Title of the paper: Follett’s Pragmatist Ontology of Relations: Potentials for a Feminist Perspective on Violence.

 

Type of Submission: 2008 SAAP Paper Submission.

 

Abstract

              The problem of gender-based violence is pervasive within patriarchal societies. Thus feminists have been very concerned with theorizing the nature of “power”, trying to free it from its association with “violence” and providing theories for understanding situations of violence against women such that these can be transformed. The paper tries to further this project. It focuses on the work of Mary Parker Follett, who works within a pragmatist framework and uses resources from her work to present a way of thinking about women’s situations that preserves individuality while also implicating social responsibility. It focuses on the abuse suffered by women at the hands of intimate male partners within marital relationships since such situations constitute the lived reality for many women across cultures. Moreover, it also shows how Follett’s framework can provide us with an alternative starting-place for transforming women’s lives and rethinking activism in these spheres.  (146 words)

 

2008 SAAP Paper Submission

 

Follett’s Pragmatist Ontology of Relations: Potentials for a Feminist Perspective on Violence

 

              “Integration is both the keel and the rudder of life.... ... The activity of co-creating is the core of democracy, the essence of citizenship, the condition of world-citizenship.” (Follett, Creative Experience, p. 302)

 

              Feminist thinkers have always been concerned with the issues of power and control since power is, “... the inevitable, outcome of the essential life-process.” [1] However within patriarchy, “power” has often been tied to and understood in terms of “violence” and “domination.”  Gender-based violence having to do with the control of women’s bodies, expectations about societal roles, female subordination both in the public and private spheres, and glorification of male-privilege and male sex-right is manifest till date through cultural mores, institutions and practices. Violence within patriarchy has been a part of a system that reproduces the subordination of women and control over them.

              Violence against women has taken various forms like physical, psychological, sexual and economic. One of the most prevalent forms of gender-violence but that which often remains invisible, is the abuse suffered by women from intimate male partners especially within patriarchal structures of the family and institutions like marriage throughout the world.[2] Due to the magnitude of the problem of violence against women it comes as no surprise that feminist theorists have been very concerned with theorizing violence that is, trying to provide theories for understanding these situations and ways of overcoming them. In fact the very possibility of envisioning a new kind of social order seems to rest on trying to conceptualize the word “power” in a new way that would free it from its association with “violence” or “coercion” and emphasize its creative potential. Thus feminist theory in order to furnish the philosophical basis for a social justice movement, must identify this issue as being central to its project.[3] This paper is written in acknowledgment of such a need.

              The paper focuses on the ideas of Mary Parker Follett who works within a pragmatist framework. I think there are resources in her work that can be very helpful in understanding situations of violence against women like intimate partner violence in a unique way such that these can be transformed. Her notions of “power-with”, the ontology of “interweaving” and theory of integration are particularly important for this purpose. Her perspective provides us with a way of thinking about women’s situations that preserves individuality while also implicating social responsibility. Moreover, the analysis of her work will reveal that it does so ontologically rather than by appealing to a moral universal or the principle of utility. In this unique way it is able to provide us with an alternative theoretical grounding and starting-place for activism related to bringing about changes in women’s lives, and also with a narrative of empowerment for the survivors of violence.

Power-With and the Process of Integration: An Analysis of Follett’s Ontology:

              As pointed out above, a key resource in Follett for effecting social change is her notion of “power-with”. In fact, it has become popular in feminist literature to understand power more in terms of cooperation and less in terms of domination. Jane Mansbridge in her foreword to Follett’s book, The New State shows how philosophers working in diverse traditions work with the idea of “power-with” in their philosophical framework.[4] She adds that this distinction which has now become central to feminist theory, was first introduced by Mary Parker Follett in her essay on “Power. [5] 

              Introducing the distinction between power-over and power-with Follett writes,

 

“... whereas power usually means power-over...  it is possible to develop the conception of power-with, a jointly developed power, a co-active, not a coercive power.” [6]

 

The terms “co-active” and “coercive” are at the heart of Follett’s distinction and they in turn, point towards two kinds of ontologies and specifically to different ways of understanding the nature of the self and a situation.

              Follett applies the physiological notion of a “circular response” [7] and aspects of the Gestalt theory to social situations in order to emphasize the character of the latter as being a functional unity or an organic whole. The new ontology of situations and of human relations that arise as a consequence does away with the dichotomous way of speaking about the subject acting on an object and conversely; and substitutes it with a framework of “interweaving” or “interpenetrating of activities.” [8] Follett speaks like a true pragmatist when she uses this notion of “interweaving” to show that things have fluid boundaries and are thus, always aspects of situations. As a consequence of not having rigid boundaries things are in constant relation to each other, acting upon and being acted on at the same time such that the situation itself is constantly evolving and we can speak of the whole only as being a dynamic whole. In the context of human interactions this means that,

“... I never react to you but to you-plus-me; or to be more accurate, it is I-plus-you reacting to you-plus-me. ... in the very process of meeting, by the very process of meeting, we both become something different.” [9]

 

The individual therefore is seen as being a point within a larger social process that always exceeds her and influences her, but which she nevertheless plays a role in shaping and recreating through her actions.[10]  

              This theory of interdependence helps us to understand why for Follett, integration is the best way for conflict-resolution. Integration is the process whereby, each person or group comes to see each other’s viewpoint, “... integrate those viewpoints and become united in the pursuit of their common goal.” [11] The organism is a self-integrated system finding itself constantly in a larger process and the internal/external boundary in any particular case itself gets readjusted in the light of the situation which is in turn, constantly “a-making.”[12] This ontology of interweaving therefore, relies on integration as the way to resolve the apparent antinomy between individual and social interests because there is no way for one to exist independently of the other.  Moreover since interest and purpose themselves are evolved in relation, we need to abandon the desire to become masters of situations.[13] The whole process of growth is immensely participatory or democratic and creative at the same time. Our freedom and self-growth lies in acknowledging our place in a larger whole and working towards integrating interests. Within this kind of new ontology of relations, any recourse to violence or “coercive power” and attempt to lord over must end in failure since it overlooks a fundamental aspect of our existence. Thus the importance of Follett’s assertion, “... genuine power is power-with, pseudo power, power-over...” [14] and the opening quote of the paper becomes evident.

              Follett gives numerous examples of labor conflict and situations in the workplace as empirical evidence to prove her thesis. Although she does not explicitly talk about women, violence against women in the workplace for example would be a labor issue for Follett that she would probably illuminate with her “power” analysis. Lesser pay, poor health care, bad working conditions, lack of childcare facilities, sexual harassment etc. are all acts of violence experienced by women in the workplace and can be said to be things that undermine the common enterprise.                         

Some Objections Anticipated:

              At this point however one might think that despite her emphasis on power-with, Follett’s framework does not really provide us with resources for negotiating situations of power-over that she herself admits, constitute the lived reality of a number of individuals. [15] Of course, Follett might say that integration is the way to reduce power-over but the concern may be that the notion of integration itself assumes the presence of certain elements within the situation that help transform it.

              The first thing that Follett assumes in her theory of integration with respect to labor conflicts and analysis of power in industrial relations is that the parties involved either possess or are working towards gaining a certain level of intelligence that helps them to understand the importance of building a “working-unit” or a “functional whole”[16], and is also able to bring them to the table for discussion. Second, it must be remembered that neither side wants to get rid of the relation but rather wants to change it in some way. The management for example, may be motivated to build a better functional whole by listening to the workers and acknowledging their concerns since its interests depend on the quality of the participation of the workers in the factory. The laborers too work towards building a better working-unit since their interests depend to a large extent, on the management and the workings of the factory. The satisfaction of the interests of both parties and their true empowerment lies in integrating the values of both sides in order to create a better situation and make “... human association most effective, most fruitful.” [17] The elements outlined above in turn, help to transform the present situation and integrate it.

              In certain situations however like abusive marital relationships these elements which serve to integrate a particular situation, do not seem to exist. In various studies conducted by Finkelhor and Yllo for their book: License to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives and Diana E. H. Russell for her book: Rape in Marriage, the only way out for at least a significant section of the survivors and the sole means for achieving self-integration, was to put an end to the abusive relationship rather than trying to negotiate the situation. In fact in a number of such cases, the attempts to talk about and negotiate the situation led to an increase in the level of violence and abuse. This might be due to the fact that in some cases marital rape incidents are connected with the use of other forms of physical violence like battery and also with problems of alcoholism or drugs of the husbands involved such that they become irrational and insensitive to the feelings of their wives. [18] The absolute blindness of one side to the needs and desires of the other in the cases mentioned above, dooms the possibility of integration and transformation of such situations from the very beginning.

              In several of these cases it seems that rather than trying to establish connections and understand her place in the context of a larger whole like the family, freedom and personal integrity for the woman depends on getting out of the situation. Lora Jo Foo writes, “[T]he notion of having to preserve the family and “save face” often makes Asian women more hesitant to leave and break up the family.” [19] An ontology grounded in relations therefore, seems to be problematic at least in these situations.

              Finally in most of the experiences of intimate partner violence like marital rape, women wanted to have power-over rather than power-with the abuser or the rapist at least for the time being. This might possibly be due to the fact that they experienced a range of emotions like betrayal, anger and hatred.[20] The more immediate consideration for the survivors in these instances was how to put an end to the suffering, get out of the situation and push the rapist off themselves.[21] These observations might make one wonder whether there is a place for resistance in Follett’s scheme that is also able to facilitate a decrease in power-over and at the same time, validate the survival strategies of women in these kinds of situations.

Construing a Plausible Response from within Follett’s Framework:

              Although it may appear at first sight that the kind of concerns raised above can weaken Follett’s theory of power and subsequently her ontology of relations used to understand various situations, deeper analysis will prove the contrary. In fact her work can be used not only to understand the traumatic experiences outlined above, but also has the potential for furnishing us with a theoretical framework for thinking about activism and the role of the community in ending violence and empowering women. Certain aspects of Follett’s ontology like fluid boundaries between the individual and the social, the constant readjustment of the inside and the outside, and the emphasis on the manifestation of creative intelligence through integration can prove to be valuable resources for a feminist movement against sexual violence.

              At this point however, it is crucial to remember that Follett strongly believes in preserving the integrity of the individual even within her ontology of interweaving. In fact one of her primary criticisms of other methods of conflict-resolution like compromise and adjustment is that the latter entail the sacrifice of a part of the individual “... in order that some action may take place.”[22] She further states that “... compromise is suppression”[23] and suppression is inherently evil because the problem that is suppressed, can reemerge later and cause a lot of damage. Follett is extremely critical of methods that involve the sacrifice of the individual since these are methods of domination, strictly speaking. In the light of the above discussion, it follows that her perspective on the issue of marital rape would be that these situations should not involve adjustment or compromise on grounds like that of preserving the family since compromise is never a long-term solution and provides no guarantee for preserving individual integrity. Follett’s framework therefore, allows for a space for ending negotiations or getting out of abusive situations if necessary, through her critique of the principles of compromise and adjustment.

              Moreover, Follett also attempts to accommodate “... disintegration in the creative process.”[24] In fact she goes on to claim that, “[W]e should always see the relation between disruptive and creative forces; disruption may be a real moment in integration.”[25] This assertion brings to light the fact that a space for resistance and breaking free of connections that become a burden to oneself, is kept open within Follett’s own framework. Her attention to disintegration as a part of the creative process, can allow her to acknowledge and support the decision of getting out of a relationship taken by certain women in situations of extreme sexual abuse from their partners. It allows for resistance and the disintegration of certain connections for the sake of preserving individual integrity.

              The uniqueness of Follett’s perspective however, lies in the fact that instead of stopping at the level of individual resistance, she wants to tell us a larger story that might enable feminists to build long-term movements. Even in her account of disruption, she still insists on its potential to create larger functional unities by breaking up the present “formal whole.”[26]  In fact it must be remembered that Follett’s notion of fluid boundaries guarantees for her an outer, that is, the presence of more stuff that can always be brought into a situation in order to achieve better integration.  The usefulness of Follett’s framework in dealing with issues of intimate partner rape situations becomes apparent at once. For her for example, the nuclear family or an abusive dyad is never a static whole with rigid boundaries. The possibility always remains to view the situation of this husband-wife dyad in a larger context where the extended family, friends, people from the neighborhood and other aspects from what was formerly the outside, can be brought into the situation. As more people and institutions like women’s organizations fighting against violence for instance get involved, the power-dynamic in the current situation gets transformed. There is a move from power-over to power-with as the woman becomes more empowered due to the involvement of all these people and institutions within the community.[27] Thus, “[T]he integrity of the individual is preserved only through integration....[28]

              This analysis also helps us to see that even in cases where certain connections like the marital relationship itself can become burdensome, it is other connections or relationships and not detachment or isolation that helps individual women to reintegrate with themselves, rebuild their lives and process their trauma. In Follett’s words, “[N]on-relation is death.”[29] A number of sexual abuse survivors themselves have spoken about how family, friends, community spaces and even community events like “Take Back the Night” have helped them to process their emotions by giving them an opportunity to voice the abuse they suffered. Uniting under the banner of this event for example, helped them see that they were not alone in their experience. This realization that comes from finding one’s place in the midst of a “we” consciousness has proven to be empowering for some of these women who acknowledge in their testimonies that it helped them change from a victim to a survivor status. Moreover these larger contexts, also enabled erstwhile victims to become agents working towards social-change and their agency becomes manifest in their involvement with such consciousness-raising activities. Therefore new connections in these cases, became the source of a new life for survivors and helped to transform the unfavorable situation. This proves that individual integration cannot be dissociated from integration within a larger context.  Further construing the narrative of marital rape in a larger context makes it possible for us to meaningfully talk about social responsibility like the responsibility of the legal system, the police, etc. towards abused women.

              Follett resolves the inherent antinomy between the individual and the society through her ontology of “interweaving” and her principle of “integration.” [30] In the light of the intimate relationship between the individual and the social where each relies on the other for sustenance, freedom lies in acknowledging this connection. Tonn captures this beautifully in her remark, “[T]he essence of experience then, as Follett sees it, is “reciprocal freeing”.”[31] Thus in Follett’s framework, community events like “Take Back The Night” make us realize that freedom and empowerment of individual women whether at home, on the streets or in the workplace, depends heavily on the emancipation of women in general and a change in the perception of “women” in the social imaginary. It relies on a change in myths and cultural stereotypes surrounding femininity, and in the patriarchal attitude as such. In fact we know that the legal definition of “rape” itself for instance, has to change in a certain way to even meaningfully talk about instances of marital rape and punish the perpetrators in individual cases.[32]

              It becomes evident at this point that in order to evolve co-active power, we need to abandon the picture of a completed, static individual and look at the larger picture. Evolving power in these cases would entail not just getting out of an abusive relationship, but also helping to create a new abuse-free world. We learn that, “... from our concrete activities spring both the power and the guide for those activities.”[33] Follett’s account thus helps to explain why in a lot of cases, women in formerly abusive relationships turn to activism like working with women’s organizations, studying law to make a difference in the lives of women like themselves and even shattering their own silence by speaking out to the community at large about their experiences and the need for change.  This makes Follett remark, “[N]ot appropriation but contribution is the law of growth.”[34] The women’s movement against sexual violence is itself a witness to the fact that by making the personal lived experiences of violence on the part of women a political issue and initiating a dialogue on a larger social scale, it has been able to influence the ways of thinking about sexual violence, the legal and political definitions of “rape” and has succeeded in at least introducing the term “marital rape” in the socio-political sphere although there is more work to be done in affecting the legal discourses in this respect. In other words the creative intelligence of the women’s movement lies in the fact that it has been able to extend the concerns of individual women in abusive relationships to a larger plane that has resulted in various actions and changes on a societal scale in responding to similar situations which in turn, impact the freedom of individual women. Its future destiny also depends on its ability to realize that the way in which it deals with the present situation will impact how things will emerge in the future. This supports Follett’s claim that integration is essentially a creative process resulting in growth and a revaluation of values because values themselves evolve in the context of experience.

              Follett’s pragmatist ontology of interweaving and the power-with model along with the principle of integration as a creative process that arises within this scheme therefore, become organizing principles of our experience and provide us with a rich theoretical framework for not only making sense of women’s experiences of intimate partner violence like marital rape but also for transforming women’s lives and rethinking the potential for activism in these spheres. Follett provides us with ways of thinking about what needs to be done to address these issues and create a better and safer world for women in the future. In her words, through the activity of “co-creating” (referred to in the opening quote), “... we have now... a nobler ethics, not less but a larger freedom.” (3478 words)


 

Endnotes:

[1] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 193.

[2] “Prevalence, Incidence and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings from the National Violence Against Women Survey” (November, 1998) draws our attention to the fact that women experience significantly more partner violence than men do. 25 percent of the surveyed American women alone report being raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or former spouse, cohabiting partner or date in their lifetime. Moreover, 76 percent of the women who were raped and/or physically assaulted since age 18 reported being assaulted by a current or former husband, cohabiting partner or date.

[3] There have been philosophers working with feminist concerns within traditions as diverse as Pragmatism, Existentialism and Poststructuralism who have tried to theorize the nature of power. Within the pragmatist feminist tradition, I find Jane Addams’s work to be particularly interesting especially her attempt to develop a dialogic model of communication (in theory and in practice) in order to foster communication between white middle-class and immigrant women that is based on a specific understanding of the nature of power and its creative potential. Simone de Beauvoir in the existentialist tradition also does an analysis of power especially in the section on “Freedom and Liberation” in her work, The Ethics of Ambiguity.

[4] Mansbridge points out that Dorothy Emmet, Hannah Arendt and Nancy Hartsock amongst others, work within the “power-with” model. It also seems to me that the Anglo-American tradition of Care Ethics and certain Feminist Standpoint theorists have the potential to theorize power along these lines.

[5] Foreword by Jane Mansbridge to The New State, p. xvii.

[6] Follett, “Power”, p. 101.

[7] Follett introduces the term in the chapter entitled, “Circular Response” in Creative Experience.

[8] Follett uses these terms in the chapter on “Circular Response” in Creative Experience. She claims that in the light of the framework of circular response the dichotomies like cause and effect, subject and object, stimulus and response are “... now given new meanings” (Creative Experience, p. 60). She further states that, “[T]hrough circular response we are creating each other all the time” (Creative Experience, p. 62).

[9] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 62-63.

[10] Thus, tremendous emphasis is placed on the activity between the two, that is, to the relating itself. As a result Follett points out in her essay on “Constructive Conflict” that, “I now realize that I can never fight you, I am always fighting you plus me. ... I respond, not only to you, but to the relation between you and me.” “Constructive Conflict”, p. 45 of Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett.

[11] See the “Introduction” by Metcalf and Urwick to Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett, p. 14.

[12] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 102.

[13] We should rather consider “... the possibility of integrating as the method of the meeting of difference.” Ibid, p. 120.  This resonates well with Follett’s claim that, “[O]rganism and environment do not “express” but make wholes.” (Ibid, p. 125) Therefore, we need to stop thinking of society as a “power-society” (p. 49) but rather think of it as a total situation or a functional whole.

[14] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 189.

[15] In her essay on “Power” Follett writes, “Of course at present... most of us are trying to get power-over.” (p. 101).

[16] Follett uses these terms in her work, Creative Experience. Reference to these expressions can be found on p. 188. Thus Follett writes optimistically, “... it takes time and education and training to develop that... it involves a process and a slow process... it is concerned with... evolving power.” (Creative Experience, p. 188).

[17] Follett points to this in her essay, “The Psychology of Control”, p. 201.

[18] Finkelhor and Yllo observe in cases of wife-rapes that followed physical assaults, “[T]he women, exhausted and in pain from the beating and hardly feeling close to their husbands, would not want to be touched. In these cases, the husbands would roughly push themselves on their exhausted partners or threaten them with more violence unless they complied.” License to Rape, p. 23. They further write, “[F]or most marital rape victims, rape is a chronic and constant threat, not an isolated problem. The battered women, of course, were the most vulnerable of all to such repeated sexual abuse.” Ibid, p. 23. Moreover these situations are further complicated as Russell points out, by the assumption of the patriarchal attitude on the part of some men who still believe that their wives are their property and are bound by the marriage vow to “accommodate them sexually whenever they want”. Russell categorically states this in her book, Rape in Marriage, p. 123. At this point it seems that Follett’s principle of integration as a method for conflict-resolution fails to serve as a resource for changing these violent situations of power-over to power-with because of the assumption implicit in the principle itself that requires a certain willingness, ability and intelligence on the part of both parties to understand the importance of integration and the need for producing a functional whole that would accommodate the interests of both.

[19] Lora Jo Foo, “Domestic Violence and Asian ameriacn Women” (2002) from Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives, p. 276.  Finkelhor and Yllo point towards a similar phenomena in the context of white American women where certain interviewees admitted to having endured and submitting passively to acts of sexual coercion for the sake of protecting themselves and their children against potential life-threats. (License to Rape, p. 109).

[20] Finkelhor and Yllo write, “Many women expressed their hatred in terms of a desire to take revenge on their husbands for the pain and humiliation they had caused.” (Finkelhor and Yllo, License to Rape, p. 118.) The authors also cite sections from interviews in order to support their assertions in this part of the book.

[21] In the chapter on “Resisting Marital Rape” in License to Rape, Finkelhor and Yllo describe situations where women tried to devise novel methods of resisting sexual abuse from their husbands which prove that getting power-over often becomes a central consideration in these cases. See this chapter for further references.

[22] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 163.

[23] Ibid, p. 164.

[24] Follett has a paragraph where she focuses on “disintegration” in Creative Experience, p. 178.

[25] Ibid.

[26] Ibid. Follett writes in the same paragraph, “... disruption is only a part of that total life process to which, in its more comprehensive aspect, we may give the name integration.”

[27] A significant number of marital rape survivors not only those participating in the case-studies by Finkelhor, Yllo and Russell but also those voicing their experiences on websites of platforms like “Take Back The Night”, acknowledge the support from friends, the extended family and often other people and institutions like counselors, activists, etc. that helped them get out of abusive situations and rebuild their lives. “Take Back the Night” is in fact an international rally and march that is organized in local communities with the purpose of unifying women, men, and children in an awareness of violence against women, children and families. The event is a collaboration of community and campus and other interested persons who are ready to take a stand against violence and make the night safe for everyone.

[28] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 163.

[29] Follett, The New State, p. 63.

[30] The fact that individual and social interests are not necessarily opposed and that the building of a functional unity lies in trying to integrate the two in a better way becomes evident from the following remark of Follett in The New State, “A man is a point in the social process rather than a unit in that process, a point where forming forces meet straightway to disentangle themselves and stream forth again. ... man is at the same time a social factor and a social product. ... The only reality is the interpenetrating of the two into experience.” Ibid, p. 60.

[31] Joan C. Tonn, Mary Parker Follett: Creating Democracy, Transforming Management, p. 384.

[32] Ann J. Cahill in her book: Rethinking Rape writes, “[D]ue to a host of factors – the historical oppression of women, the particular constructions of feminine sexuality, the imposition of compulsory heterosexuality.... the determination of not only how, but also whether rape is wrong is fraught with uncertainties. The different ways rape has been approached ethically are reflections of social and political status of women as well as the underlying assumptions concerning sexual difference and sexual hierarchy.” (p. 167-168).

[33] Follett, Creative Experience, p. 85.

[34] Follett, The New State, p. 65.

 

Bibliography:

(1) Follett, M.P. Creative Experience, Longmans Green And Co., 1924.

(2) Follett, M.P. The New State: Group Organization, the Solution of Popular Government (Forewords by Benjamin R. Barber and Jane Mansbridge, and Introduction by Kevin Mattson), The Pennsylvania State University Press.

(3) Follett, M.P. “Power” from Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick), Harper Brothers Publishers, 1942.

(4) Follett, M. P. “Constructive Conflict” from Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick), Harper Brothers Publishers, 1942.

(5) Follett, M.P. “The Psychology of Control” from Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick), Harper Brothers Publishers, 1942.

(6) Metcalf and Urwick. “Introduction” to Dynamic Administration: The Collected Papers of Mary Parker Follett (edited by Henry C. Metcalf and L. Urwick), Harper Brothers Publishers, 1942.

(7) Tonn, Joan C. Mary Parker Follett: Creating Democracy, Transforming Management, Yale University Press, 2003.

(8) Babcock, Martha. Book Review: Mary Parker Follett – Prophet of Management: A Celebration of Writings from the 1920s, published in Harmony (Forum of the Symphony Orchestra Institute), Number 6, April 1998.

(9) Russell, Diana E. H. Rape in Marriage, Indiana University Press, 1990.

(10) Finkelhor, David and Yllo, Kersti. License to Rape: Sexual Abuse of Wives, The Free Press, 1985.

(11) Cahill, Ann J. Rethinking Rape, Cornell University Press, 2001.

(12) Brownmiller, Susan. Against Our Will: Men, Women And Rape, Fawcett Books, 1975.

(13) Foo, Lora Jo. “Domestic Violence and Asian American Women” (2002) from Women’s Lives: Multicultural Perspectives (Fourth Edition) edited by Gwyn Kirk and Margo Okazawa-Rey, McGraw Hill, 2007.

(14) Beauvoir, Simone de. The Ethics of Ambiguity, Citadel Press, 1976.

(15) Online Resources: http://www.takebackthenight.org & “Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey” (November, 1998) by Patricia Tjaden & Nancy Thoennes, at www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles/172837.pdf.

 

 

..............................