“‘There is So Much More to Say’: restorative justice and violence against women through a critical analysis of A Better Man” (2019)

“‘There is So Much More to Say’: restorative justice and violence against women through a critical analysis of A Better Man” uses Attiya Khan’s documentary of her conversations with a former abusive partner to show how restorative justice can be improved by leaning on the principles of harm reduction. To illustrate this, I argue that a public health framework for understanding violence, rather than a criminal one, is best suited to address the issue without imposing expectations of behavior or responsibility on women. In analyzing Khan’s process, I show how the same pressures women face through traditional forms of justice can occur in progressive or alternative forms when power dynamics are ignored. Given that these interactions do not occur in a vacuum, and are not free from the biases and prejudices that direct society, I show how understanding restorative justice through the terms of harm reduction provides a more realistic perspective of its potential and limitations, while also identifying areas for improvement.

Excerpt - Findings and Recommendations

Considering these aspects of [Attiya] Khan’s process, what she identified as being beneficial, and what may have been left out adds to the necessity of deflating the notion of a single woman’s experience, and shows that the complications and diversities of experiences should not be reduced to one response. In this way, considering restorative justice within the principles of harm reduction – which focus on a flexible approach that meets people where they are, does not seek to define resilience, survival, or trauma for others, and looks to the connections from and impact to structural factors that cause harm – provides the most appropriate method of procuring justice. This is in opposition to more prescriptive forms of restorative justice such as those implemented by government agencies, or even toolkits designed by non-profits and activist groups as a way of guiding others through these actions. Revisiting the principles of harm reduction outlined earlier provides a framework for interpreting the benefits and injuries displayed in Khan’s community accountability process. The broader categories of these principles match key interactions shown throughout this documentary.

One aspect I found most concerning during the process was the absence of a structural analysis inclusive of intersecting layers of oppression. Exploring the ways Khan’s gender, race, and age impacted the harm she felt and how the power structures inherent in these identities enact damage, or refuse to bear witness to it, would provide more context to the conversations. Applying this understanding could critique harmful dynamics of control and supremacy that were reenacted through the accountability process, and to identify spaces through which to intervene. It also would have allowed these conversations to be analyzed or interpreted on a macro-level, showing how they could be applicable beyond individuals to demonstrate larger social dynamics.

The principles of harm reduction that speak to the importance of accountability throughout each level of harm could be applied in a similar way due to their expanded definition of harm and broader scope to examine how harm is enacted and by whom. This includes bystanders causing harm through their explicit inaction or enabling of the abuse. Looking broadly at abuse could better address the different ways violence and control were utilized by Steve after Khan fled the relationship. These principles add to the understanding that if Steve continued to enact harm on other women it would be an additional injury to Khan, in that it perpetuated a culture and reality that was accepting or encouraging of violence against women, and created harm for Khan’s community as an extension of her and any other victims.

One of the themes within the principles of harm reduction relates to the concept of harm as a mode of survival. The difficulties the restorative justice process placed on Khan were apparent, from her expressed stress to physical illness. However complicated the impact of this process, the overall tone throughout the documentary is that Khan was grateful she had enacted this work, and that it had a healing effect on her. Ways of addressing violence that are overprotective of victims or prioritize reducing triggers and emotional distress over individual and community benefit would not fit within this, or most, restorative justice processes. There needs to be an acknowledgement and acceptance of the potential harms that may result from paths of survival through and after violence. Identifying ways to reduce these harms, rather than foregoing difficult yet productive processes, will lead to a more transformative outcome. It may also display actionable steps to prevent violence.

Recommendations

Understanding the importance of community intervention and connection through the principles of harm reduction more clearly highlights it as an area of replication. Khan’s focus on her community’s lack of support, the significance when people did address the abuse they witnessed, and their importance to her individual healing process and broader awareness of violence against women, can be more thoroughly explored and contextualized as actions taken to mitigate harm. The imperfections of these modes – including selective participation of community members or the ideologies behind interventions – do not need to be ignored nor serve as cause to reject the whole process when understood as a way to reduce harm. Different activities exist along a relative risk spectrum that is vastly different in each situation and at every step; there may be moments when these processes benefit the women who utilize them, times when they simply cause less damage than other means, and times when they are going to be actualized in a way that presents a higher risk for the women involved. With this understanding, the most crucial aspect of any intervention into violence is for it to take multiple forms and address the issue on a number of levels (Casey and Lindhorst, 2009). Additionally, access to the supports and interventions that feel most appropriate for women must be improved. This includes culturally competent services, meeting the economic and resource-related needs of women alongside emotional support, and tackling biases that originate from racism, lesbophobia, xenophobia, ableism, and other forms of oppression throughout systems of support (Whitaker, Baker, and Pratt, 2007; Goodman et al., 2005; Zweig et al., 2002; Crenshaw, 1990).

Another situation where restorative justice processes may aid in the reception of and response to women is when women remain in connection with the friend, partner, or family member who enacted harm against them. Such a connection can serve as a barrier to findings of guilt through the legal system, and is often discouraged or made difficult through auxiliary aspects of these processes such as connection to a systems-based advocate or mandated no-contact orders. When involvement with the criminal justice system can lead to outcomes like the removal of children by the state, eviction, imprisonment, and/or a loss of resources, there is opportunity for women to instead utilize processes that don’t include the same demands on their behavior, or expectations for women to take responsibility for what has been done to them.  

Reorienting the focus on restorative justice processes to their function as an alternative to, not a stand-in for, traditional retributive justice draws attention to the reasons some women may feel excluded from or uninterested in pursuing measures that fall within the criminal justice system. Specifically, restorative justice processes can benefit women whose identities or behaviors exclude them from those whom dominant culture considers ideal survivors. These processes can be a way for women to seek support, prevent future acts of harm, and gather recourse for the resource-related or repairable aspects of abuse without putting themselves at harm for being criminalized. Those recommending and facilitating restorative justice processes must account for the context in which violence originates, including expectations on women that lead to self-blame, minimization of harms experienced, and over-emphasis on harms enacted.