Structural violence can legitimize social positions by ascribing positive or negative characteristics and competencies, as found in racist, anti-Semitic, and sexist arguments. It is linked to unequal power and unequal distribution of resources, resulting in different life chances (Galtung 1969, p.171). Many structural inequalities seem natural and given (p.173). Violence against women is thus not an isolated phenomenon but interwoven into these structures. To develop effective counter-concepts and manage intervention, manifestations and interplay of influences from which violence may arise must be analyzed. This chapter presents contributing factors to violence against women at the macro, meso and micro levels of society and explains how they interact with individual biographies. At the macro level, social scientists look at large systems such as states and nations; at the meso level, they look at the institutions and organizations that regulate social and economic life. At the micro level, the background that can support or reject violence is revealed in the formations and dynamics of face-to-face groups, at work or at home, in families or neighborhoods. Finally, the ontogenetic level takes account of how adverse biographical experiences may shape how we live our lives. For the analysis we use the model developed by Hagemann-White and her colleagues in their “Review of Research on Factors at Play in Perpetration” for the European Commission (Hagemann-White et al., 2011/2021). 

The emergence and persistence of gender-based violence, and specifically domestic violence, arise from a complex interplay of prejudices, assumptions, norms, values, and social structures (CoE 2024a). Violence against women and girls is a violation of human rights and is rooted in gender inequality. This gender inequality is expressed in violence, but it is also sustained by violence. Thus, violence against women must be understood in the context of hierarchical power relationships that are shaped and maintained by long-lasting normative and cultural orders such as legislation, institutions, economic systems or religions, all of which incorporate gender. An understanding of violence as multidimensional and multilevel is thus needed to explore how domestic violence is facilitated.

Although policies and change have been fostered over the last decades, gender inequality is persistent. Gender based discrimination is multi-faceted and cannot be reduced to a consistent homogeneous pattern, but the corresponding structural inequalities have become inscribed in society and individuals and work as interconnected factors. We therefore need an understanding of “gender” that is open to the question of the diverse ways in which it affects individuals and its interplay with violence. Intersectional approaches have highlighted the interconnectedness of social categories and their effects on marginalized communities. (Crenshaw, 1989). “Paying attention to the interaction of sex and/or gender with other grounds of diversity means considering questions such as whether sex and/or gender moderate experiences of violence for different groups and what we can learn from the interactions of sex and/or gender with other grounds of diversity among different groups” (Humbert et al 2024, p 9). 

In the following we draw on the research review and analysis “understanding perpetration” (Hagemann-White et al., 2011/2021) to see how factors conducive to the use of violence on the macro, meso, micro and ontogenetic levels dynamically interact to result in (domestic) violence against women. Factors of violence perpetration are not to be mistaken as direct causes of violence; they are always part of a process, and the pathways can differ. Instead, interactive models (available online) have been constructed for exploring complex situations. 

Marilyn Ford-Gilboe and her team have developed an alternative “person-centered approach” that aims to collect data on cumulative abuse experiences (Ford-Gilboe et al 2016), pointing out that these are highly relevant for analyzing the health impact of domestic violence. “Using a person-centered methodology allows us to identify subgroups of women with similar cumulative profiles based on the types of abuse experienced, their cumulative nature, and relevant abuse characteristics, such as severity and duration” (Davies et al 2015, p 32). For the areas of intimate partner violence and for child maltreatment, meta-analyses were available and qualitative as well as quantitative methods were included. We look forward to future research that identifies perpetrators by the profile of their abuses and compared them systematically with men who have not used violence in their close relationships. 

• The devaluation of women pertains to the material and cultural subordination of women and girls, as evidenced by patriarchal ideologies and gender inequality in power. Despite advancements in women's rights, pervasive discrimination and very limited access to authority persist. The Gender Equality Index of 2023 shows that women in Europe are still underrepresented in domains of power and decision making (EIGE, 2024). The societal acceptance of male dominance and toleration of violence against women, reinforced by cultural norms, serve to legitimize violence in close relationships. 

• Masculinity as a dimension of society can be understood as a system of hierarchical power structures that exert pressure on men to conform to gender-based standards. Traditional concepts of masculinity that prioritize dominance, aggression, and heterosexual performance contribute to interpersonal violence, both between men and toward women. Indeed, some researchers suggest that men’s abuse of wives or partnered women have very little to do with whatever the wife is or does, because the violence primarily serves to affirm and establish hierarchies among men: “patriarchy may be seen as a system that also subordinates men to other men within society, using women as a commodity to do so” (Hearn & Whitehead 2006, p 45). This implies that, when a man practices surveillance and control of his wife or girlfriend, dictates rules for her behavior in detail, punishes her with physical or emotional violence for taking any real or imagined interest in other men, or even for expressing a wish or an opinion of her own, he is subconsciously reassuring himself that he meets the standards of masculinity and will be respected by other men (real or imaginary). Her failure to comply with (or anticipate) his demands threaten his status as a man among men. 

On this macrosocial level, the portrayal of gender-based violence in the media as normal and an expression of somewhat excessive passion, especially when linked to gender and sexuality, has clearly become a powerful societal influence, albeit there has been too little research to identify how media exposure influences the use of violence in close relationships (but see Andersen et al 2015, Alexander et al 2019, Coyne et al 2019). Impunity refers on the macro level to the failure of legal systems to prohibit violence or to provide legal sanctions. Since the first recommendations of the Council in Europe in 2002, step by step nearly all 47 member states have criminalized wife battering, rape and violence in the family (see monitoring of implementation, Hagemann-White 2014), but with many signs of reluctance; rape of a spouse only became a crime in Germany in 1997 (§117 StGB 1997). Worldwide, rape in marriage and domestic violence have not yet been criminalized (World Bank 2024). 

The meso-social factors refer to the larger institutions or organizations that regulate social and economic life and within which individuals and families negotiate their lives. The challenge, when formal impunity has been overcome by laws or explicit policies, thus presents itself on the meso-social level. While there has been significant progress in Europe in national legislation regarding violence against women, on the meso-level implementation of policies or provisions tends to be weak and too often missing altogether. The factor “Failed Sanctions” marks the failure of institutions or agencies to implement sanctions despite existence of legal norms and agency duties. For example, in several countries where protection orders for women seeking safety from abusive husbands have been introduced, practitioners report that judges may routinely reject a recommendation from the public prosecutor with the argument, the man has no criminal record, or the separation ensures that there will be no further violence. The absence of enforcement fosters an environment that encourages further violence and reinforces existing power imbalances and discrimination. Research studies on rape, sexual harassment and intimate partner violence provide evidence that men see themselves as more likely to engage in violence against women, and actually do re-offend more often, when they perceive or experience that it has no negative consequences for them. In addition, norms or values may be embodied in the culture of institutions: from traditional rules excluding women from sites of power and privilege to conditions for tolerating diverse sexual orientations or gender identities. 

The microsocial level refers to dynamics and formations of the face-to-face group: peer groups, relationships in the family or household, the classroom, or workplace, clubs for sports or hobbies, the many sites of day-to-day interaction. It is on this level that general social norms are translated into expected or socially approved practices, from dress codes to child raising. Families, colleagues, friends and neighbors can show disapproval or agree to exceptions from norms based on respecting individuality, or just because the person is liked; “peer approval” is important and can overrule wider norms. Factors on this level include gender-based “stereotypes” which in today’s liberal and individualized public sphere seem to have their greatest impact in personal interaction: Gender-unequal values and norms in family or social networks may include personally endorsed gender-stereotyped perceptions of what men and women, girls and boys, good mothers and their children “naturally” are or should be like. Thus, while gender stereotypes have historical and cultural roots, their impact on the perpetration of violence is most clearly recognizable when they shape perceptions of what is “normal” in the way men, women and children think and behave.

The 2016 Special EU Barometer on Gender-based Violence shows the range of beliefs about violence in the general population Although 70% of European citizens believe that sexual harassment of women is common in their country, this figure masks a wide range of opinions between Member States – from 89% in Italy to 32% in Estonia. However, women are more likely to say it is common than men, and this pattern is consistent across all demographic groups. More than eight out of ten respondents say that violence against women is most likely to occur at home (86%) Paradoxically, one in five respondents believe that women make things up or exaggerate claims of abuse. One in five also believe that violence against women is often provoked by the victim herself. In these ambivalent numbers, the normative power of perceptions of violence is palpable (Eurobarometer SP449 2016, p.5). But these data also show how contradictions within beliefs and attitudes can survive all information and awareness campaigns. As the StoP projects demonstrate, this is also a level which can mobilize engagement to change patterns of seemingly “normal” relationship practices that feed into violence.

Perhaps the impact of exposure to violence in childhood should not so much seen as a simple imitation of models, but more indirect. Both failed or inadequate parenting and exposure to violence have effects on the emotional life of the child and on his or her cognitions, which in turn damages their empathy and relationship skills. “Emotionally”, suffering and/or witnessing violence in the home can contribute to long-term difficulties in handling and coping with emotions, and especially with aggressive or depressant feelings. With regard to “cognitions”, exposure to violence can result in a disposition to poor or hostile social information processing and toward cognitive distortions of what others do or say.

The model “understanding” perpetration was developed from a systematic review of research on different forms of gender-based violence and of violence against children. Thus, the perpetration and factor models as well as the path models were fitted to the available knowledge about the various kinds of violence and differentiated accordingly; here the focus has been on violence against an intimate partner or ex-partner. Violence is not monocausal and affects communities and individuals differently. The main factors were based on a synthesis derived from the multitude of contextual factors and their interplay with dynamics of protective factors, but their influence on specific types of violence and communities calls for differentiation as Hagemann-White et. al state.

Violence against women must be understood relationally. Reactions in social networks and communities depend, among other things, on gender-specific norms of acceptable behavior, the knowledge of individuals about violence and their perceived relationship to victims and perpetrators and their responsibility for them (Berggren 2022). It must be contextual, because the structures of socialization and social interaction influence the normative perception of what constitutes violence. At the same time, traditional values and norms provide an impetus for developing laws and structures.

We have shown that there is not a single cause solution to why violence against women is perpetuated. Rather, we have shown that vulnerabilities are heightened through dependency and unequal power contribution. Further, community values and individual factors intertwine in a multitude of possibilities. Consequently, violence prevention and intervention have a multitude of starting points.