Unfortunately, reality-based self-defense, is often not informed by reality, but is based on outdated models of victimization, which try to explain who gets attacked and why, based on a person’s lifestyle choices and routine activities. Often in self-defense programs, violent crimes only get presented as opportunistic interactions, between offenders and their chosen targets e.g. a “chance” run-in with a mugger in a parking lot, when you go to get your groceries, etc., and whilst such events do occur, they are certainly not representative of all acts of violence. This idea that violence is down to lifestyle choices, has lead many programs to issue personal safety advice that goes little further than advocating that you shouldn’t walk down dark alleys, that you should stay away from the “bad” parts of town, and that you shouldn’t let your children talk to strangers. Such advice is, of course, valid within a context, however it falls far short of explaining how a lot of real-life violence actually occurs.
Most personal safety advice has its roots, and can be traced back to, academic studies in victimology – the study of victims. In the 1970’s, Hindelang, Gottfredson, and Garofalo, were engaged in a number of studies that put forward the idea, that being the victim of crime, was a product of lifestyle. The basic idea behind their theory was that if you hang around with “bad” people, and/or frequent the areas where “bad” people and criminals are located, you are more likely to be preyed upon. This is an idea that most people are comfortable and au-fait with, because it echoes the personal safety advice that their parents gave them when they were a kid. It was also a major development in Victimology because before this, the focus of victimization, was on what victims did, how they acted, and how they behaved that attracted a criminal’s attention; with the implicit belief that somehow victims were hard-wired differently to non-victims (this idea of victim precipitation, can be found in the works of Martin Wolfgang – most notably ‘Patterns of Criminal Homicide’). These Lifestyle Theories would make the point that you are more likely to be mugged when using an ATM at two in the morning, whilst in a rough part of town, than if you used an ATM on a busy high street during your lunch hour, etc., and therefore to reduce your risk of victimization, you should change your lifestyle – to avoid early morning visits to those ATM’s located in “bad” neighborhoods.
Garofalo and Hindelang’s work, presented a number of variables that, according to the theory, put people at risk. These included things such as the amount of time spent in public places, especially after dark, and the amount of time a person would spend with non-family members, etc. These things were all products of a person’s lifestyle. This saw self-defense instructors at the time creating scripts and scenarios, that were largely based on interactions with strangers, in public spaces e.g. you are accosted by an aggressive panhandler, a stranger tries to force you into their car as you walk home late at night, etc. Again, I am not arguing that such incidents don’t occur, or that lifestyle doesn’t play a part e.g. it would be hard to argue that going out drinking every night, in a bar that has a reputation for violence, doesn’t put you at a higher risk, than if you stayed home with your family. However, these Lifestyle Theories fall a long way short of explaining many other forms of violence – especially that which is directed at women and children, as their assailant will often be someone they know, and may have a relationship with. Lifestyle Theories also work from the premise that we have complete control of our lifestyles, which isn’t always the case i.e. we can’t always avoid the “bad” parts of town .
There may be certain aspects of our lives that we don’t have control over and/or are unable to change. At one point in my life, I lived in low-income/government assisted housing, where the local council had a list of approved properties that I could rent – as you can imagine, none of these were in particularly good or nice neighborhoods, but due to my income at the time, they were my choices. From a personal safety perspective, avoiding a certain dodgy area after dark wasn’t an option, because I lived there. Also, because I lived in the area, I knew who all the “bad” people were; they weren’t strangers, and rarely were our interactions purely opportunistic, and by chance. The advice of not walking down dark alleys, etc., also wasn’t applicable, because the block of flats I lived in was at the end of one. Given the choice, I would have preferred to live somewhere else, however when I left university, the country was in an economic downturn, and the only job I could get was as a security guard, which didn’t pay well. This in turn meant that where I lived, wasn’t a “lifestyle choice”.
There are many jobs and occupations, which may see you at an increased risk of assault. Some of these may be obvious, some may not. If you are a “new” teacher, you may find that the only schools willing to hire you are those which have a history of violence – later in your career, you may get a choice of where you work, but this may not be the case when you are starting out; avoiding exposure to potentially violent individuals may not be a possible, if you have them in your class. The same is true if you work in many healthcare roles, because you don’t get to select your patients. These aren’t opportunistic interactions, and they’re not ones that you have control over, or can possibly avoid. When we train, do we set up scenarios where we have relationships with our aggressors, people we may have to see again, or do we limit our role-playing to just involving strangers in public parks, streets, and parking-lots?
Victimology has moved on from the 1970’s and 1980’s to try to address these more complex incidents. Theories have been developed that go beyond lifestyle and routine activities, which potentially bring us into contact with violent offenders, to recognize that stranger-violence in public spaces (after dark) is only one type of danger that we face. Unfortunately, not every instructor/system has caught up with this, and may not cover the socially awkward and more complex situations that people face. There is nothing wrong with teaching a stranger-danger program to kids, or how to deal with aggressive panhandlers etc., but we should also be teaching children – and adults – how to deal with predatory relatives, friends, and others who we know.