Geoscience Reference
In-Depth Information
constrains women's freedom to choose. The victims do not necessarily possess
the symbolic capital that ensures a socially positive recognition and accept-
ance of their action. In this the women who have been victims of violence
differ from the crisis centres and the latter's possession of symbolic capital.
Thus the security practices of crisis centres are enabled by a social recognition
of their practices, whereas the individual victims are exposed to traditional
norms and habits that do not support or applaud the recommended actions
provided by the crisis centres. Thus, both crisis centres as well as their clients
are challenged by significant material and social constraints.
The work of non-state crisis centres nevertheless functioned despite weak
material capital, because of the various ways and means of interacting with
local stakeholders. In addition to the interaction with victims, interactions
with local authorities, law enforcement, other activists and international col-
laborators contributed to the security production of non-state crisis centres.
These activities were conducted on the basis mainly of their specific social
capital, through which the continuation of such interactions is continuously
reproduced, which establishes trust, an important key to the further establish-
ment of security (Hoogensen Gjørv 2012). Crisis centre representatives have
had different perceptions, assessments and experiences with local law enforce-
ment, for example, but trust has been acknowledged as a key to collaboration,
demonstrating empirically that social capital defines the work of non-state
crisis centres in Northwest Russia. This is, as we will see below, not without
difficulties.
Crisis centre representatives are keen to emphasize that there has been a
change in the recognition that they receive from local authorities. This pro-
cess has developed from a situation in which crisis centres were neglected,
to a situation in which they are both listened and talked to. Crisis centre
representatives have noted, however, that there are a number of differences
in how the issue of domestic violence is approached in their interactions
with local authorities. From the perspective of crisis centre representatives,
local stakeholders understand the issue of violence against women more in
terms of numbers and administrative instructions, evoking a threshold-based
understanding of security whereby acknowledgement of a violent incident is
defined on the basis of specific parameters or criteria. In other words, not all
incidents will qualify. This contrasts with the approach of NGO crisis cen-
tres, who are keen to stress that they provide assistance to those who contact
them and, in their own words, are motivated by open-mindedness and empa-
thy - an inclusive rather than exclusionary approach to security.
Crisis centre representatives claim that they are focused on informing the
public about their work and that they endeavour to establish broad networks.
For a brief comparison, one can look at the assessments of Norwegian col-
laborators in the Network of Crisis Centres in the Barents Region (NCRB), as
they perceive this work differently, and they compare their own (Norwegian)
approaches to that of the Russian crisis centres, emphasizing a lack of rules
 
Search WWH ::




Custom Search