Enhancing autonomy for battered women: Lessons from Navajo Peacemaking

In this Article, Professor Donna Coker employs original empirical research to investigate the use of Navajo Peacemaking in cases involving domestic vi olence. Her analysis includes an examination of Navajo women's status and t he impact of internal colonization. Many advocates for battered women worry that informal adjudication methods such as Peacemaking ignore domestic hie rarchies of Pourer and thus facilitate the batterer's ongoing violence agai nst the victim. Those who endorse the use of Navajo Peacemaking and other s ystems of restorative justice believe that such processes are better equipp ed to cult through the batterer's denial and victim blaming and are more li kely to marshal resources for the victim than are formal methods of adjudic ation. Coker argues that both formal and informal methods of adjudication s hould be assessed for the likelihood that they will realize change in the m aterial anti social conditions that foster battering. Coker's study of Peac emaking finds that it may be autonomy enhancing for some battered women bec ause it effectuates such change. Peacemakers may disrupt social and familia l supports for battering through confrontations with both the batterer and his family. Women's material resources may be improved through nalyeeh (rep arations) from the abuser's family and through connections to community soc ial services. Peacemakers use traditional Navajo stories with gender antisu bordination themes that may change the way in which the batterer and his fa mily understand the batterer's relationship with the victim. Further, unlik e the normative practices of many legal and social service organizations, P eacemaking may avoid the cultural and legal focus on the necessity of a wom an's commitment to separating;From her abuser. Similarly, peacemakers do no t discount women's various competing loyalties and thus do not demand that women choose their identity as "battered woman" over that of other competin g identities. Further, Peacemaking avoids the "responsibility versus descri ption dichotomy" of Angle adjudication by creating a forum in which the opp ressive systems that impact the life of the batterer, including systems of racism and colonization, are recognized without minimizing the harm done th e battered woman and without blaming her for the batterer's violence. While Peacemaking offers benefits for some battered women, Coker warns that Peac emaking also presents problems: Some women are coerced into participation, agreements are difficult to enforce, and some peacemakers have a promarriag e bias that discourages separation. Coker concludes by suggesting an inform al adjudication method that draws on the strengths of Peacemaking but that corrects for the coercion problems and strengthens antimisogynist norms. In an Appendix, Coker discusses the limitations of her empirical work that co ncern the generalizability of her findings (the "empiricism problem") and t he difficulties of crosscultural study (the "imperialism problem").