Young Men and Violence: From Theory to Practice
Introduction
The primary purpose of carrying out a literature review as part of the Young Men And Violence
project was to inform the practice being developed, in terms of the methods used in working with
young men and the range of issues to be incorporated into the content of the pilot programmes. An
additional reason for reviewing the literature was to provide a sense of how the project fitted in and
compared with previous research and approaches taken in this field of work.
While there is a wealth of literature relevant to violence, it tends to be academic type studies, aimed
more at documenting trends, pointing to possible causes and identifying antecedents or contributory
factors that may exist in relation to violence. There is a limited amount of material that describes
either research done to inform practice, however or that describes actual methods and approaches
used in working with young men around issues if violence. A large proportion of the victims of
violent crime are young men and of the aims of this project was to support young men from the
perspective of them as victims. There is even less evidence of projects that that aim to do this.
Much of the literature that does exist describes work with male perpetrators of domestic violence.
This provides some valuable suggestions for ways of working on particular areas or issues,
particularly around the impact of gender on behaviour and anger management. It is most concerned
with issues specific to domestic violent situations, however, underlying causes and practical
strategies for dealing with these types of situations. While some of these type of situations
contained factors relevant to the violent experiences of young men, domestic violence was not
identified by the young men in the consultations for this project as being among those they
generally or frequently experience.
Furthermore, the participants targeted for such projects with a domestic violence remit were
generally older men and were often involved for a specific purpose or with a particular end in mind.
This may be because they are required to attend by a court order for example, or with the aim of
reconciliation with an abused partner. These were not the motivations for the young men involved
in the pilot programmes of the Young Men and Violence project. In fact many of the projects that
have attempted to work with men involved age ranges older than those involved in this project,
particularly when it comes to projects aimed at violence, and there are few that target young
adolescent men.
There is also a certain amount of material that refers to community approaches aiming to reduce
violence in a particular area. Many of these have emerged from the U.S., as a result of widespread
gang activity that has been a feature of many urban areas there. Others have been developed in
schools that have found themselves dealing with a rise in violence and the use of weapons by pupils
on school grounds. These projects give some useful insight into social and environmental factors
that may contribute to a rise in violent behaviour, but provide few methods or ideas that can be
replicated on a small group or individual level with young men in Northern Ireland.
The principles and learning from these type of projects, that had a different focus to this Young
Men and Violence project, gave good background information and provided a masculine context for
issue based work with men generally and it has informed the knowledge base of the project on the
relevant issues, as well as to some extent influencing the practice of the pilot programmes.
There are however a certain number of projects identified that had principles, focus and target
participants that were similar to those of this project. These described methods and ideas and
1
approaches that provided useful guidance and inspiration for adaptation and use in the pilot
programmes.
In this brief literature review then I have attempted to identify these projects and provide an
overview of this area of work, approaches taken and methods employed, along with the reasons for
doing so. I have also made comparisons between these and issues relevant to the Young Men and
Violence Project, and give a variety of definitions that have been used to identify what violence is.
Defining violence
Definitions of violence are hard to come by in literature. Whether in terms of describing strategies
or projects that aim to reduce violence at either community or individual levels, definitions of the
violence targeted are rare. Dictionary definitions generally refer to “the use of great physical force”,
but this does not take into account any aspect of either emotional or threat factors, or relate to any
damage or injury that may result from this force.
The most common definitions of violence tend to stem from efforts aimed at reducing male
violence against women. Women’s Aid Federation defines domestic violence as: “a relationship
where there is intentional and persistent physical or emotional abuse of an individual in a way that
causes pain, distress or injury.” The United Nation defines violence against women as “any act of
gender based violence that results in, or is likely to result in physical, sexual or psychological harm
or suffering to women, including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty,
whether occurring in public or private life” (Economic and Social Council, UN, 1992). The
Southern Health Care Network (1999) defines violence as acts that: “cause physical, sexual or
psychological damage to the victim, or frightens, dominates and controls the victim.”
In giving guidance to employers on developing a violence policy statement, the Government of
Saskatchewan (1979) states “… violence means the attempted or actual conduct of a person that
causes or is likely to cause injury, and includes any threatening statement or behaviour that gives a
worker reasonable cause to believe that the worker is at risk of injury.” The “pleasestop.com”
(2001) website similarly defines violence as: “…the threatened or actual physical force or power by
an individual that results in, or has a high likelihood of resulting in physical or psychological injury
or death”. This appears to combine the type of definitions found in dictionaries with a reference to
actions that might cause personal “damage” to another party, but does not incorporate non-physical
type actions such as intimidation, neglect or controlling behaviour, for example.
Definitions of violence are often vague and ambiguous, tending to revolve around the specific types
of problem behaviour that a particular organisation or project is concerned with. In terms of the
“Young Men and Violence” project, the violence referred to in the pilot programmes very much
depended on the young men’s understanding and perceptions of what it is, what is a problem in, or
is relevant to, their communities and to their lives. These were drawn from the initial consultations
that form the body of research into young men and violence and from further discussions as part of
group work sessions.
Some of the young men had very restricted ideas about what violence was, referring to incidences
that result in physical injury to an individual. These ranged from personal assaults such as fighting,
or larger scale incidences such as rioting between communities. Other young men gave much
broader definitions about what constituted as violence which included, intimidation, threats, robbery
and house breaking, joyriding, damage to property and minor physical punishments given to
children.
2
Violence and gender
According to Brown and Hogg (1992) “Masculinity is absolutely central to the question of
violence.” Max Weisbach (1999) states, “There is no doubt that multiple linkages exist at hormonal,
physiological, developmental and personality levels between degree of maleness or masculinity and
aggression (e.g. Kogut, Langley & O’Neill, 1992; Eaghy & Steffan, 1986; Brash & Sussman
1997)”.
Those working with, or carrying out research with young men cannot be unaware of the impact
masculinity as a social phenomenon, has on a whole range of factors/issues in young men’s lives.
Among the most socially evident of these is the effect masculinity has on young men’s relationship
with violence, as both victims and perpetrators.
At a social level “maleness” can influence involvement in violence through a variety of ways. These
may be related to peer pressure, provocation, power structures and hierarchies, role modelling,
pride, image, self-esteem, risk-taking, group identity, to name but a few relevant factors. Remarking
on men’s propensity for and interest in violence, Barbara Ellen (2000) notes, “…we are only a
couple of generations on from when men were expected to go to war and be incredibly violent on
behalf of their country. Nobody moaned about our brave boys bloodlust then.” The legacy of this is
evident in contemporary young men’s’ perceptions of their role in society. That is that they should
be the aggressors and defenders of community, family, partners, and friends. Daniels (1996)
comments on how men are conditioned into perceptions of male roles: “We are the ones in time of
war who are expected to do the killing for society. Often it will be kill or be killed. The
conditioning for this role begins as soon as our sex has been identified.” This notion was
continually echoed through the consultations and is still deeply entrenched in young men’s psyche
today. Karner (1999) suggests that combat training and male socialisation are never separated from
each other and quotes a veteran from the Vietnam war as saying “I’ve been in basic training since I
was six years old”. This “basic training includes war games in boyhood, moving on to schoolyard
fights and competitive male sports as boys grow older. Gibson (????) states “Being a warrior is not
an occupation but a male identity”.
All of the pilot programmes involved an exploration of masculinity and male socialisation to a
lesser or greater extent. For some programmes this was a very central theme, with each session
containing elements that focused on the impact of gender on attitudes and behaviour, and the
implications of being male. While some had a different primary focus, each of the pilot programmes
included consideration and reflection on masculinity to some degree. Examples of how this has
been done in other programmes were drawn from the literature and used as a basis for developing
different methods of approaching the issue.
A programme described by David Denborough (1996) used by Sydney Men Against Sexual Assault
focuses considerably on the gendered nature of violence. The programme refers to a “dominant
plot” as a way of describing the way in which men often lead, or are expected to lead their lives
There is much discussion and reflection on this “dominant plot”, its effects and the consequences of
not following it for young men. It also encourages young men to consider other ways of being,
through looking at exceptions to the “dominant plot”. These are named as “counter plots” and the
pros and cons of each “plot” are considered.
Moran & Wilson (1997) use reflection on growing up male as a means to “unpick” the motivations
and causes for violent behaviour by men against women. Included in this is an analysis of what
men’s motivators for violent behaviour are and what they are trying to achieve. This is compared to
3
the outcomes their violent behaviour does achieve. The programme also supports men in
recognising and identifying emotions and reflecting upon when and why men feel these. How men
tend to deal with these emotions is discussed in the group and reference is made to the “Anger
Funnel”. This illustrates how many of the feelings men experience get repressed by the boundaries
of masculinity which then become funnelled and expressed as anger and aggression.
Masculinity is a key focus for the “Men and Offending” groups run by the Camberwell Probation
Unit. This is a ten-session programme for 21-35 year old men that aims to encourage “a review and
shift in terms of attitude”. It encourages men to reflect on being men with other men, to raise
awareness about the impact male socialization has on them and on men’s lives, and supports
participants in reconsidering their attitudes and behaviour (Murphy, 1996).
These “Men and Offending” group programmes have been run with men in a number of probation
and prison settings and explores various aspects of masculinity including expectations of men, the
transition from boys to men and men’s ways of coping. Kevin Murphy (1996) describes how “an
increasing awareness of the importance of gender socialisation in offending” has been effective in
engaging male offenders on the programme, supporting them to develop self-awareness and
understand their behaviour.
Masculinity is one theme in a programme run across a number of schools in the Netherlands, that
also includes self-defence classes in its approach to helping boys avoid violence. The underlying
principle of the course is that “respect for others and prevention of violence against others must start
with body awareness, self-respect and insight/skills in how to establish and defend ones own
boundaries.” (Woltring, 1998). Attention is paid to the interaction of nature and nurture, looking at
the genderisatision of early male experiences. The development of specific skills that may be useful
in avoiding violence is taught, with a focus on combining physical and intellectual skills in
potentially violent situations. Energy and strength are central concepts to the programme and the
physical, mental and social aspects of involvement in violence and how to avoid it, are considered.
This project differs from many others in its use of what it describes as a “psycho-physical”
approach that both encourages reflection (on masculinity, experiences, behaviour etc.) and teaches
physical skills that may be useful in avoiding violence. This may be useful in that young men often
do not relish violence, but are at a loss when it comes to knowing how to avoid it. One young man
involved in a pilot programme stated: “Its good to think about violence and talk about it here in the
group, but on the street you can’t do that, you just have to survive”. In researching men’s
experiences of growing up in Belfast, Harland (2000) notes, “Although some young men admitted
they did not like fighting, they considered there was no realistic alternative.” Included in pilot
programmes were introductions to skills that may be of use to the young men in potentially violent
situations. These included conflict avoidance strategies, mediation training, negotiation skills, selfdefence techniques and assertiveness.
Male identity, self-esteem and self-determination
Putting such skills into practice also requires a level of self-confidence, and the belief that as an
individual you feel that you can affect both your circumstances and the situations you come across.
Cooper and Trevillion (1996) refer to disruptive/violent men encountered in a social service setting:
“none of these men seemed to have a sound sense of relationship with either their past or future and
told us few details of childhood experience or current aspirations”. If a young man does not feel he
is confident enough to use available knowledge or skills for avoiding violence and conflict, or that
the course of events is beyond his control, it follows that he is more likely to adopt traditional
techniques and roles necessary for survival – fight or run.
4
Violence may even be seen as a consequence of low self-confidence and self-esteem alone.
According to Higgins (1987) self-discrepancy theory “when one’s view of self is lower than an
ideal self, negative emotions result.” Commenting on this, Weisbuch (1999) suggests, “It is quite
possible that negative emotions such as those arising from self discrepancies would increase an
individuals propensity towards aggression”. Berkowitz (1998) also asserts that negative emotions
can “increase responsiveness to situational factors antecedent to aggression”.
The “ideal self” for young men is a very constraining vision, characterised by a narrow set of
inflexible traits that they perceive as definitively “unfemale”. An individual who is strong,
employed, independent of support, and with the ability to vault with ease over any of life’s hurdles,
might typically be how a young man would like to be perceived. While in reality maleness is much
less homogenous than this, popular modern male icons and imagery constantly reinforce the
stereotype. Weisbuch (1999) suggests that one way in which men might react to their inability to
live up to popular ideas of masculinity is through becoming more aggressive, since aggression is
clearly associated with the masculine gender role.
Murphy (1996) refers to men’s need to develop confidence in order to challenge these notions of
male identity. He refers to the role of ‘bread winner’ as being a concept that is often central to
men’s self-identity and notes “Redundant man can quickly become angry man…Aggression
towards self and others is often close to the surface”. This is true for young men who are often in a
catch-22 position in relation to their capacity for finding good jobs. When at school, there is
pressure for them to live up to an image of someone who does not wish to work or excel
academically, stands up to authority, is reckless or complacent about future goals and is regarded in
higher esteem by friends than by teachers. Young men who are expelled from school are often
idolised and looked up to by others. On leaving school this combination often leaves a young man
with poor qualifications and employment prospects. In the “adult” world, however, they then find
that they are judged and their own self-worth measured by their ability to get and hold down a wellpaid job.
This problem is inevitably exacerbated if they live in an area that offers poor employment
possibilities and the young men have grown up with little support and few role models for how to
achieve academically. As part of the “Men and Offending” programme, (Murphy, 1996)
participants are asked to identify who their ‘heroes’ are and what qualities individuals they respect
have. There is then a link made between these qualities, those that the men aspire to themselves, and
the impact heroes can have on the development of these aspirations.
Moran (1996), describing work with violent male offenders, stresses the importance of the men
involved taking responsibility for their violent behaviour, before it is possible for them to change
these behaviour patterns. Perpetrators being responsible for their violent behaviour and people
having the ability to change are also among the key principles of the “Keeping Your Head”
programme (Gardiner and Nesbit, 1996).
Work was done with pilot groups that involved individuals considering how much control they felt
they had over their lives and particular situations and, if lacking, how they might gain some level of
influence. Also included were elements and approaches aimed at increasing participants’ selfesteem, self-confidence and also the belief that they as individuals have the propensity for selfdetermination, in terms of their behaviour and circumstances. This was done with particular
reference to challenging stereotyped masculine roles.
Learning to become violent
5
Walker (1998) refers to the influence “risk factors” have on how children learn aggressive and antisocial behaviour. These may exist and operate in various parts of children’s lives such as in the
family, the school, the neighbourhood, and the local community and also at societal level. They
include poverty, incompetent parenting, dysfunctional families, drug/alcohol abuse by carers,
neglect, abuse, aggressive role models or negative attitudes towards school. Walker suggests that
the longer a child is exposed to these factors, the more likely it is that she or he will, “develop an
aggressive self–centred behavioural style”. Early signs of this might be yelling, tantrums, hitting
and teasing, while the transition to adolescence transforms these behavioural characteristics into
acts such as assault, vandalism, cruelty to animals, and fire setting.
The American Psychology Association (1993) identified four accelerating factors that can increase
the likelihood that a young person will commit violence:




Involvement in drugs or alcohol;
Easy access to weapons;
Association with antisocial deviant peer groups;
Pervasive exposure to violence in the media.
Combined with a selection of risk factors this leads to young people who are in a “state of rage and
carry high levels of agitation”. They are more likely to react aggressively to others and misjudge
negatively the motives of others, resulting in frequent hostile confrontations with individuals they
encounter.
Garbarino (1999) draws five similar conclusions about how young men become violent:





Easy access to lethal weapons;
Difficult relationships, difficult temperament and negative experiences;
Maltreatment at an early age;
“Toxins” in the social environment;
A spiritual void.
Cameron (2000) refers to consultations done with young men in Australia that suggests that the
family is often where violence is learnt but also occurs beyond these boundaries. She identifies
certain risk factors that indicate the likelihood of behaving aggressively or engaging in violence.
These are:







Being male;
Being a young adult;
Having a history of violent behaviour;
Having experienced difficulties during childhood (with parenting, family relationships, school);
Substance abuse problems;
Severe mental illness that is inadequately identified;
Being in situations conducive to violence (including having access to firearms).
Murray (1999) says that our culture “emotionally cripples boys”, and that; “fathers tend to demand
that their sons act tough, mothers tend to expect boys to be strong and protective…” It is impossible
to make young men forget these influences or to “uninstall” all the lessons the have been taught
through their lives experiences. If young men are to learn how to adopt non-violent behaviour,
however, a first step for them may be to encourage reflection and awareness about how their
6
attitudes and values about violence and behaviour have developed, formed, been nurtured and
become entrenched.
The normalisation of violence and Northern Ireland
One of the most salient features arising from the consultations with the young men is that they feel
that violence is normal, will always be present and is just a natural, if sometimes undesirable, part
of life. If this is truly the case, then their only option for survival and well being in society is to try
and present a sufficiently powerful and violent challenge to others, to ensure that they will remain
relatively unscathed. This they attempt to do on a day-to-day basis. In identifying underlying causes
of violence and other behaviours exhibited by young men, Curtis and Boyle (1995) state: “All these
‘typical’ sorts of young male behaviour can be seen as varying ‘survival strategies’ adopted in the
face of overwhelming insecurity and anger, rather than as ‘natural’ unchanneled male aggression.”
David Denborough (1996) notes that he is often invited into schools in Australia to work with
young men on issues of violence and gender in response to a problematic year group, often year 9.
He goes on to say, “Year 9 boys are not the problem – the problem is the ways in which gender race
class and sexuality are organised in our society.” Social learning theory posits that behaviour is
learned through imitation of role models and reinforced by rewards and punishments in interaction
with others (Wolfgang, 1958). If young men’s role models happen to be violent bastions of
acceptable masculinity, it follows that they will learn that this is what is normal for men in society,
and will mimic these traits in their quest for manhood.
While Northern Ireland is by no means unique in its adoption of violence as a natural or primary
response in many situations, particular to Northern Ireland are punishment attacks by paramilitaries.
These are predominantly targeted at young men, often in response to what is ironically labelled
“anti-social behaviour”. Many people see this as a legitimate and preferred method of policing and
maintaining control in local areas. While the young men consulted largely view punishment attacks
as unfair and unwarranted treatment in most cases, they frequently cite intervention by
paramilitaries as an effective tool for preventing violence. Furthermore, individuals with positions
of power within local paramilitary organisations are often looked up to and respected in local
communities. Standing up to the authority of these organisations is an extreme form of risk taking
for the young men, and one that can earn them a lot of respect within their own friendship groups.
Harland (2000) notes that young men are comfortable talking about paramilitary influence and
sectarian threats, and suggests, “…coping with these potentially life threatening circumstances is
more likely to affirm their masculine identity”.
Violence is often a method through which young men are seen, or see themselves, to be able to
“become” men or reinforce the extent of their maleness. In discussing the process by which
masculinity was constructed in veterans of the Vietnam war, Karner (1999) refers to gender being a
pathway or line of development in a man’s life. To veterans, Vietnam was a transitional event, that
exacerbates this pathway and provides a life marker between ‘before combat’ and ‘after combat’”
This concept is very central to young men in Northern Ireland, where there is the notion that
violence and war can be a marker that asserts their identity. Harland (2000) notes that the young
men he studied “…frequently perceived violence as a legitimate way for them to demonstrate their
manhood…” He goes on to state that; “…in Northern Ireland definitions of what it means to be a
man are interwoven within the restrictive and destructive confines of sectarianism, violence and
overt manifestations of machoism.” One implication of this for young men is that violence is
considered to be normal and acceptable. Violence may even be viewed as a desirable and justified
7
element in the lives of themselves and their communities, as it both serves a purpose in “solving”
problems, and also defines them as men.
Reinforcing this “culture of violence” is violence young men encounter at an early age in the home.
Those consulted frequently talked about being smacked and beaten from an early age by parents,
and in some cases in school. While this appears to have normalised the concept of violence being a
legitimate method of punishing and discouraging unwanted behaviour, very few of the young men
cited this as a form of violence they had experienced. This is an illustration of how engrained the
use of violence is in their view of the world. Garbarino (1999) identifies four outcomes of young
children being victims of both physical abuse (beatings) and psychological abuse or neglect at
home. These are:

Being hyper vigilant to the negatives (such as threatening gestures) in the social environment
around them;
 Being oblivious to the positives (such as smiles);
 Developing a tendency to respond aggressively when frustrated;
 Drawing the conclusion that aggression is successful in the world.
Also in the home, research suggests that witnessing domestic violence between parents may
influence men’s adoption of violent “norms” and behaviour styles in later life. Strauss, Gelles and
Steinmetz (1980) found: “Men who have witnessed their parents’ domestic violence are three times
more likely to abuse their own wives than children of non-violent parents, with sons of the most
violent parents being 1000 times more likely to become wife beaters.” Peled et al. (1995) found that
children who witness violence at home display a diverse range of negative behaviour traits
including; “aggression against peers, family members and property.” Similarly, in a comparison of
delinquent and non-delinquent youth, Miller (1989) reported that the most significant difference
between the two groups was a history of family violence and abuse.
Varnava (2000) also asserts that violence is a learnt behaviour rooted in childhood. He points to
recent research findings showing that 40-60 per cent of children are bullied at some stage during
their school life, most children having been physically punished in the home, and that one fifth of
all children have been hit with implements. He says “The best predictor of violence in adulthood is
violent behaviour in childhood.”
Research into attitudes of young people to domestic violence against women carried out by the Zero
Tolerance Trust in Scotland would seem to confirm the notion that violence is seen as a normal and
justifiable way of getting your needs met among young men. Among other findings, this research
found that 1 in 2 boys thought it was acceptable to hit a woman in some circumstances, or to force
her to have sex.
A paper on bullying produced by The Pilton Youth Programme states that “…the message that
violence is legitimate permeates society from the top down.” (Curtis and Boyle, 1995) The media as
well reinforcing traditional male values, can also be said to create and promote a culture of violence
in society. The Centre For Media Literacy questions: “What is the long term impact on our national
psyche when millions of children in their formative years grow up decade after decade bombarded
with very powerful visual and verbal messages demonstrating violence as the preferred way of
solving problems and normalizing fear and violence as ‘the way things are’”. Murray (1999)
describes the way in which boys are taught to shut down their feelings as “emotional miseducation”
and suggests that when this is combined with violence being presented as entertainment, such as in
films and video games, a “recipe for disaster” is created. Garbarino (1999) also assets that,
“…emotional abandonment is particularly dangerous in a culture like ours, in which intense cultural
imagery legitimises and models violence.”
8
“De-normalising” violence is thus one of the biggest challenges of any work that is aimed at
reducing young men’s involvement in it. While it is not possible to change an individual's past, it
may be possible to affect the way he interprets this, and reflect upon his own behaviour and
attitudes to violence generally and was the focus of various group work elements involved in the
pilot programmes. These involved discussions around what forms of violence the young men saw as
acceptable, and also in what particular circumstances they felt violence was appropriate, and why.
Gardiner and Nesbit (1996) describe using similar methods that involve men discussing beliefs
about aggression and violence, including when they think it is appropriate to hit out and against
whom. This is said to create awareness around how entrenched men’s views of violence often are
and can be used as a basis for reflecting on and questioning opinions on the issue.
Environmental Factors
Poor environment has commonly been identified as a factor that can increase the likelihood of
violence, both by previous studies and the young men involved in this research. One young man
from a pilot programme noted, “You never hear about riots, punishment beatings or stabbings in
any of the snobby areas of the town, its always places like this, where people have no jobs and their
lives are crap.” Another stated: “See if I didn’t live in [local community] I wouldn’t be into half the
things I am…The only way to avoid violence is to get out of this area.”
The impact of social class on men, in terms of their propensity to offend is included in the “Men
and Offending” groups described by Murphy (1996). In referring to “toxins” in the social
environment as being a factor that can lead to violence, Garbarino (1999) states: “Troubled, lost
boys will be as bad as the social environment around them.” Crozier and Doherty (1998) noted that
social and economic deprivation was a major factor in the level of violence in communities on
religious interfaces in Belfast. It was said to “increase the likelihood of interface tension and the
involvement of young people in violence”. This was in part put down to young people perceiving
that they were “…left behind, with no stake in society and less likely to participate in a law abiding
society, as these laws are laid down by upper and middle classes.” Garbarino (1999) goes on to
conclude: “The spreading problem of youth violence is related to the larger development. Dealing
with youth violence will require both a broadly based prevention perspective on community life and
a conscious focusing of attention on dealing humanely and effectively with troubled, aggressive
children early in their lives.” Schwartz (1996) also cites community initiatives as being important in
the long-term prevention of violence.
While this project did not have the remit (or resources) for the regeneration of communities, or for
the vocational training of participants, pilot programmes worked alongside those that did aim to
achieve this. They also included elements that aimed to help young men think about the interaction
between underlying personal reasons for involvement in violence and the social factors involved,
and to consider ways that they can affect these.
Anger and aggression
Many young men consulted cited anger and loss of temper as a major factor in the violent incidents
in which they are involved. The ability to control their behaviour after this point was said to be
difficult or impossible. Anger and aggression would even seem to be one of the fundamental
products of masculine socialisation and are among the few emotions that can be legitimately
expressed for men under normal circumstances. Cooper and Trevillion (1996) describe one of the
difficulties of working with angry men in a social work setting, as having to overcome the notion
9
that conflict and/or violent confrontation was the only way of conducting affairs for men: “This
combat into which we were inexorably drawn was a product of these men’s visions of the world, in
which it seemed that to punish or be punished were the only options.” This was another common
theme arising from the consultations. That is that while young men may see violence as undesirable,
it is often the only option available and they either can see no valid and effective alternative in
many situations, or simply lack the skills to put their knowledge of these into practice, the ability to
control their anger being among these.
Cameron (2000) identifies anger management programmes as a strategy that shows promise for
working with violent young men in Australia. The “Keeping Your Head” programme (Gardiner and
Nesbit, 1996) is a four-day course, run by the Northumbria Probation Unit. It is aimed at male
offenders who have shown an inability to control their aggression, often resulting in extreme forms
of violence. It uses a cognitive behavioural approach to help men approach potentially violent
situations in a non-aggressive manner.
The first day involves an exploration of beliefs that the men have about aggression and violence. It
refers participants to a five-step model for understanding the progression of violence, from the
trigger that sets it off to the feelings that may be experienced afterwards. These different stages are
explored, with particular reference to triggers and the individual nature of these. Things that
provoke aggression in individual participants are identified, after which the men are asked to
analyse an actual incident from their own experience. On the second day assertiveness is
introduced. Video clips and role-plays are used to demonstrate assertive, passive, and aggressive
styles of behaviour. There is also a focus on non-verbal cues to identify what sort of image or
message men give out through these. Further role-plays are acted out, videoed and played back to
allow participants the opportunity to look at their own styles of behaviour and non-verbal
communication. Again these are based on real incidents from the men’s lives. The third day looks at
negotiation and anger control and helps participants to identify behavioural factors that support
successful negotiation. In pairs participants role-play negotiations after which they are asked to
identify what can provoke them into anger and what, if any, avoidance strategies they have used.
The group then discusses the options available in given situations in which conflict occurs and a list
of “ways to control my temper” is drawn up. Provocation is broken down into four stages: preparing
for provocation, confronting this provocation, coping with arousal/agitation, and self-reward. This
helps men to understand their anger, view it as something that they can influence and also to learn
to “talk themselves down” in tense situations. Day four first of all focuses on formulating responses
to criticism and uses video input or role-plays to demonstrate appropriate and inappropriate
examples of these. The final part of the course draws together objectives, personal action plans and
highlights the process of change as being based on significant inter-related steps.
This type of anger management approach was one theme focused on in pilot programmes. One
group in particular, identified anger and loss of control as the most frequent reason for fighting and
conflict, particularly as a result of insults and/or verbal provocation, often when alcohol was also a
factor. The programme developed for this group was hence strongly influenced by anger
management approaches found in the literature.
Supportive approaches and working with young men
Of fundamental importance in attempting to carry out issue based work with young men is the
approach taken to it. The agenda of those carrying out the work can have a huge impact on how the
young men involved perceive it. If they feel unsupported by facilitators, or that they are being
judged in some way, they are more likely to disengage themselves from the work, both physically
and mentally. Young men are well aware of society’s opinion of them. This is evident from the
10
barrage of images and opinions they hear daily from the media, politicians, parents and women, for
example. If they feel that this message is being replayed through the work in which they are
involved, they are less likely to have confidence in the facilitator’s capacity to see them in a positive
light. It is thus of vital importance that the work maintains a positive atmosphere for them. Woltring
(1998) suggests using “points of attention” to do this, rather than stating things negatively. As an
example, instead of criticising a young man’s behaviour or efforts, he suggests saying: “This and
this will need your attention…” or “If you want to achieve … pay extra attention to…” All the pilot
programmes aimed to be supportive in nature and as an underlying ethos had the concept that
participants were there to express themselves and their opinions without being judged.
Discussive, reflective and exploratory work is often very unfamiliar to young men and they can be
suspicious and defensive in doing it, particularly around issues of violence. Referring to working
with young men on issues of violence and gender, Young Earth Ltd. (1999) stress the importance of
adopting “a non-blaming yet challenging approach.” The need to recognise and understand this
defensiveness and develop strategies to overcome it is identified, without making the participants
opposition stronger. They refer to the importance of acknowledging and validating young men’s
angry feelings rather than trying to ignore or dominate them and talk about, “the need for young
men to feel safe and secure within the group, especially if they are to speak openly and express their
feelings”. Although confidentiality and discretion cannot be guaranteed outside the group work
session, it is important that these are referred to and their importance stressed, to all in the group, as
well as to any co-workers.
Conclusion
The main purpose of this review was to inform the practice being developed for the Young Men and
Violence pilot programmes. The examples found in the literature were most frequently not practice
based, with those that were generally being aimed at older men and domestic violence or strategies
for reducing violence within localised areas. While there is a limited range of material available that
does identify practice with young men, there was a certain amount that is useful for adaptation and
the adoption of basic principles and themes. This absence highlights the need for further research in
this area and the importance of developing models that can be employed for working with young
men, particularly supportive methods that address violence related issues, a topic that is of constant
and powerful relevance in their lives.
Report compiled by
Mat Crozier
Young Men and Violence Project
YouthAction Northern Ireland
April 2001
Bibliography
American Psychology Association (1993) Seminal report on youth violence
11
Berkowitz, L. (1998). “Affective aggression: The role of stress, pain, and negative affect” In R. G. Geen & E.
Donnerstein (Eds.), “Human aggression: Theories, research, and implications for social policy” San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Brain, P. F., & Susman, E. J. (1997). “Hormonal aspects of aggression and violence” In D. M. Stoff, J. Breiling, & J. D.
Maser (Eds.), “Handbook of antisocial behaviour” New York: Wiley.
Brown, D.B. and H Hogg, R. (1992), “Policing Patriarchy”, Australian Left Review, 8-9 October 1992
Cameron, M. (2000) “Young men and the prevention of violence” Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice
series, no. 154, Australian Institute of Criminology
Center for Media Literacy (U.S.) (1999) “Violence in the Media” Found on www.media.org website
Cooper, A. and Trevillron, S. (1996), “Survival and Change: Social Work with Angry Men” in “Working with Men”,
Newburn, T. and Mair, G. (eds), Russell House Publishing
Crozier, M. and Doherty, A., (1998) “Key features of effective practice in work with young people which has assisted
in reducing tension in interface areas” Report compiled on behalf of Belfast Interface Project
Curtis, K. and Boyle, R.
Programme
(1995),
“Breaking The Chain: Men Working with Boys in Trouble”,
Pilton Youth
Daniels, L. (1996), “Working with Men with Violent Patterns” in “Working with Men”, Newburn, T. and Mair, G.
(eds), Russell House Publishing
Denborough, D. (1996), “Step by Step: Developing Respectful and Effective Ways of Working with Young Men to
Reduce Violence” in “Men’s Ways of Being”, McLean, C., Carey, M. and White, C. (eds), Westview Press
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1986). “Gender and aggressive behaviour: A meta-analytic review of the social
psychological literature.” Psychological Bulletin, 100, 309-330.
Economic and Social Council, UN,
(www.ippf.org)
(1992),
found on International Planned Parenthood Federation website
Ellen, B. (2000) “On sex and violence” Sunday Observer, 14 th August 2000
Garbanino, J. (1999), “Lost Boys: Why Our Sons Turn to Violence and How We Can Save Them” in “Reaching
Today’s Youth – The Community Circle of Caring Journal”, Summer 1999, Volume 3, Issue 4, National Education
Service (USA)
Gardiner, D. and Nesbitt, D. (1996), “Cognitive Behavioural Group Work with Male Offenders: The
Newcastle_Upon_Tyne Upon Tyne Intensive Probation Unit” in “Working with Men”, Newburn, T. and Mair, G.
(eds), Russell House Publishing
Gibson, (1990)
Government of Saskatchewan (1979) – “The Workers' Compensation Act Section 52, 1979” found on:
webmaster@lab.gov.sk.ca website
Harland, K. (2000), “Men and Masculinity: The Construction of Masculine Identities in Inner City Belfast”, PhD
submitted to University of Ulster
Higgins, E. T. (1987). “Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect.” Psychological Review, 94, 319-340.
Karner, T.X. (????) “Engendering violent men: Oral histories of military masculinity” in “Masculinities and
Organisational Violence”,
Kogut, D., Langley, T., & O'Neal, E. (1992). “Gender role masculinity and angry aggression in women.” Sex Roles, 26,
355-368.
Murray, B. (1999) “Boys to men: Emotional miseducation” American Psychology Association Monitor, Vol. 30, No.
7
12
Moran, D. and Wilson, M. 1997, “Men who are Violent to Women: A Group Work Practice Manual”, Russell
Publishing
Miller, G. (1989) “Violence by and against America’s children” Journal of Juvenile Justice Digest, XVII, 12
Morran, D. (1996), “Working in the CHANGE Programme: Probation Based Group Work with Male Domestic
Violence Offenders” in “Working with Men”, Newburn, T. and Mair, G. (eds), Russell House Publishing
Murphy, K. (1996), “Men and Offending Groups” in “Working with Men”, Newburn, T. and Mair, G. (eds), Russell
House Publishing
Peled et al. (eds.) (1995) “Ending the cycle of violence: Community responses to children of battered women”
Thousand Oaks, California, Sage Publications
Pleasestop.com (2001) Found on: www. pleasestop.com website
Schwartz, W. (1996), “An Overview of Strategies to Reduce School Violence”, ERIC Clearinghouse on Urban
Education No 115
Southern Health Care Network (1999) on youngearth.com website
Strauss, M.A., Gelles, R.J. & Steinmetz, S (1980) “Behind closed doors” Doubleday, Anchor
Varnava, G. (2000) “Towards a non-violent society: Checkpoints for schools” Forum on children and violence,
National Children’s Bureau Enterprises Ltd.
Walker, H. (1998) “Youth violence: Society’s problem”, Eugene Register Guard
Weisbuch, M. (1999), “How Masculine Ought I To Be? Men’s Masculinity and Aggression”, From Sex Roles: A
Journal of Research, April 01 1999 by Edgar C. O'Neal
Wolfgang, M.E.(1958) “Patterns in criminal homicide”, New York, Wiley
Woltring, L. (1998), “Self Defence and the Prevention of Violence for Boys” in Working with Men Journal, 1
The Zero Tolerance Charitable Trust, Edinburgh, (2000), “Young Peoples Attitudes to Violence, Self and
Relationships” Research Study
13