From Physical Harm to Digital Silencing: Gender-Based Violence as a Mechanism of Control | Surbhi Nagpal

(Author: Surbhi Nagpal, Delhi School of Economics
Email ID: surbhinagpal555[at]gmail.com

Abstract

Violence is not merely an act of aggression but a deeply entrenched structure that sustains hierarchies of power across physical, social, and digital spaces. It is legitimized by the state, reinforced by cultural norms, and institutionalized through legal and economic systems that fail to protect the vulnerable ones. From national conflicts where women’s bodies become battlegrounds to the home where silence and shame conceal domestic abuse, violence serves as a mechanism of control. In contemporary times, digital spaces have extended these oppressive structures, normalizing online abuse and further silencing marginalized voices. However, definitional challenges and statistical limitations obscure the full extent of gender-based violence, complicating both legal and social responses. This article examines the multifaceted nature of violence, tracing its trajectory from historical conflicts to the intimate spaces of the home and finally to the digital realm, where new forms of oppression continue to emerge.

Defining Violence: The Challenge of Recognition

Violence, despite being a pervasive social phenomenon, remains conceptually ambiguous. Scholars have long debated its definition: is violence solely the infliction of physical harm, or does it also encompass psychological, structural, and symbolic dimensions? These definitional challenges have direct implications for law, policy, and activism, determining which harms are recognized and which remain obscured. A narrow definition, focused only on bodily injury, risks invisibilizing forms of violence that do not leave physical marks—such as emotional coercion, economic deprivation, or systemic exclusion. Conversely, an overly broad definition risks diluting the concept, making it difficult to analytically distinguish violence from other forms of power and oppression.

Gender inequalities further complicate the definition of violence, shaping its sociological manifestations. Walby et al. (2017) have argued that early statistical frameworks failed to recognize violence as gendered, leading to a fragmented understanding that often excluded women’s experiences. The absence of gender-sensitive data in crime statistics has historically made it difficult to measure and respond to forms of violence that disproportionately affect women, such as domestic abuse and sexual violence. Walby et al. critique the development of parallel statistical systems that focus solely on ‘violence against women’, noting that while these efforts are necessary to highlight gender-specific harms, they also risk reinforcing a binary approach that does not account for how men, transgender individuals, and non-binary persons experience violence differently. By failing to integrate gender into broader criminological and sociological analyses of violence, statistical frameworks have contributed to an incomplete and often depoliticized understanding of the issue.

Beyond statistical challenges, Das (2008) problematizes the assumption that violence is a discrete, easily identifiable event. She argues that violence is not merely an interruption in the normal course of life but is often woven into the fabric of everyday existence. For Das, the significance of violence lies not only in its immediate, visible impact but also in how it is absorbed into the ordinary—how survivors continue to live in its aftermath, navigating its lingering effects in the most mundane aspects of daily life. This perspective is crucial in understanding why certain forms of harm, particularly those embedded within intimate relationships or social institutions, are often unrecognized. For instance, the Hindi film Thappad (2020) exemplifies this complexity by portraying a woman’s decision to leave her husband after a single slap. While some dismiss the act as trivial compared to severe domestic abuse, the film underscores how violence operates not only through physical injury but through power, control, and the erosion of dignity. This resonates with Das’s (2008) argument that violence cannot be understood solely in terms of its visible manifestations but must be examined in the ways it infiltrates everyday life. Recognizing these complexities is essential for both academic inquiry and policy interventions. If violence is to be understood as a mechanism of control, it must be examined not only in moments of rupture but also in its persistence, in the ways it lingers, accumulates, and structures everyday life. This requires moving beyond rigid definitions and adopting a more intersectional and relational approach—one that acknowledges how violence is experienced across different spheres.

Gender-Based Violence As A Mechanism Of Control

Examining gender-based violence as a mechanism of control necessitates acknowledging state-sanctioned national conflicts committed in the name of peace and national security. The Partition of India is one such instance, during which an estimated 75,000 to 100,000 women were raped, abducted, or forcibly converted to other faiths. Women from Hindu and Sikh communities in Pakistan, as well as Muslim women in India, were subjected to horrific violence, including sexual assault, abduction, and forced marriages. Many were later forcibly rehabilitated and returned to their respective countries, often against their will. Butalia (1998) provides an invaluable collection of oral narratives that uncover the traumatic experiences of abducted women and the attitudes of their own families toward them. These narratives exemplify how the state has often used violence to sustain its existence, even at the cost of the lives of its own citizens. While men have frequently been expected to bear arms and die for the state, women have been assigned the role of reproducing brave warriors willing to fight and sacrifice for the nation. However, scholarship on war-based violence suggests that soldiers did not always consent to the state’s demands for harming others and being harmed themselves. War-related injuries were often framed as heroic, making it difficult for soldiers to openly discuss their trauma. "Sex and death, reproduction and war become part of the same configuration of ideas and institutions through which the nation-state sets up defenses to stave off the uncertainty emanating from dangerous aliens and from the ravages of time" Das (2008, p.285-287).
Also, Philosophers such as Hobbes have historically overlooked women’s roles in the formation of the state, reinforcing the idea of the state as a masculine force. This exclusion has confined women to the domestic sphere, depriving them of civil and political rights. Consequently, this confinement has made women more vulnerable to domestic violence in their own homes. Das (2008, p.292-293) points out that for many women, the home can be a place of terror, where they face violence from their husbands for failing to meet the expectations of an ideal household. This male dominion over the domestic sphere often translates into acts of wife-beating and battering, compelling women to internalize the blame for not fulfilling domestic ideals. Since domestic violence is often regarded as a private matter, women face significant challenges in seeking help from state agencies. Their consent to male violence is frequently taken for granted, which helps explain the persistent lack of legal recognition of marital rape. Studying victims of domestic violence is further complicated by their own perceptions of risk and safety, which may not always align with legal norms. Research on domestic violence also highlights the vulnerabilities of certain groups, such as domestic workers, sex workers, and mail-order brides, whose experiences are shaped by transnational economies which largely remains invisible in legal and policy discourses.

Digital Gender-Based Violence As A Mechanism Of Control

Beyond national conflicts and the domestic sphere, digital technologies have also emerged as sites of gender-based violence. In an edited volume titled ‘e-girls, e-citizens’, Fairbairn (2015, p.215) has argued that violence is not a universal constant but, rather, a constructed understanding of socially defined harms resulting from aggression and abuse of power. Definitions of sexual violence are historically, socially, and politically located and are presently evolving among activists, scholars, and advocates to capture harms associated with online violence. As a result of this evolution, the narrow understanding of violence as physical assault is not sufficient for current digital contexts. For instance, Online abuse has emerged as a pervasive form of violence, manifesting through trolling, cyber threats, and other forms of digital harassment. These acts are not merely incidental but are deeply embedded in broader structures of misogyny, racism, sexism, and homophobia. While some argue that online abuse is an unavoidable consequence of digital engagement, scholars and activists emphasize that it is a manifestation of existing social inequalities rather than an inherent feature of the internet. The disproportionate targeting of women in online spaces is well-documented. Feminist media critic Anita Sarkeesian, for instance, received death threats after producing video content analyzing gender stereotypes in video games. Similarly, journalist Jill Filipovic recounted an incident where an online harasser escalated their abuse by physically arriving at her residence. These cases illustrate the gendered nature of digital violence, where women are systematically threatened and harassed, restricting their ability to participate freely in online spaces. Forms of abuse such as rape threats, slut-shaming, and the non-consensual dissemination of intimate images—commonly referred to as "revenge porn"—exemplify the mechanisms through which digital violence operates to silence and control women. A landmark case in India involved the conviction of Animesh Bakshi, who was sentenced to five years in prison for sharing a nude video of his ex-girlfriend online without her consent. This case, which took place in West Bengal’s East Midnapore district, was one of the country’s first legal precedents addressing revenge porn. While legal interventions offer some degree of accountability, they do not fully address the long-term psychological consequences experienced by survivors. digital As digital gender-based violence evolves, recognizing online abuse as a legitimate form of violence is crucial for fostering safer digital spaces. Addressing gendered digital violence demands a multidisciplinary approach, combining legal reforms, digital literacy, and advocacy. The ‘Take Back the Tech’ campaign, held annually from November 25 to December 10, aligns with the 16 Days of Activism Against Gender-Based Violence, mobilizing collective action against the misuse of digital technologies. By highlighting how online platforms are weaponized against marginalized groups, particularly women, the campaign advocates for stronger policies, digital safety strategies, and community-driven interventions to reclaim technology for justice and equality. While global efforts are vital, family communication plays a key role in supporting victims of online sexual violence. Mustika and Corliana (2022) found that victims from open, communicative families are more likely to seek support, while those from privacy-focused families often struggle to disclose their experiences. Thus, alongside systemic reforms, fostering trust and dialogue within families is essential to ensuring survivors feel safe, heard, and supported.

Conclusion

Gender-based violence, in its various forms, serves as a mechanism of control, reinforcing power hierarchies across national, domestic, and digital spaces. From large-scale conflicts to intimate abuse, and increasingly through online platforms, violence curtails agency and sustains inequality. Addressing this issue demands a multidimensional approach with stronger legal protections, improved support systems, and active societal engagement. While policy changes are crucial, fostering open family communication and community solidarity remains equally vital. Combating gender-based violence requires not only institutional action but collective resistance—ensuring that survivors are neither silenced nor alone in their fight for justice.

References

Association for Progressive Communications. (2024, December 2). #HeyFriend! Let’s take back the tech together: 16 days of activism against gender-based violence. Association for Progressive Communications. https://www.apc.org/en/news/heyfriend-lets-take-back-tech-together-16-days-activism-against-gender-based-violence

Bailey, J., & Steeves, V. (Eds.). (2015). E-Girls, e-Citizens. University of Ottawa Press.

Bhattacharya, S. (2018, March 7). Revenge porn: First conviction in Bengal, man gets 5 years in jail. Hindustan Times. https://www.hindustantimes.com/kolkata/revenge-porn-first-conviction-in-bengal-man-gets-5-years-in-jail/story-m2MmmjFZJEJnMYA95wv71I.html

Butalia, U. (1998). The other side of silence: Voices from the partition of India. Viking.

Das, V. (2008). Violence, Gender, and Subjectivity. Annual Review of Anthropology, 37, 283-299.

Dockterman, E. (2014, October 15). #GamerGate sexism and Anita Sarkeesian death threats explainer. TIME. https://time.com/3510381/gamergate-faq/

Mustika, S., & Corliana, T. (2022). Victims of online-based gender violence: Please don’t keep your grief alone. Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research, 658, 192. https://doi.org/10.2991/978-2-494069-77-0_35

Ronson, J. (2016, April 15). You want to know what they’re writing, even if it hurts: My online abuse. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/apr/15/online-trolling-hurt-internet-history-shaming

Walby, S., Towers, J., Balderston, S., Corradi, C., Francis, B.J., Heiskanen, M., Helweg-larsen, K., Mergaert, L., Olive, P., Palmer, E.J., Stöckl, H., & Strid, S. (2017). The Concept and Measurement of Violence Against Women and Men. (Chapter on Conceptualizing Violence and Gender). Policy Press.