Loading...
|
Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item:
https://nccur.lib.nccu.edu.tw/handle/140.119/110842
|
| Title: | 自我與權利-受婚姻暴力女性的權利實踐
Self and rights-the practice of women`s rights in the intimacy violence case |
| Authors: | 李姿佳
Lee, Tzu-Chia |
| Contributors: | 王曉丹
Wang, Hsiao-Tan
李姿佳
Lee, Tzu-Chia |
| Keywords: | 自我
權利
人權
權利實踐
保護令
家庭暴力防治法
Self
Rights
Human rights
Practice of rights
Protection order
Domestic violence prevention Act |
| Date: | 2017 |
| Issue Date: | 2017-07-11 11:56:50 (UTC+8) |
| Abstract: | 自古以來婚姻暴力在臺灣社會是被忽視的議題，直到1998年臺灣通過家庭暴力防治法，成為全亞洲第一個完成立法的國家，也是一部保障被害人人權的法律。在實務上，家庭暴力防治法實施19年來，對家庭暴力防治法的效用為何，一直存在不同的爭論。在臺灣對婚姻暴力受暴者的保護，從保護人權的理想到權利的賦予，再從權利賦予看到權利對社會影響，法律實施多年後，實務上看到人權保護與權利賦予，中間產生非常大的落差，而產生落差的原因，是本研究所要回答的問題。
近年來西方創發第四種新權利理論，突破以往權利理論的框架，將自我與權利是循環（recursive）影響的觀點，然而華人的自我與西方自我截然不同。心理學家幫助我們把自我內在的基本心理結構做了許多描述和區分；人類學則說明華人自我和西方自我的不同，華人自我是差序格局，自我悠遊在父母兄弟姊妹之間的關係中。而本研究的自我與新權利理論不同之處在於，新權利理論的自我是個人主義式的自我，而本研究的自我是包含他人，在心理學和人類學的相互補充下，形成本研究重要的論述基礎。
本文研究方法有文獻回顧、質性深度訪談及個案分析三種。質性深度訪談，以受婚姻暴力女性的權利意識為主軸，訪談兩對曾有婚姻關係之夫妻，在婚姻中有發生過婚姻暴力，且法院核發保護令，本研究以兩對夫妻為個案分析對象。本研究結發現，在臺灣自我會影響權利，而距離和情是影響自我發展範圍大小及輕重的關鍵因素；性別會影響對雙方所認知產生距離的原因，以及雙方對夫妻之情轉變看法的關鍵有所不同。
本研究最後根據研究結果提出四項結論與建議，一、自我和權利是臺灣受婚姻暴力女性權利實踐的樣貌；二、在婚姻中的人權與權利主張中間有一段很大的落差；三、影響自我與權利的關鍵因素是距離和情；最後第四點，對臺灣婚姻暴力防治提出建議。
Since ancient times, intimacy violence in Taiwan society is a neglected issue, until 1998, Taiwan through the Domestic Violence Prevention Act, to become the first in Asia to complete the legislation of the country, but also a protection of the human rights of the law. In practice, the implementation of the Domestic Violence Act 19 years, the effectiveness of the law on the prevention of domestic violence, there have been different debates. In Taiwan, the protection of intimacy violence by the violence, from the protection of human rights to the right to the right to give, and then given the rights from the right to see the social impact of the law after years of practice to see the protection of human rights and rights, the middle of the very The big gap, and the cause of the drop is the answer to this question.
In recent years, the West created the fourth new theory of rights, breaking the framework of the previous theory of rights, the self and the right is recursive (recursive) the impact of view, but the Chinese self and Western self is very different. Psychologists help us to self-inner basic psychological structure to do a lot of description and distinction; anthropology is that the Chinese self and Western self is different, the Chinese self is the pattern of differences, self-leisurely in the relationship between parents and brothers and sisters. The difference between the self and the new right theory of this study is that the self of the new right theory is an individualistic self, and the self of the study contains other people, which are important in the complementarity of psychology and anthropology. The basis of the discussion.
This article has three kinds of literature review, qualitative depth interview and case analysis. Qualitative depth of interviews, to intimacy violence women`s rights awareness as the main axis, interview two pairs of marriages have marriages, intimacy violence in the marriage, and the court issued a protection order, the study of two couples as a case study Object. This study concludes that Taiwan`s self affects rights, and distance and love are the key factors influencing the size and severity of self-development. Gender will affect the causes of the perceived distance between the two sides and the key to the change of husband and wife`s feelings Different.
In the end of this study, four conclusions and suggestions are put forward according to the research results. First, the self and the right are the practice of women`s sexual rights in Taiwan. Second, there is a great gap between the human rights and rights in marriage. The key factors influencing the self and the right are the distance and the situation. Finally, the fourth point is to make suggestions on the prevention and control of intimacy violence in Taiwan. |
| Reference: | 王珮玲（2012），台灣親密關係暴力危險評估表（TIPVDA）之建構與驗證，社會政策與社會工作學刊，16卷1期，頁1- 58。
王曉丹（2009），當代台灣法律文化的轉化--- 以家暴保護令審理庭為例，黃國昌主編，收錄於《2008司法制度實證研究》，中央研究院出版。
王曉丹（2017），衝突中，求衡平：法意識建構主體，頁87-115，發表於第八屆基礎法學研究生論文發表會。國立政治大學綜合院館北棟13樓法學院會議室。
王叢桂（2012），從關係與情境看華人自我展現，本土心理學研究，37期， 頁231 – 239。
司法院統計處網站「24地方法院民事保護令聲請事件終結情形-按年別及事件類別」。http://www.judicial.gov.tw/juds/。搜尋日期：105年11月5日。
江孟萍（2007）。保護令對受暴婦女的影響:一個歷程的探討。國立暨南國際大學社會政策與社會工作學系，未出版。
吳柳嬌（2005）。婚姻暴力的成因與處遇之研究。國立中山大學中山學術研究所博士論文，未出版。
李美珍、林維言、郭彩榕（2012）。傳承-我國推動性別暴力防治工作的回顧與展望，社區發展季刊，142期，頁3-12。
柯麗評（2000）。保護令真的保護了遭受到虐待的婦女嗎？律師雜誌，248期，頁58-71。
孫蒨如（2010）華人多元自我的檢證---四元自我的區分及相對重要性與不同比較訊息之關聯。行政院國家科學委員會補助專題研究計畫成果報告精簡版。
高鳳仙（2015）。家庭暴力防治法規專論（3版）。台北：五南出版社。
張妙如（2006）婚姻暴力受虐婦女復原力的展現。東吳大學社會工作研究所碩士論文，未出版。
張富雅（2004）。保護令保護婦女？從受暴婦女與警察的觀點出發。國立陽明大學衛生福利研究所碩士論文。
許木柱譯（2002）。徹底個人主義的省思；心理人類學論文集。許烺光著作集9。台北：國立編譯館主編。
許隆德譯（2002）。中國人與美國人。許烺光著作集4。台北：南天書局有限公司。
郭為藩（1996）。自我心理學。台北市: 師大書苑。
陳佳雯； 陸洛； 王煜榕（2013），為自己出征？台灣年輕女性外派決策中的自我展現，本土心理學研究，39期，頁65-116。
陳怡臻、陳恬、江孟璇、劉昭君等（2016）。親密關係暴力防治從被害人到相對人的視角挪移。發表於台北基督教女青年會「第三屆親密關係暴力多元處遇論壇」。台北：台北基督教女青年會。
陳蘭芳(2014)。從經歷違反保護令婦女之求助經驗與需求探討家暴防治社工的角色與功能。國立高雄師範大學性別教育研究所碩士論文，未出版。
陸洛（2003），人我關係之界定－“折衷自我”的現身本，土心理學研究 ， 20期，頁139 – 207。
陸洛、張婷婷、張妤玥（2012）。工作與家庭的意義對因應職家衝突的影響─華人雙文化自我觀之展現，本土心理學研究，37期，頁141 – 189。
費孝通（2008）。乡土中国。北京人民出版社。
鈕文英（2014）質性研究方法與論文寫作。台北：雙葉書廊
黃光國（2012）。跳脫「二元對立」的思維框架本土心理學研究。37期， P191 - 210
楊中芳（1991）。回顧港台「自我」研究：反省與展望。楊中芳、高尚仁主編：「中國人·中國心-人格與社會篇」。台北：遠流出版社。
楊中芳（1991）。試論中國人的「自己」：理論與研究方向。楊中芳、高尚仁主編：「中國人·中國心-人格與社會篇」。台北：遠流出版社。
楊國樞（2004）。華人自我的理論分析與實徵研究：社會取向與個人取向的觀點。本土心理學研究，22期，頁11 – 80。
葉光輝（2012）。文化差異抑或是個別差異：一個自我理論驗證的雙重陷落。本土心理學研究，37期，頁211-224。
潘淑滿、林東龍、林雅容（2015）。臺灣婦女遭受親密關係暴力統計資料調查期末報告。衛生福利部。
Abel, Ricjard L. 1973.”A Comparative Theory of Dispute Institutions in Society.” Law and Society Review 8:217-347.
Black, Donald J. 1973. “The Mobilization of Law.” Journal of Legal Studies 2:125-49.
Black, Donald J. 1976.The Behavior of Law. New York: Academic Press.
Burstein, Paul, and Kathleen Monaghan. 1986.”Equal Employment Opportunity and the Mobilization of Law.”Law and Society Review 20:355-88.
Crenshaw, Kimberlé. 1988. ”Race, Reform, and Retrenchment: Transformation and Legitimation in Antidiscrimination Law.” Harvard Law Review 101:1331-87.
David M. Engel and Frank W. Munger. 2003. Rights of Inclusion: Law and Identity in the Life Stories of Americans with Disabilities. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Freeman, Alan D. 1998. “Antidiscrimination Law: A Critical Review.”In The Politics of Law: A Progressive Critique,ed.
David Kairys, 285-311. 3rd ed. New York: Basic Books.
Galanter, Marc. 1974. “Why the ‘Haves”Come out Ahead: Speculations on the Limits of Legal Change.” Law and Society Review 9:95-160.
Sally Engle Merry. 2009. Gender Violence: A Cultural Perspective. Wiley-Blackwell.
Mayhew, Leon H.1968. Law and Equal Opportunity: A Study of the Massachusetts Commission against Discrimination. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
McCann, Michael W.(1994). Rights at Work: Pay Equity Reform and the Politics of Legal Mobilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
McCann, Michael W., and Tracey March. 1995. “Law and Everyday Forms of Resistance:A Socio-political Assessment.” Law, Politics, and Society 15:207-36.
Milner, Neal. 1986. “The Dilemmas of Legal Mobilization:
Ideologies and Strategies of Mental Patient Liberation Groups.” Law and Policy 8:105-29.
Minow, Martha. 1990. Making All the Difference: Inclusion, Exclusion, and American Law. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.
Moore, Sally Falk. 1978. “Law and Social Change: The Semi-Autonomous Social Field as an Appropriate Subject of Study.” In Law as Process: An Anthropological Approach,54-81. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.
McCann, Michael. 2006. "On Legal Rights Consciousness: A Challenging Analytical Tradition," in B. Fleury-Steiner & L. B. Nielsen, eds., The New Civil Rights Research: A Constitutive Approach. Aldershot, United Kingdom, and Burlington, VT: Ashgate.
Pospisil, Leopold J. 1971. Anthropology of Law: A Comparative Theory. New York: Harper and Row.
Rosenberg, Gerald N. 1991. The Hollow Hope: Can Courts Bring about Social Change? Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Rosenwald, George C. 1992. “Conclusion: Reflections on Narrative Self-Under-Standing.” In Storied Lives: The Cultural Politics of Self-Understanding, ed. George C. Rosenwald and Richard L. Ochberg, 265-89. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tushnet, Mark. 1984. “An Essay on Rights.” Texas Law Review 62:1363-1403.
White, Lucie 2002. “Care at Work: Inside the Life World of a Government Program.” In Laboring below the Line: The New Ethnography of Poverty, Low-Wage Work, and Survival in the Global Economy, ed. Frank Munger, 213-44. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. |
| Description: | 碩士
國立政治大學
法學院碩士在職專班
103961048 |
| Source URI: | http://thesis.lib.nccu.edu.tw/record/#G0103961048 |
| Data Type: | thesis |
| Appears in Collections: | [法學院碩士在職專班] 學位論文
|
Files in This Item:
| File |
Description |
Size | Format | |
|---|
| 104801.pdf | | 3315Kb | Adobe PDF2 | 807 | View/Open |
|
All items in 政大典藏 are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved.
|
