An explanation of honour-related killings of women in Europe through Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence and masculine domination

Introduction

Over recent years we have observed a growing interest in violence against women and gender-related killings of women (Council of Europe [Istanbul Convention], 2011; Manjoo, 2012) within the international community and among domestic policy makers in several countries. While much attention has been paid in Europe to intimate partner violence, there are other forms of femicide not traditionally associated with Europe, such as honour killings, e.g. the murder of Kurdish-Iraqi teen girl Heshu Yones by her father in 2002 for wearing western clothes and having a boyfriend, which should not be overlooked in light of globalization and immigration. Media reports have documented a recent rise in these kinds of killings in Europe, although exact figures are difficult to obtain due to the nature of these crimes (Chesler, 2010; Tremblay, 2014; Williams, 2011).

Honour-related killings of women are part of a wider global patriarchal phenomenon of violence against women that cuts across race, class, religion and age (Meetoo and Mirza, 2011: 45). Violence directed against a woman because she is a woman, or violence affecting women disproportionally, of which honour killings are an example, has been recognized by the United Nations as a form of discrimination that seriously inhibits women’s ability to enjoy rights and freedoms on an equal basis with men. In that sense, it constitutes a human rights violation that states are obliged to prevent, investigate and punish, even when these acts are committed in the private sphere and with non-state agents being involved (CEDAW, 1993). Since the early 1990s, there has been a growing concern within the United Nations about violence against women issues in general, and specifically honour crimes. The relevant bodies that addressed the problem were the Convention on Elimination of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW) Committee, the Human Rights Committee replaced by the Human Rights Council through the actions of the Special Rapporteur on Violence against Women, and the General Assembly, which passed several resolutions referring to honour-related violence (HRV) (UN General Assembly, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008). Currently, there is a strong consensus within the international community as to the necessity to combat and eradicate HRV as a severe violation of human rights that cannot be justified by any reference to honour, cultural or traditional values (Connors, 2005).

Though violence against women (VAW) was belatedly recognized as a serious human rights problem and a form of discrimination, it was formerly considered, even by women, as a normal, merited occurrence and a private issue in which the state should not interfere. Symbolic violence against women, exerted through common schemes of perceptions of social world, educational system and religions, without resorting to direct violence, was instrumental in maintaining patriarchal power and domination.

This article documents some cases of honour killings in Europe and demonstrates how Bourdieu’s theory of symbolic violence can improve our understanding of why this particular form of femicide occurs in Europe, where the specific context of immigration weakens the symbolic patriarchal dominance over women. Using Bourdieu’s concept could help understand different dynamics and justifications for honour killings in the immigrant context: it proposes that a new social context of immigration has weakened the symbolic power of masculine domination over women in immigrant communities, a state which may result in stricter control over women, or trigger violent responses to some women’s behaviours that would not have been considered a threat to male honour, prior to immigration. Historically speaking, honour killings were justified only in two situations: pregnancy out of wedlock and non-virginity of a bride; however, in the cases of honour killings in Western Europe there has been a transformation of motives. Bourdieu, who was one of the most important sociologists of the 20th century, provided insightful analysis about power transfer within society and how social order is maintained. His influential concept of symbolic violence appears particularly useful in explaining gender power relations and their correlation to social dynamics.

Honour-related killings of women in Europe

Honour-related violence is a continuum of violence perpetrated against females within the framework of patriarchal family structures, communities and societies, where the main justification for the perpetration is the protection of the social construct of honour as a value system, norm or tradition (Gill, 2011: 219). On that continuum, honour killings constitute the most extreme of a wide range of violent and abusive acts. HRV also includes assaults, confinement and interference with the choice of marriage, as well as simply the rigid control of everyday life (Kvinnoforum, 2003). Other forms include physical manifestations, such as female genital mutilation, or throwing acid on women (Siddiqui, 2005: 263; Welchman and Hossain, 2005: 4).

Honour-related violence comprises highly gender-specific forms of violence, with respect to both victims and offenders. Although men may be victims, women are the primary targets because honour killings are closely related to gender roles and culture and are perpetrated predominantly by men. Where men are victimized, it is through their connection to the ‘wrong’ woman (Kvinnoforum, 2003: 12, 13; Wikan, 2008: 56). Where a woman participates in an honour killing, she does so to uphold patriarchal rules (Pervizat, 2011). It can be assumed that honour killings are both an expression of patriarchal power to keep women subjugated and a manifestation of punishing women for insubordination. They are deemed to be the ‘just deserts’ for challenging the patriarchal order and ‘tarnishing’ the family’s (male) honour.

The concept of honour in its traditional meaning (Stewart, 1994; Wikan, 2008: 53) is closely related to reputation and vested in male control over female sexual behaviour and gender roles – typically female virginity and chastity (Welchman and Hossain, 2005). When a woman transgresses gender expectations (even unwillingly, e.g. by being raped), the honour of her male family members is perceived as being threatened, so they resort to killing her in order to restore their honour-reputation and confirm male supremacy. The man’s honour is thus founded in his capacity and power to protect and control his family, particularly with regard to gender-normative roles (Wikan, 2008).

It is assumed that the motivation for honour-related killings is misogyny and preservation of the patriarchal order; this form of violence therefore falls within the definition of femicide defined by Radford and Russell (1992: 3; Welchman and Hossain, 2005: 7), namely as a misogynist killing of women and the ultimate end of a continuum of violence against women, as well as being a form of sexual violence. It similarly constitutes a recognized form of femicide in the Vienna Declaration on Femicide (ACUNS, 2013: 4), which defines femicide as the killing of women and girls because of their gender.

The notion of a continuum draws all of these expressions of violence into one spectrum, with the softer forms of violence, indirect, or less palpable nuances, at the outer edge of the VAW scale. They all derive from the same rules of patriarchal order and symbolic masculine domination, which, if not endangered or challenged, do not need to be reaffirmed or restored by resorting to killing a woman.

While not supported by or directly related to any one religion, HRV is particularly widespread in strongly patriarchal and traditional societies where Islam is the prevailing religion – the most affected countries being: Egypt, Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Pakistan and Syria (Welchman and Hossain, 2005). As a result of migration flows in recent decades, this phenomenon has appeared in Western European countries. Women’s advocacy groups and extensive media coverage of certain cases have increased awareness of the problem of violence against women within immigrant communities, both at domestic and international levels.

There are no reliable global estimates for honour killings: in 2000 the United Nations Population Fund (2000: 29) estimated that there were some 5000 honour killings annually worldwide, however, in Pakistan alone, approximately 1000 honour killings are reported annually. Thus, the figure of 20,000 honour killings a year, provided by journalist Robert Fisk (2010), may be closer to the mark. In Turkey, the government figures from 2003–2010 indicated a 1400% increase in the number of women murdered (Tremblay, 2014). In 2007 alone, there were 231 honour killings in Turkey (Council of Europe, 2009). In the UK, there are approximately 12 honour killings every year, although the source for this figure is unclear (Williams, 2011).

The following cases are examples of high-profile honour killings in Europe that serve as the basis for the theoretical analysis below.

The first high-profile honour killing in Sweden occurred in 1996. Sara, a 15-year-old Kurdish-Iraqi girl, was killed by her younger brother and her cousin for being too ‘Swedish’ (Wikan, 2008). The girl did not wish to comply with the strict authority and control of her family exercised by her father. The murder of Fadime Sahindal, a Kurdish-Turkish girl, by her father in 2001, electrified Swedish society. Fadime was killed not only for refusing to marry the man chosen for her, but for going public with her story and exposing her family’s ‘dishonour’ (Hellgren and Hobson, 2008; Wikan, 2008). The ‘dishonour’ was caused by the daughter challenging the family’s authority. Although Fadime had already been expelled from her family, her father felt he needed to restore his honour by killing her. Her murder and the media coverage of her death transformed her into an icon as a ‘martyr who died for speaking out against patriarchal oppression of her culture and who sought an independent life outside familial boundaries and control’ (Hellgren and Hobson, 2008: 391). Fadime was a normal girl with an immigrant background who was killed for wanting to live her own life and make her own choices, like any other Swedish woman.

In Great Britain, there were four prominent cases of honour killings. One was the murder of 19-year-old Rukshana Naz of Pakistani origin, killed by her mother and her brother for seeking to divorce the man whom she had been forced to marry at age 15. Another case was 17-year-old Shafilea Ahmed (whose family was also from Pakistan), killed in 2003 for not conforming to parental authority and refusing to marry the man chosen for her (Gill and Brah, 2014). Kurdish-Iraqi Heshu Yones was murdered by her father in 2002 (the first time the British media used the term ‘honour killing’) for wearing western clothes and having a boyfriend in high school (Begikhani, 2005; Payton, 2011). Lastly, 19-year-old Kurdish-Iraqi Banaz Mahmood was killed by her father for falling in love with a boy and seeking to divorce the man she had been forced to marry at 16, who also abused her physically (Payton, 2011). Banaz’s father’s honour had already been ‘tainted’ when Banaz’s sister had left the family and moved in with a man she chose independently; Banaz’s father felt he could not permit an affront to his authority by another daughter.

Finally, the most prominent honour killing in Germany was the murder of 23-year-old Hatun Aynur Sürücü, a German girl of Turkish-Kurdish origin, by her younger brother, for ‘behaving like a German’: divorcing her husband and seeking an independent life beyond her family’s control.

Aside from concern over the occurrence of these acts, western countries’ responses to honour crimes also highlighted some inherent problems in addressing violence against women by the dominant groups within immigrant communities. Initially, the problem of VAW within immigrant communities had been instrumentalized, not only in order to critique multicultural politics and as a call to protect minority group women, but also in anti-immigration discourse (Okin, 1999). In general, the lack of intervention by public authorities in immigrant communities’ internal problems has led to tolerance of practices that are harmful to vulnerable members within these communities. Nevertheless, one cannot deny that several European governments have, at various points, addressed this problem as a serious one and introduced measures aimed at counteracting these forms of violence and protecting immigrant women (Korteweg and Yurdakul, 2010). Examples include: police officers receiving special training to tackle honour-related cases and to provide protection for victims (e.g. the UK police created a special unit to deal with forced marriages), awareness campaigns, and government funding of civil society organizations for women’s rights and migrant women.

Similarly, following international pressure or advocacy by local women’s groups, policy makers in countries where so-called honour crimes are an endemic phenomenon have broken with the prevalent and tacit tolerance, acknowledged the problem and taken public action to put an end to the perpetrators’ impunity (Abu Hassan and Welchman, 2005).

Theoretical analysis

While the current human rights and political discourse still focuses primarily on direct forms of violence against women (Council of Europe, 2011: Preamble, Istanbul Convention; UNGA, 1993), one needs to bear in mind that, in social sciences, direct violence is considered only one of the tools employed by patriarchal structures to keep women oppressed and subordinate to men. There are diverse processes of invisible violence, structural, symbolic, or normalized violence of ‘everyday life’, that maintain domination of one group over another (Bourgois, 2009). One of these tools elaborated by Bourdieu (1989: 22) is the concept of symbolic power and violence, which emerged from his analysis of power and domination and their social reproduction in modern societies.

According to Bourdieu (1991: 166; 2006: 244), symbolic power is a power of ‘world-making’, the power to impose upon other minds a vision of a world and social order, older or new social divisions, based on race, religion, origin or gender as a legitimate and natural one. Symbolic violence is exerted through the schemes of perception, thoughts and actions (habitus), the cognitive structures, by means of which we perceive the social world as legitimate and ‘natural’ that are shared by all members of society. Symbolic violence thus encompasses all the acts of domination, hierarchies, subordination, which are, at the same time, the acts of cognition and recognition (Bourdieu, 2006: 244). Symbolic domination, its divisions, classifications and hierarchies are imposed upon us by the linguistic structures we use, the educational system, religion, family structures and state power (Bourdieu, 1991). Masculine domination is assumed to be a fine example of symbolic violence.

Although some critics found analogies drawn from pre-modern Kabyle culture irrelevant in post-modern ones (Mottier, 2002), Bourdieu’s analysis does appear relevant to the mechanisms of HRV and causes that trigger HRV, particularly in the immigration context in western countries, because it explains the relationship between honour, masculinity and violence. HRV does not in itself constitute a symbolic violence but, rather, a cultural one (Galtung, 1990); albeit, codes of conduct can be both cultural and symbolic, while the concept of honour constitutes an important symbolic capital.

Bourdieu’s key concepts associated with symbolic violence of misrecognition, habitus, consent, complicity and doxa thus prove useful in explaining how masculine domination works in interpersonal and generational relations around HRV.

According to Bourdieu:

The precedence universally accorded to men is affirmed in the objectivity of the social structures and the productive or reproductive activities, based on a sexual division of the labour of biological and social production and reproduction which gives the better part to men, and also in the schemes immanent in everyone’s habitus. (Bourdieu, 2001: 33–34)

Patriarchal order in traditional societies is vested with the objectivity of common sense: an obvious, practical and unquestionable consensus on the sense of social practices and gender relations that is also shared by the dominated group. The symbolic violence of masculine domination is thus implemented through the very basic acts of cognition that are, in fact, acts of practical recognition, doxic acceptance – a belief that does not needed to be thought and affirmed as such (Bourdieu, 2001: 34). Doxa signifies an unquestioned truth – any belief or value taken for granted in any particular society, an experience by which the natural and social world appears as self-evident, something that goes without saying, or even thinking (Bourdieu, 1977). Patriarchal domination and subjugation of women in honour-driven societies is a doxa. In honour-driven societies, killing a woman who stained the family honour through conducting extramarital relationships is believed to be a deserved punishment, the correct thing to do under such circumstances. It is why the perpetrators of honour killings jailed in Turkish prisons are extolled by inmates and families and ‘walk in glory’ (Onal, 2008). Fadime Sahindal’s father showed no remorse during his trial; indeed, he could not understand what he had done wrong (Wikan, 2008).

However, it would not be feasible to uphold this order without the consent and participation of the dominated group itself: its complicity is an important element of wielding symbolic power (Bourdieu, 2006: 243). Indeed, women as a disadvantaged group themselves contribute to the power relations in which they are kept, insofar as they unwittingly apply cognitive categories constructed from the perspective of the dominant to the relationship of domination, thus rendering them as natural (Bourdieu, 2001: 35). The magic of symbolic violence drives the dominated through the habitus towards tacit acceptance of the imposed limits. The complicity of some women in upholding patriarchal order may also take the form of active instigation, or even participation in honour killings.

Since the effects and conditions of efficacy of symbolic violence are durably and deeply embedded in the body in the form of dispositions and imprinted in the minds of the dominated, it can persist, even when the social conditions that shaped the structures of domination undergo change (Bourdieu, 2001: 39).

Another important agent of the social reproduction of gendered order, apart from family structures, church (religion) and educational system, is the state – public institutions and judicial power (Bourdieu, 1989: 21; 2006: 265); this is particularly prominent in ‘honour-driven’ societies. The concept of ‘honour’ is there being used to legitimize the oppression and subordination of women, and moreover, in countries where cultures of ‘honour’ are endemic, the entire social structure and public apparatus seem to contribute to, and participate in, carrying out and continuing HRV. Just to give an example, in a study into the occurrence of HRV in Pakistan, Khan concludes:

Honour crimes against women are physically committed by the family men, socially accepted by the immediate community, religiously facilitated through discriminatory teachings and dictates, legally recognized by the lawyers and judiciary, and politically endorsed by the patriarchal institutions of the state (such as legislature, police, and political parties). (Khan, 2006: 130)

Hence, the basic tool to keep women subordinated is not actually direct, but ‘symbolic’ violence, i.e. habitus and doxas – the mental schemes of thought and comprehension that men and women share about the concept of gender and its configurations, perceiving the world through these lenses. The habitus and doxa organize action within the field of gender relations. This does not mean that Bourdieu minimized or downplayed the role of physical violence. Physical or direct violence towards women, rape, exploitation, battering, etc., may be viewed as an extension of ‘symbolic’ power exerted by the dominant over the dominated (Bourdieu, 2001: 34):

Honouring a vital symbolic good is firmly connected to notions of manliness or virility and domestic, legal and educational strategies for controlling kinswomen. (Bourdieu, 2001: 48)

‘Manliness’ denotes not only sexual and social reproductive capacity, but also the capacity to fight and exercise violence in order to assert and maintain status, i.e. to defend one’s honour; physical violence offers a very rudimentary means of proving one’s virility among other men and maintaining status.

Given that one of the essential determinants of being a ‘real man’ in patriarchal societies is perceived as the exertion of control over the female members in the group (family/clan/tribe) and their reproductive capacity (Lerner, 1986), its absence poses a threat to masculine identity, self-esteem and position in the group. In solid and stable society, the subordination of women is sustained by means of more or less nuanced, tacit and natural symbolic violence, without necessity to resort to harsher measures. However, a woman who challenges the social order in her behaviour wittingly or unwittingly, also challenges the virility of men of her family and inherently provokes them to counteraction, in order to demonstrate to the group (other men) that they are still ‘real men’. If a man cannot control the sexual behaviour of a female in his family, it threatens his honour and masculinity and thus his status in the community in the eyes of other men. He must restore his honour through violence against the woman who threatened his status.

Some critics accuse Bourdieu of lack of a convincing account of social change, an overemphasis on the structure and downplay of the agency of social actors and gendered nature of subjectivity (Mottier, 2002: 353–354). However, irrespective of whether agents are autonomous or only driven by the habitus, I would argue that his theory is useful in understanding honour killing committed by immigrants in Western Europe, as an outcome of loss of objectiveness of those structures where immigrants were shaped and socialized and because of the loss of symbolic power they used to wield in the field of gender power relations.

Honour killings as a patriarchal backlash and failure of symbolic dominance

Considering Bourdieu, and given the nature of symbolic violence and the relationship between masculinity and violence, I argue that direct violence against women can be interpreted as an extension of male dominance over women and is employed when traditional notions of gender, especially manliness, are challenged and male dominance is threatened. In these circumstances, men resort to direct violence as a means to assert their superiority. This is likely to occur when changes in the fabric of social reality create dissonance between the habitus, the schemes of perceiving the world and gender relations.

In such circumstances, social and material conditions change rapidly and cease to correspond to established perceptions and understanding of the world. The objective structures that shaped dispositions and habitus have lost their objectivity, and these dispositions are no longer valid in new settings. The framework of male dominance, based on the concept of masculine honour, is no longer relevant in new structural conditions and the patriarchal ideology is undermined (Hunnicutt, 2009: 555). If we empower one gender that used to be inferior and subordinated, legally, economically and socially, this will undermine the structural basis for privileges of the other. One example of women’s empowerment undermining male privilege is the way education and/or mass media have influenced women’s expectations of life, marriage (e.g. love-match marriage) and increased the awareness of their rights (Khan, 2006: 166); another is women’s economic empowerment. Some ‘gender-neutral’ structural factors, e.g. urbanization or technology, have also impacted on gender relations.

In Bourdieu’s words, the structure of relation of forces that is constitutive of the field has changed. Immigrant women from illiberal societies come under the influence of liberal habitus in western countries that accords them more power – and less to the men.

Conclusion

‘Honour killings’ and other manifestations of honour-related violence have recently become an issue of great interest worldwide, both in countries where they are endemic and in immigrant communities in western countries. The concern has been triggered by rapid social changes that have altered gender relations in deeply patriarchal communities and undermined masculine domination.

In this respect, violence against women becomes a manifestation of a crisis of masculinity triggered by rapid economic change, warping male identity and encouraging violence and misogyny. Patriarchal ideology in the mindsets of men is perceived as endangered when the surrounding social reality no longer corresponds and the dominated group have access to more social, economical and symbolic resources/capital. This holds true in both developing and developed societies, traditional and modern communities.

It appears that achieving gender equality and tackling violence against women need to occur not only through the empowerment of women, transforming their habitus and providing support when they need it, but also through discussing and reshaping male identity and males’ habitus in the field of gender power relations.

Shall we then go further and follow Bourdieu’s call for symbolic revolution, triggered by the feminist movement? It would not be just about a ‘simple conversion of consciousness, but a radical transformation of the social conditions of production of the disposition that lead the dominated to take the point of view of the dominant’ (Bourdieu, 2001: 41–42).

Specific conclusions can be drawn from the implications of this call. If we wish to address the causes of gender-based violence and femicides and to eradicate them, we should thus act to transform the attitudes, stereotypes and prejudices towards gender roles associating violence with manliness/virility, which prevail in most societies. This is relevant both to western and non-western societies and is evident in analysis of responses to HRV in migrant communities. Providing immediate support and protection is also crucial, although the real challenge lies in long-term measures – transformation of attitudes, prejudices towards gender relations, stereotypes, and disconnecting masculinity from domination over women. Rule of law and laws protecting women from violence are not enough: it is vital to improve current notions of honour/manliness that view violence and control of women as an important and constitutive element thereof.

It is clear that in western countries, too, the public apparatus and judicial power are permeated by stereotypes and gender bias and have tolerated such violence. Moreover, for a long time, they refused to accord women in minority communities protection of their rights. Only recently have the debates sparked by honour killings and honour-related violence begun to shape new institutional approaches to the problem of violence against women and femicide.

Any measures and shift in a symbolic power therefore need to be addressed in three parallel domains and involve three social agents in the field of gender power relations: protecting women, acting to change male behaviour and mindsets, plus the state dimension: legislation, public officers and officialdom, which are deemed to be the organizing structure of social reality.