大專青年親密關係暴力初級預防策略之現況與挑戰

Abstract

國內大專青年約會暴力調查研究顯示，超過半數受訪者表示一年內曾遭受暴力對待，顯見親密關係暴力現象確盛行於大專青年族群中。為及早預防，政府及相關民間組織皆致力於預防宣導教育，然其宣導內容方向與大專青年經驗出現落差，恐難達到溝通及教育目的。是以，本研究透過焦點團體探討大專青年所理解與感知的親密關係暴力，訪談宣導實務人員之宣講動機與理念，檢視網路上常見防治宣導之文本資料的內涵特性，並實際參與大學校園內情感教育課程及講座活動，透過多方面的田野資料收集，呈現我國防治宣導論述出現僵化現象的背後脈絡。 研究發現，受眾對於親密關係暴力的感知和定義，隨著個體生命歷程的階段而有不同，當宣導內容脫離受眾所處成長階段的關注焦點，預防教育就難以發揮成效，故建議未來防治策略需納入生命歷程階段的考量，設計合適的宣導教育內容，並貼近受眾所處世代的時空背景脈絡。再者，典型預防宣導素材多存在異性戀中心、預防受害論述、理性人決策、單一化親密暴力互動類型等預設，這些預設來自國內保護服務體系長期以來的主流價值－權力與控制觀點，在本研究中發現不僅使閱聽者難以連結自身經驗立場，甚至可能導致當事人自我標籤化效應，阻礙其對外求助。 最後，本研究指出，親密關係暴力的定義困境使得公眾討論難以達到共識，在面對標籤化與否、同理行為人、旁觀者責任、性別對稱性爭論等面向上仍須創造討論空間，避免落入二元對立。建議防治體系應能容納不同觀點，正視親密關係暴力多元化的本質，藉由理解複雜性來發展更貼近現實所需的政策及服務。

A recent study on college students in Taiwan showed that over half of the participants had experienced intimate partner violence (IPV) within a year, which shows that IPV is prevalent among college students in Taiwan. To prevent IPV, governments and NPOs have implemented different prevention campaigns. However, the existing prevention materials do not meet the experiences of college students. Therefore, this study interviewed Taiwanese college students to see how they perceive and recognize IPV in their own lives and experiences and interviewed practitioners to see how they decided on how to design the prevention campaign. I also participated in emotional education courses and lectures on university campuses for data triangulation to contextualize the current IPV prevention system. The study found that the participants’ perceptions of IPV differ at different stages during the life course. If the prevention content deviates from the focus of the participants’ developmental stage, it will not be effective. Therefore, I suggest that future prevention strategies incorporate life-stage factors. Also, the typical prevention materials are built on multiple presuppositions, such as heterocentrism, victim protection discourse, rational decision-making assumption, and simplifying IPV types. These presuppositions came from the mainstream value of the domestic protection service system – power and control. It is difficult for the audience to connect their experiences to the prevention materials made on these presuppositions, and these prevention materials may even lead to a self-labeling effect, hindering both victims and perpetrators from seeking help. Finally, the study pointed out that the difficulty of defining IPV makes it hard for public discussions to reach a consensus. There is a need to create a space for the discussion of the labeling effect, understanding perpetrators, bystanders’ responsibility, and the gender symmetry debate, and not fall for the black-or-white binary thinking. The IPV prevention system should accommodate different views, address the diverse nature of IPV, and develop policies and services tailored to different groups.