The Paradox of Neutrality: Rethinking Power in the Reproduction of Violence Against Women in Eastern and Western Societies

 The Paradox of Neutrality: Rethinking Power in the Reproduction of Violence Against Women in Eastern and Western Societies

Author: Reyhan Javid

Neutrality can be seen as a hidden form of power. In moral and social discussions, neutrality is often understood as a sign of fairness and balance. However, when we face issues that are based on gender inequality, such as violence against women, especially rape, the neutrality of legal and social institutions is not a sign of justice. Instead, it can become a tool for maintaining the current situation and continuing violence against women. From a comparative view, we can see that both Eastern and Western societies, in different ways, reproduce violence: in the East, through legal silence under the idea of privacy, and in the West, through formal equality under liberalism.

Traditionally, neutrality in classical political science is considered one of the main principles of ethical and legal judgment. It emphasizes avoiding prejudice and treating all sides equally. Nevertheless, in issues related to gender and power, this concept faces serious challenges, especially in cases of sexual violence. As Desmond Tutu said, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” (Tutu, as quoted in Brown, 1984, p. 19). Social and feminist studies show that power relations play an important role in creating and continuing inequalities. In this context, simple neutrality may ignore structural inequalities. As Michel Foucault explains, power is not only located in the police or the state but also in knowledge, language, and so- called neutral norms (Foucault, 1980). In other words, when one side is in a more vulnerable position, being neutral can support the more powerful side (Rawls, 1971; Young, 1990).

In many Eastern societies, power is defined through tradition, religion, and family, and it is often believed that the state should not interfere in these areas. This creates mechanisms such as domestic and honor-based violence. From a feminist perspective, which is a critical approach, neutrality is not enough when facing injustice. Feminist theorists argue that silence or lack of action against violence especially in societies where it has structural roots can help continue it (MacKinnon, 1989). From this view, justice requires recognizing inequality and taking active steps to change it.

In Western societies, violence can take more complex forms. It is often claimed that everyone is equal before the law, but this formal equality ignores historical and social inequalities. Here, violence appears more in structural forms, such as workplace exploitation and the objectification of women. The liberal system claims to be gender-neutral, but when social and economic structures are designed in favor of men, this “neutrality” makes women’s specific struggles invisible. In this case, neutrality means ignoring differences in power.

Rape is a global issue, present in both Eastern and Western societies -and it is one of the most serious forms of violence against women- with deep personal and social effects. Research shows that many victims do not report this crime because of fear of social stigma, lack of trust in institutions, or fear of being blamed (WHO, 2013). In this context, Mehrangiz Kar, in her study on violence against women in Iran, emphasizes that this issue is multi- dimensional and shaped by cultural, social, and legal factors and is often connected with silence and concealment (Kar, 2001). In such situations, neutrality or social indifference can mean ignoring victims’ suffering and even strengthening a culture of silence.

In conclusion, the concept of neutrality in the context of violence against women needs to be redefined. In such cases, simple neutrality may lead to the continuation of inequality. Therefore, taking an aware and responsible position while still respecting justice is necessary.

English Sources

1. Brown, R. M. (1984). Unexpected news: Reading the Bible with third world eyes. Westminster Press.

2. Foucault, M. (1980). Power/knowledge: Selected interviews and other writings, 1972-1977 (C. Gordon, Ed.). Pantheon Books.

3. MacKinnon, C. A. (1989). Toward a feminist theory of the state. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674511009

4. Rawls, J. (1971). A theory of justice. Harvard University Press. https://www.hup.harvard.edu/catalog.php?isbn=9780674000780

5. World Health Organization. (2013). Global and regional estimates of violence against women: Prevalence and health effects of intimate partner violence and non-partner sexual violence. WHO Press. https://www.who.int/publications/i/item/9789241564625

6. Young, I. M. (1990). Justice and the politics of difference. Princeton University Press.

https://press.princeton.edu/books/paperback/9780691008433/justice-and-the-politics-of-difference

Persian Sources

1. E‘zzazi, S. (2001). Jame‘eh-shenasi-ye khanevadeh [Sociology of the family]. Nashr-e Roshan. https://www.nashreroshan.ir/product/117/jame-shenasi-khanevadeh

2. Kar, M. (2001). Pazhuheshi darbare-ye khoshunat ‘aleyh-e zanan dar Iran[A study on violence against women in Iran]. Nashr-e Rowshangaran va Motale‘at-e Zanan.

https://www.ketab.ir/bookview.aspx?bookid=13113

3. Molavi, H. (2016). Jame‘eh-shenasi-ye jensiat [Sociology of gender]. Nashr- e Ney.

https://www.nashr-ney.com/product/505/jameh-shenasi-jensiat

4. Moshirzadeh, H. (2007). Tarikh-e andisheh-ye siyasi dar Gharb: Feminism[History of political thought in the West: Feminism]. 

5. International Psychology and Health Research Journal. (n.d.). *E-ISSN 3092-7145*. Poyesh-e Noor Publications. Erişim adresi: https://iphrj.com