Aboriginal Women, Drug Use and Violence

AUTHOR: Tara Lyons

TOPIC: Aboriginal Women, Drug Use & Violence

DATE: October 2006

AIM: To identify the key themes in the literature in 3–5 pages and provide personal comments/thoughts. All members of the research team will have an opportunity to provide their comments/thoughts as well.

There are two bodies of literature in this review: Aboriginal women and violence & violence and substance use. There is a gap in the literature concerning research on Aboriginal women who use illicit substances and their experiences of violence. Aboriginal women are not considered in most of the articles written about violence against women and substance use.

A note on terminology. There are different terms used in the literature: partner violence, domestic violence, violence against women, intimate partner violence. This review is not focusing solely on violence by intimate partners, however, much of the literature focuses on this type of violence against women. The focus also includes violence some Aboriginal women face by strangers and in other areas of their life, such as sex work. I have attempted to use the terminology used by the authors.

In this review I first outline rates of violence against Aboriginal women. Then I attempt to contextualize this violence in a section on colonization and its relationship to Aboriginal women’s lives. Next, I outline what the literature claims about the relationship between substance use and violence and theories about this relationship. In the final section before my thoughts, I present concerns found in the literature about the lack of services that address both addiction and women’s experiences of violence.

Rates of violence against Aboriginal women

Rates of violence against Aboriginal women vary according to the sample and methods used (Brownridge 2003). However, the research consistently shows that Aboriginal women are more likely to experience violence than non-Aboriginal women (Behrendt 2000; Brownridge 2003; Bubar & Thurman 2004; Simoni et al., 2004; Walters & Simoni 1999). It is important to note that the violence Aboriginal women face is often at the hands of non-Aboriginals (Bubar & Thurman 2004; Simoni et al. 2004). Bubar and Thurman (2004: 72) report that 25% of the violence experienced by Aboriginal women involves someone who is non-Aboriginal. This is significantly higher than all other groups of women who report 5-11% of experienced violence is by someone of a different race.

The 1999 General Social Survey (GSS) 13 is the only study with a representative sample of the Canadian population and a variable of Aboriginal status. One finding from this survey is that in Canada 25% of Aboriginal women reported violence by an ex or current spouse, compared to 8% of non-Aboriginal women in Canada (Brownridge 2003). Aboriginal women also report more severe violence and are eight times more likely to be murdered by their partner than non-Aboriginal women (Brownridge 2003).

The GSS 13 gives a picture of the violence Aboriginal women face in Canada. It does not however differentiate between Aboriginal women who are not using substances and those who are. To get an idea of the rates of violence experienced by women who use drugs we can look to another body of literature that focuses on women in treatment and their histories of violence. As I mentioned above, this research does not consider Aboriginal women so it is limited.

Because of this limitation, I spent time looking for statistics on violence against Aboriginal women complied by Aboriginal organizations and/or statistics that were Aboriginal specific. This turned out to be difficult. For example, The First Nations Regional Longitudinal Health Survey (RHS) (pg. 80) combined all forms of violence, so the finding is that the rates of violence do not differ between women and men. The Aboriginal People’s Survey (2001) publications do not address violence against Aboriginal women. This is similar to Amnesty International’s finding in Stolen Sisters (2004: 26) that statistics on who carries out violence against Aboriginal women and rates of different types of violence (e.g., sexual assault) are not available in Canada. In the Summary Report they state: “Understanding the true scale and nature of violence against Indigenous women, however, is greatly hampered by a persistent lack of comprehensive reporting and statistical analysis.” (Amnesty International 2004b: 2)

El-Bassel et al. (2000) found that 75% of women in methadone treatment experienced violence at least once in their life and were up to 3 times more likely to have experienced violence by their partners than women not in treatment. Wilson-Cohn et al. (2002) found that women sentenced to treatment experienced rates of partner violence much higher than average. In a comparison between women in alcohol treatment and two community samples (one with and one without alcohol and other drug problems), Miller (1998) found that more women in treatment had experienced significantly more severe violence by their partners, both in the last 6 months and in their lifetime.

A concern is how results are conveyed and interpreted. I agree with Sokoloff & Dupont’s (2005) suggestion that the presentation of these statistics of the high rates of violence Aboriginal women experience supports negative stereotypes of Aboriginal peoples. They argue that is it important to put these statistics in context, particularly in the economic, social and political realities of women’s lives. For example, research shows that poverty is a factor in domestic violence. Thus, institutional supports, such as adequate social assistance, are necessary to provide more options to women facing violence. This is particularly important because violence against Aboriginal women is often attributed to cultural characteristics (e.g., Aboriginal men as particularly violent; Aboriginal culture as violent) (Shaw 2003; Sokoloff & Dupont 2005).

Reponses to Violence against Aboriginal Women

The research studies reviewed above relay that Aboriginal women experience high rates of violence. We are also continuing to see Aboriginal women murdered throughout Canada (e.g., Port Coquitlam, Edmonton, Prince George). I think it is important to not convey Aboriginal women and Aboriginal communities as helpless victims so I want to give an example of responses to this violence from Aboriginal communities.

Aboriginal women are being murdered and going missing on Highway 16 from Prince George to Prince Rupert. This stretch of road has been named Highway to Tears. A symposium sponsored by the Lheidli T’enneh First Nation, Carrier Sekani Family Services, Carrier Sekani Tribal Council,

Prince George Nechako Aboriginal Employment and Training Association, and the Prince George Native Friendship Center was held March 2006, and from this the Highway of Tears Symposium Recommendation Report put forth 33 recommendations. The recommendations include establishing shuttle buses and safe houses along the highway (The Highway of Tears Recommendations Report, June 16, 2006).

Colonization

We cannot separate history, particularly colonial history, from discussions of Aboriginal women, drug use and experiences of violence (Behrendt 2000; Bubar & Thurman 2004; Fontaine 2006; Rivers 2005). As a result of colonial history, such as the occupation of Aboriginal lands and forced removal of children from Aboriginal homes, Aboriginal peoples experience violence and trauma at high rates (Simoni et al., 2004). Traditions, economic livelihoods, and families were destroyed by colonial practices. Poverty and changes in gender roles are two results, both of which are linked to partner violence against Aboriginal women (Bubar & Thurman 2004; Fontaine 2006; Rivers 2005).

Also, the imposition of Canadian laws onto Aboriginal communities plays a role in violence against Aboriginal women. These laws have eliminated Aboriginal communities’ abilities to address violence in ways they consider appropriate (Deer 2004). For example, Canadian and US government policies have replaced Aboriginal justice models with their own. One effect of this is the eradication of the victim’s voice in the justice process (Deer 2004).

The Relationship Between Substance Use and Violence

The literature also shows that the relationship(s) between substance use and violence is a complex. We cannot simplistically claim that drug use causes violence or violence causes drug use (Humphreys et al. 2005; Miller 1998). Substance use alone does not cause domestic violence. Other factors are at play, including culture, perceptions of use, and where the use is taking place (Plant et al. 2002). Studies looking at the relationship between violence and drug use do not contain elements of time. What comes first, the drug use or the violence? Regardless of not being able to put forth causal relationships, Simoni et al. (2004) argue there are connections between trauma/violence and drug use.

There is a lot of literature on the relationships between violence and alcohol consumption. This literature, however, is weak because it is descriptive and for the most part is not done thoroughly using appropriate methods, such as controlled studies (Plant et al. 2002). More appropriate methods would be rigorous and based on reliable and valid data collection. This research is also conflicting. Most research, however, suggests that alcohol consumption has a significant contribution to family violence (Rivers 2005; Plant et al. 2002).

Theories

According to El-Bassel et al. (2000) there are four ways that the relationship between partner violence and substance use is explained: 1) The substance use lifestyle puts women at risk for violence. For example, how women get drugs puts them at risk of experiencing violence; 2) the effects of drug use, such as increases in women’s ‘verbal aggression’ and/or paranoia, may result in more violence against women; 3) women who use drugs are stigmatized and “may be at a higher risk of violence from their partners because they are perceived as violating cultural norms of acceptable female behavior” (223); and 4) substance use may be a coping mechanism to deal with partner violence. This last theory is the most popular in the literature (Humphreys et al. 2005; Simoni et al. 2004).

Another theory is that attitudes and beliefs about violence cannot be separated from violence. Sometimes violence is believed to be appropriate in marriages (Humphreys et al. 2005). Attitudes about drinking and masculinity are also seen as a factor in domestic violence for some (Humphreys et al. 2005). Another theory is that there is a cycle where women use to cope and in turn their use can lead to a higher likelihood of them being victimized (Humphreys et al. 2005; Simoni et al. 2004).

One structural theory is that the eradication of Aboriginal legal systems has resulted in violence against Aboriginal women (Deer 2004). In response, Deer (2004: 18) argues that “the adjudication and response to victimization of Native women and children must be restored to tribal nations”. Miller (1998: 415) also argues that structural changes are needed “to support individuals in looking for a way out of cycles of violence and substance abuse”. An example of a needed structural change is ensuring women’s financial independence. Women experiencing violence in their homes can be prevented from leaving because of financial dependency on their partners (Wachholz & Miedema 2000) and the effects of continuing cuts in social assistance (Mann, June 19, 2006).

Treatment

Miller (1998: 413) argues that “drug problems and partner violence co-occur for women”. However, there is a lack of treatment services that address both domestic violence and substance use (Humphreys et al. 2005). Humphreys et al. (2005) asked service providers about why substance use and domestic violence services were separate. The first reason was ‘cultural differences’”. Substance use services are usually men-centred in contrast to domestic violence services (Humphreys et al. 2005: 1312). Other reasons were lack of resources and the fact that not many people are trained in both substance use and domestic violence.

Substance use can facilitate violence and vice versa. Further, Miller (1998) found that while women are in treatment they are continuing to experience violence by their partners, which impacts on their treatment. Thus it is argued that violence and substance abuse need to be treated “in an integrated way” (Easton et al., 2000: 24). Miller (1998: 414) argues for ‘consolidated support services’ that deal with both addiction and violence. It is not clear how to consolidate and integrate these services or how this would look in practice. One suggestion is that treatment providers need to understand women’s histories of violence and how this relates to women’s capacity to engage in treatment (Miller 1998).

For a recent (September 2006) on-line presentation of a virtual community on “Working with Women on Substance Use and Violence issues” please see: https://bccewh.webex.com/bccewh/onstage/g.php?AT=VR&RecordingID=387720928

Tara’s Thoughts

Doing this literature review, I was frustrated with some of the articles I read about Aboriginal women and violence. In one (Farley et al. 2005), prostitution is identified as a form of violence against Aboriginal women. Thus, all Aboriginal sex workers are portrayed as victims. The authors speak of the prostitution done to women, erasing women’s agency. Women subject to violence are talked about as being fearful of men and as continually re-victimized. This in is contrast to other work where Aboriginal women speak about the violence and abuse they have experienced as well as how they protect themselves, survive, cope and resist (Comack 1996; Wiebe & Johnson 1998). For me this is a very striking, powerful difference in the portrayal of women who experience violence: women as victims of violence versus women who experience violence. Part of what upsets me with the approach of sex work as only violence against women is that it leads to the assumption that Aboriginal women need to be saved; saved by women who are more capable and knowing.

I was also disturbed by how women who use drugs and women who experience violence were talked about in some of the literature. For example: “Substance-abusing women exposed to violence often have psychosocial impairment. They have difficulty maintaining relationships and feel socially isolated” (Tuten et al. 2004: 1030). Women are talked about as defective, which removes them from the social contexts and lived experiences in which violence is occurring. This makes women responsible for their experiences of violence. Women who use drugs and who experience violence are also often talked about as a unified whole of women who experience violence in the same ways.

In another example, Najavits et al. (2004: 714) argue that for women with substance use disorder and histories of trauma “the tendency to be involved in dangerous relationships is well known.” They list hypotheses for this as: “cognitive distortions, state-dependent learning, dissociation, physiologically based response to trauma, repetition compulsion, and search for mastery” (Najavits et al 2004: 714). I don’t understand what most of these terms mean, however, from what I can discern the ‘tendency to be in dangerous relationships’ is a women’s responsibility. They do not list living in poverty, impacts of racism, stigma, or power relations in intimate relationships and in broader society as hypotheses. It is presented as women having to learn to avoid this tendency, without acknowledging or questioning the social conditions which can place and force women into certain relationships.