原来的英文。也就是说,类似“打老婆”这样的现象,在彼时的中国,并没有被广泛识别,反家暴像如今这样形成一种社会共识更是无从谈起。那么,是什么原因,让这个概念迅速地在中国普及,并使相应的社会运动,在十几年内,取得了相当的成就呢?这其中,国际女权运动在20世纪后20年的战略设定以及中国女权运动者在独特的国家-社会关系下的策略选择,都起了重要作用。

“反对家庭暴力”属于反对“针对妇女的暴力”(Violence Against Women,以下或用VAW代称)的表现形式之一。[1] 国际女权运动对于VAW问题的强调,可以追溯到1980年代中期。这一概念最早于1985年的内罗毕世界妇女大会上提出,但当时只是笼统地提及,并主要针对拐卖妇女的问题。在接下来的十年,这一概念开始进入国际妇女运动的主流话语,并且影响越来越大。到1993年,CEDAW(消除对妇女的一切歧视公约,以下简称“消歧公约”)纳入了“VAW”的内容,标志着这一议题的主流化。

“反对VAW”用作妇女运动的表达框架,有两个战略意义:第一,针对妇女的暴力是一个跨地区、跨政体、跨文化的普遍现象,在这个议题的统领下,不同经验的妇女可以联合起来发出统一的诉求;第二,“反对针对妇女的暴力”这一话语除了可以批判公领域里的暴力(如战争、拐卖、职场性骚扰),更可以有力地批判私领域(家庭)里女性受到的不公正对待,这一点在“反家暴”话语中尤其突出。这样以来,女权运动就有了一个很好的话语武器,来批判现代资本主义体系中的“公领域/私领域二分”问题,这一问题是西方女权主义的理论核心。

回到1995年,对于彼时刚听到“家庭暴力”和“针对妇女的暴力”的中国妇女运动家来说,用“家庭暴力”的概念来主导运动,还有第三层策略性意义:从私领域内部发出对男权的批判,可以把妇女权利这一社会性的问题“个体化”,也就是把高度政治化的“权利”议题“去政治化”。这在中国的特殊国情下,更有利于在民间展开活动,赢得更多的支持。这之后,一系列以“反对VAW”或“反家暴”为议题的民间运动在中国的蓬勃发展,印证了这一策略的合理性。

1994年,湖南省长沙市妇联成为我国第一个倡导省级反家暴立法的妇联;1995年,北京大学妇女法律研究与服务中心开始代理家庭暴力案件;同年河北迁西县作为试点,设立妇女法律中心,宣传反家暴,并与地方公安部门合力干预家暴。

1997年,福特基金会在亚洲的五个办公室在印度组织了一个以“作为公共卫生问题的反对针对妇女的暴力”为主题的区域性会议。中国的一些机构和个人参加了该会议,其中包括农家女、红枫妇女热线、社科院法学所等机构。会上,来自印度、菲律宾、印度尼西亚和马来西亚的代表介绍了各自国家反家暴的工作经验,包括多部门、机构合作的家暴庇护中心的建立。会后,中国参会者开始筹划在中国开展类似的工作。

与此同时,全国妇联也在各地开始开展反家暴工作。但这时的妇联,已难以像以前那样对行政和经济资源进行垄断。借着“家庭暴力”这一新兴议题,积蓄在民间的力量,开始井喷。

1999年,在京的一批专家、学者组成了“反家暴网络”,其召集人,正是参加了印度会议的社科院法学所教授陈明侠。这个新出现的网络组织把北京已有的性别平权组织的力量集结了起来,将已经成立的几家民间组织(包括红枫、农家女、北京大学妇女法律研究与服务中心等)、社科院、高校的学术研究中心、北京市妇联,都纳入“网络”。但这个网络组织在发展初期是十分松散的,它以“项目”的形式,接受福特基金会、荷兰乐施会、瑞典国际发展署和挪威发展合作署等国际发展机构的资金支持。

2002年,由“反家暴网络”专家参与制作的电视剧《不要和陌生人说话》在央视播出,在民间掀起剧烈反响,由冯远征扮演的施暴者“安嘉和”的形象“深入人心”。这是社会运动影响大众文化的一个极为成功的例子,从此,“家庭暴力”这个词正式进入公共话语,对“家暴”的识别,从学术和运动内部的技术,变成了大众文化的一部分。反过来看,更强化了妇女NGO将反家暴作为工作重点与突破口,为反家暴工作走向立法和公共领域带来压力和动力。

[1] 详见

 

Former program officer for the Anti-Domestic Violence Network, currently a PhD candidate at Johns Hopkins University.

Translated by Samantha Moritz

Reviewed by CDB Staff

No related content found.

Share: