Situations of Violence

The majority of the individuals studied (264 adults over age fourteen) were women liv­ing in Bogota for over five years. Recent decades brought them significant changes: re­duced illiteracy, a drop in the number of formal marriages, fewer children per couple, a decline in religious observances, and greater numbers of women employed outside the home.

Focusing on what takes place at home, half of the men and 44% of the women admit­ted to abuse in their original homes and among them, 13% reported brutal punishments. In over 76% of the abuse cases the victims were children. These individuals cited vary­ing circumstantial reasons for the violence they encountered, but it is interesting to note that in 37% of the cases, they could not point to a clear motive: “I don't know; I can't understand; For no reason.” Next in line were disobedience and failure to perform as­signed chores. Together, these three factors covered 80% of the responses. Other circum­stantial reasons cited were seeing forbidden friends or lovers, leaving the house without permission, consumption of alcohol by perpetrators of abuse, and lack of control by the latter, whether drunk or not.

Regarding possible reasons for the behavior of offenders, these were mainly related to the fact that they had been abused, were short-tempered or ill (22%), ignorant or jeal­ous (21%), or “because that was the way one was reprimanded then” (16%).

Seventy-two percent of the married women stated they had been abused by their spouses. Eighty-three percent of the men between 18 and 49 endured most of their ex­periences of violence outside the home, while women from the same age group were mainly attacked at home (55%). Although the offender was known to 48% of the male and 63% of the female victims, only 38% of the men and 47% of the women sought as­sistance from the police.

Forty-eight percent of adults experienced at least one hold-up, 57% of these being males. Eighteen percent regarded hold-ups as the most significant act of violence taking place outside the home. However, it is noteworthy that the second most significant re­sponse (15%) regarding major acts of violence outside the home mentioned terrorist at­tacks and bombs, events in no way affecting respondents personally. As prominent ex­periences of violence outside the home, women referred to cases reported by the media (18%), especially television. Surely this relates to the number of housewives among the respondents (43%). This category places them more continuously in touch with radio and television, but above all points to a significant responsiveness to events taking place in Colombian society.

Another aspect of street violence is directly related to abuse by authorities. Again, it is men who are affected the most. More than half of them reported abuse by authorities, especially by the police, the army, and traffic police, and to a lesser degree by teachers, the clergy, and their superiors. Only 10% of the females felt likewise. On the whole, it may be stated that one out of every three individuals experienced abuse by authorities.

Hospital care (70%), education (65%), and the church (52%) were the only three in­stitutions deserving the confidence of significant numbers of individuals. Institutional­ized justice produced results almost as devastating as those for the police and politicians (over 80% distrust). In general, over half of those who suffered significant abuse at home failed to report their aggressors.

One-fifth of the respondents (18%) referred to hold-ups as the principal experience of violence outside the home, but four out of every ten brought up the attacks and bomb­ings which took place in Colombia in recent years. The storming of the Palace of Justice, and television reports of violent events, such as massacres, were especially mentioned. Little mention was made of the violent period of the fifties, even if the majority knew of it one way or another, given their age bracket. On the other hand, cases of torture, kid­napping, and extortion were hardly taken into account, with the exception of a few cases broadcast by the media.

In contrast with the above, when narrating their life histories, respondents identified principally their own direct experiences or those affecting relatives and friends. The first responses may be influenced by televised dramatizations of acts of aggression. Given the relative isolation of this sector of society, especially housewives, television has probably played a significant role in the construction of representational models of violence and in the creation of images about violent acts. This may result in a polarized view of society and a simplification of its conflicts. However, it is possible that the research instrument itself may induce a change in the conceptual field, from the social to the personal.

Further, what becomes generally evident is a cognitive distinction between instru­mental violence, as in burglaries and hold-ups, and emotional violence, where feelings and relationships determine the course of action. This is the case for quarrels and national acts of violence such as massacres and homicide attempts. Delinquent violence does not seem to be as meaningful nor as oppressive as personalized, emotional violence, espe­cially for women.

Delinquent violence remits to a view of society as an abstract entity which one must endure, whereas emotional violence is the result of interpersonal relationships. The recur­rent phrase among respondents, “I fear no one because I have problems with no one,” al­ludes to this distinction, and to a notion on the origin of meaningful violence in personal confrontations. A recurring reason many did not participate in neighborhood activities was “to avoid getting into trouble,” a possible result of being close to one's neighbors. Another manifestation lies in people's comments about a victim of non-delinquent vio­lence, when they state, “surely there's a reason.” Delinquent violence in society is some­how regarded as inevitable—that is, all societies are assumed to be that way.

That is why a large portion (half) did not consider Colombia to be a dangerous na­tion, even though many had experienced hold-ups and other forms of street violence. The other half believed it dangerous to live in Colombia because of its violence and insecu­rity, but only a small percentage preferred to live elsewhere, and basically for other rea­sons. Those who considered the nation to be violent tended to personalize this in repre­sentatives of institutional authority, who were then blamed for the state of things. In all cases, fearful individuals lacking or distrusting institutional means of protection were seen as defenseless and orphaned in the face of conflict and its dangerous consequences. They should therefore take precautions, permanently preventing and avoiding situations that could lead to violence. This, in turn, feeds passivity and inhibits individuals from re­porting acts of violence and from aiding victims.

In sum, Colombians clearly identify experiences of violence and classify them ac­cording to their significance in their own lives as well as in social life. They are not indif­ferent to violence, and it is not an acceptable pattern of behavior. They attribute violence, as a painful experience, to a variety of circumstantial reasons related to the life conditions and characteristics of aggressors and victims themselves, in this way creating the possi­bility for understanding and overcoming it. Although a large number have been victim­ized by domestic and street violence, they single out certain experiences as the most rele­vant, and link them to broader features of Colombian society. But in contrast to the analysts, they do not view this society as more violent than others.