Principles for Safety and Flourishing
We have presented a large amount of information for you to consider. We began by discussing our organizing framework and then looked through that lens to gaze both back in history and at the present, and provided principles and exemplars in our characters about rural domestic violence and disability.
While we still have your attention, we now want to pose principles for informed action.
The principles that we list in Figure 2.1 below emerge from our conceptual framework of Explanatory Legitimacy. Because all response to need is embedded within purposive, value-based contexts, the ability to distinguish among description, explanation and legitimacy helps to clarify the human phenomena that we encounter and distinguish them from explanations and values that shape responses.
In rating prevention, intervention, and alternative life responses for and with rural disabled victims of domestic violence, the ability to identify harm is critical.
Beginning with harm as the basis for all intervention assures that no person or group will be excluded from existing services just because the explanations for harm do not fit within explanatory paradigms that structure services for non-disabled or urban individuals. After harm is identified, the task of then determining if the threshold and explanatory causes fit within legitimate parameters of domestic violence can be undertaken and relevant and socially just responses can be crafted.
We refer you to the excellent materials listed in the bibliography (Annotated Bibliography) for knowledge necessary to develop and enact techniques and approaches consistent with the principles that we have suggested. Remember, working with diversity requires an open and creative approach. If we begin with description, we do not limit ourselves from inclusive responses by imposing explanations and eligibility criteria that exclude individuals, such as victims with disabilities, those who reside in rural areas that pose unique contextual challenges, and those who do not fit within traditional theoretical explanations or legitimacy criteria for victim identification and responses
Principles for Response – Figure 2.1
- Start with a broad and inclusive description of harm consequence. Consider the areas of vulnerability created by the disabling circumstance in rural contexts before dismissing consequences that do not fit within typical conceptualizations of harm.
- Ascertain the extent to which harm consequence meets or exceeds harm threshold. Consider harm threshold relative to the individual or group, rather than as an absolute.
- If harm threshold is met, attempt to obtain a description of harm activities and explanations. Be expansive with a focus on harm activity as intentional and purposive in producing distress.
- If the explanations fit with legitimate victimization, seek a relevant response. If none exists, it is timely and critical to develop informed approaches to protect the safety and liberty of all citizens including rural disabled individuals.
