Positioning theory as a discursive approach to understanding same-sex intimate violence Mira Alexis P. Ofreneo and Cristina Jayme Montiel Department of Psychology, Ateneo de Manila University, Quezon City, the Philippines This study focuses on same-sex intimate violence, recognizing that violence in gay and lesbian relationships is as severe and prevalent as in heterosexual relationships. Positioning theory as a relational approach is used as an alternative to the dominant individual and structural accounts. Intimate violence is seen as produced through the assignment of rights and duties or positioning in couples’ conversations. Two gay and two lesbian couples were interviewed. A basic discursive pattern was found from 25 accounts of episodes involving physical violence. Violence ensued only after the initiator of violence had claimed innocence or blamelessness and attributed guilt or blame on the receiver of violence. The findings are discussed in relation to the discursive production of power and violence. Key words: domestic violence, gay relationships, intimate violence, lesbian relationships, partner abuse, posi- tioning theory. Introduction Over past decades, women’s movements worldwide have made domestic violence a social issue and defined it as a crime against women (Merrill, 1996). Feminist analysis saw domestic violence as a behavioural tendency of men, fundamental to patriarchy or men’s power over women in society (Milner, 2004). Though this analysis was central to how women’s movements characterized domestic violence as ‘violence against women’, it consequently recognized only heterosexual male-to-female violence and left behind the parallel issue of partner abuse in gay and lesbian rela- tionships, as well as female-to-male violence (Grauwiler & Mills, 2004). This study intends to focus on a social problem that has been largely unrecognized; that is, same- sex intimate violence. Psychological and sociological accounts of same-sex intimate violence The few studies that have examined the prevalence of same- sex intimate violence indicate that intimate violence in same-sex relationships is as severe and as prevalent as in heterosexual relationships (Merrill, 1998; Renzetti, 1998; Seelau, Seelau, & Poorman, 2003; Turell, 2000). Within the heterosexist paradigm that assumes that domestic violence takes place solely in the context of a heterosexual relation- ship, approaches to understanding same-sex intimate vio- lence come from the heterosexual domestic violence literature (Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Potoczniak, Mourot, Crosbie-Burnett, & Potoczniak, 2003). The two major explanations for intimate violence are: (i) the psychological, or individual, approaches, which focus on psychological factors, primarily abnormality or person- ality disorders, childhood experience of violence and sub- stance or alcohol abuse; and (ii) the sociological, or structural, accounts, rooted in unequal gender power rela- tions (Abrahams, 2001; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Man- kowski, Haaken, & Silvergleid, 2002; Milner, 2004; Walker, 1999). Although psychological variables have been found to explain a small portion of domestic violence cases in gay and lesbian relationships, with some studies showing conflicting or contradictory results (Abrahams, 2001; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Mankowski et al., 2002; Ren- zetti, 1997), the sociological view, that traditional gender roles correlate with aggression in gay and lesbian relation- ships, has not received empirical support (Grauwiler & Mills, 2004; Johnson & Ferraro, 2000; Merrill, 1998; Milner, 2004; Potoczniak et al., 2003; Renzetti, 1998). As such, a gendered structural explanation appears to be unsuitable for an analysis of aggression in same-sex relationships. Relational view of same-sex intimate violence Given the weak explanatory value of individual accounts and the inapplicability of structural accounts to the Correspondence: Mira Alexis P. Ofreneo, Department of Psychol- ogy, School of Social Sciences, Ateneo de Manila University, Loyola Heights, Quezon City 1108, the Philippines. Email: mofreneo@ateneo.edu; miraofreneo@yahoo.com Received 27 October 2008; accepted 29 August 2009. Asian Journal of Social Psychology © 2010 The Authors Asian Journal of Social Psychology © 2010 Blackwell Publishing Asia Pty Ltd with the Asian Association of Social Psychology and the Japanese Group Dynamics Association Asian Journal of Social Psychology (2010), 13, 247–259 DOI: 10.1111/j.1467-839X.2010.01317.x