THE CONCEPT OF GENDER-BASED VIOLENCE AND ITS TYPES

Аннотация

This article explores the theoretical underpinnings of gender-based violence (GBV), tracing its historical development from cultural norms to its recognition in legal and human rights frameworks. The study also provides a comparative overview of legal and sociological definitions, emphasizing the difference between GBV and domestic violence, presenting a comprehensive typology of gender-based violence, classifying it into physical, psychological, sexual,economic, digital, and structural forms. It emphasizes howthese forms are interconnected and often reinforced by digital platforms and institutional structures. It analyzes the sociocultural andpsychological roots ofgender-based violence and examines howpatriarchal power structures, gender norms, and systemic inequalities shape perpetrator behavior and affect victims’ mental health Keywords: Gender-based violence, patriarchy, human rights, feminist theory, social structures, symbolic violence, physical violence, sexual abuse, economic violence, cyber violence, institutionalviolence, digital harassment Gender-based violence (GBV) has emerged as a significant area of interdisciplinary study and policy concern, engaging scholars and practitioners in fields as diverse as sociology, law, psychology, public health, and human rights. The theoretical foundations of GBV are deeply rooted in historical developments, socio-political contexts, and evolving legal norms. The recognition of gender-based violence as a social problem is a relatively recent phenomenon in legal and academic discourses, although the practices it encompasses are historically entrenched. In pre-modern societies, violence against women and gender minorities was often institutionalized and normalized through religious, cultural, and patriarchal systems. Acts such as marital rape, female genital mutilation, and honor killings were not only tolerated but sanctioned undercertain customary and religious laws. The rise of feminist movements in the 1960s and 1970s marked a pivotal moment in the conceptual development of GBV. Radical and socialist feminists critiqued the patriarchal structures that subordinated women and identified violence as a mechanism of male dominance and control. Seminal works, such as Susan Brownmiller’s Against Our Will (1975), redefined rape as an act of political power rather than mere sexual deviance. By the 1990s, GBV had become an established concept in international human rights law, particularly following the 1993 United Nations Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women, which formally recognized violence against women as aviolation ofhuman rights. [1] Over time, the term “gender-based violence” expanded beyond violence against cisgender women to include individuals of all gender identities, especially recognizing the vulnerabilities of transgender, non-binary, and gender non-conforming people. Contemporary scholarship thus frames GBV as a multidimensional phenomenon resulting from the intersection of gender norms, power hierarchies, and structural inequalities. The definitions of GBV differ across legal systems and academic disciplines, reflecting varying understandings of gender, violence, and social justice. From a legal perspective, GBV is typically defined in terms of acts that result in, or are likely to result in, physical, sexual, or psychological harm or suffering to individuals on the basis of their gender. The United Nations defines GBV as: “Any act of gender-based violence that https://ijmri.de/index.php/jmsi volume 4,issue6,2025 106 results in, or is likely to result in, physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering... including threats of such acts, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty, whether occurring in public or in private life.” This legal definition has been adopted and adapted in various international treaties, such as theIstanbul Convention(2011), and national legislations. [2] In sociological terms, GBV is analyzed not only as discrete acts of harm but as systemic practices rooted in gendered power relations. Pierre Bourdieu’s concept of symbolic violence, for example, helps elucidate how subtle, everyday practices – such as sexist language or institutional exclusion – reproduce inequality and normalize aggression against marginalized genders. Gender-based violence is thus seen not merely as deviant behavior but as a reflection of broader socio-structural conditions, including patriarchy, heteronormativity, economic dependency, and state inaction. Moreover, intersectionality theory, as advanced by Kimberlé Crenshaw, has added complexity to sociological definitions by highlighting how race, class, sexuality, and other identities compound vulnerability to GBV. [3] For instance, a low-income Black transgender woman may face multiple, intersecting forms of violence that cannot be understood through a single-axis framework. Although often used interchangeably, gender-based violence and domestic violence are distinct yet overla