Action on violence could be a matter of words*

Domestic: it’s a nice word. It evokes images of hearth and home, family, children and pets. It infers the privacy of the home, a cozy entity behind whose closed doors the organisation of family and domestic life can be carried on away from the public gaze. We have domestic animals, domestic plants, domestic work, domestic affairs. When ‘domestic’ is coupled with the word ‘violence’, however, we have a cognitive dissonance. This invariably means we also have a legislative dissonance. With a few notable exceptions, governments are largely reluctant to impose on the privacy of domestic arrangements. Labelling something ‘domestic’ at once removes it from the public, and therefore visible and governable, domain. The late philosopher, Val Plumwood posited a theory of ‘dualisms’, whereby contrasting concepts could be ranged in pairs, with one of each pair having automatic societal precedence. For example, in dualisms such as man/nature; object/subject; masculin...