SPN question re: Dean/Castiel and violence

[rivkat]

I am fond of Dean/Castiel that deals fairly with Sam, and I like Castiel as a character a great deal. That said, anyone have a line on a story in which, post-apocalypse or post-apocalypse averted, Castiel makes a move and Dean decides that part of being a functional grown-up is not sleeping with people who beat you up when you anger them? (Along with not beating other people—Sam—up himself, of course. Dean hasn’t exactly covered himself with glory on the domestic violence front, but this is a season of change.) I mean, if Castiel’s model for human relationships is the Winchesters, I’d recommend therapy first, at least.

Comments

[readingz]

Mmm... Therapy indeed. I think that in the context in which it happened Castiel beating Dean up made sense, I think there are extreme circumstances under which all of us would resort to violence and those were very extreme circumstances for Castiel and the fact that he didn't do any permanent damage, that he was still under control to a certain extent and cared about Dean's life even when he was angry enough to want to hurt him... Well, that's also what makes the incident as a one-off ok for me. I don't think he would act that way in a regular basis for any other reasons, which is what marks something as domestic violence for me.

[aerye]

I'm sorry but I just can't let go unchallenged the idea that violence is ever an appropriate response to being angry and that the degree of harm caused is an appropriate measure of the seriousness of the transgression. This country had an entire civil rights movement based on the idea that violence was not appropriate as a response – even when the provocation was physical and dangerous. And the rationale you give is almost letter perfect for domestic violence apologists: "But he was really angry." "But he was really provoked." "But she wasn't really hurt." "The fact that he hit her doesn't mean he doesn't love her." "It's the first time it's happened – let him off the hook."

Not looking to start a fight in rivkat's journal but just have to voice how strongly I disagree with this.

[rivkat]

See, this is what I'm trying to think about: all three of these characters I love have used violence to control, or try to control, the others' behavior. And that's wrong; we want to understand them because we've loved them, but how do we understand without excusing? What's the appropriate moral stance of a Dean/Castiel fan after Point of No Return--or, for that matter, Sam/Dean after, well, fairly early on?

[aerye]

Hm. Well I guess my first response is to say that we don't have to excuse to understand. We can position ourselves to see how they might believe it to be a natural response or even as a necessity in their world, but still know ourselves that it is an inappropriate response. We can give those actions consequences in our stories - or not, while still not excusing them. Or we can excuse them - the writer will choose a direction.

In some ways, it seems to me its a similar dilemma to the misogyny - we can either ignore it, excuse it - or give it consequences or show it without excusing it. Dean/Castiel fans can do the same - ignore it, excuse it, or explore it as a event with consequences. And as I said - I think that would be a very interesting story to read. ::g::

[schmevil]

Great points.

[rivkat]

Right, and I don't like the ignore or excuse options; I am kind of hoping to get some recommendations for option three. In part because I am probably not the right person to write it!

[amonitrate]

I've casually looked for the same thing and come up empty, so I look forward to any recs people have too. Admittedly I haven't searched in any kind of methodical way.

[aerye]

Y'know, it suddenly strikes me that if Dean challenged Castiel on what happened, Castiel could rejoin that everything he's learned about human behavior he's learned from Dean.

[rivkat]

Absolutely. But that might just mean that Dean & Castiel can't work it out. I recently read a great YA book, Split, which raises the question of what relationship a former abuser can ever morally have to his victim. So you know it's inexcusable and you've committed to behaving differently and we believe you: that may be redemption, but maybe some roads can't be traveled again, better this time.

[aerye]

I wonder if there's an issue of invitation versus request. That perhaps an abuser can never morally ask to be taken back but that he can accept when invited back in by the victim, when that invitation is freely given and with full knowledge. When I was working as an advocate, one of the first things we were taught was that we should never try to take the victim's autonomy away. Maybe that's something that would need to be factored in here, if the desire is to hold them accountable but to find a way to keep them together at the end. I think it would still make them the exception, place them in the minority, but it is something that happens and succeeds, if rarely.

I don't know – these are all good questions. Tough questions, but good ones. ::g::

[amonitrate]

Yes, thank you. I have seen these same excuses thrown around in other discussions of that episode, and it continually disturbs me how much people tend to identify with the abuser when it comes to the characters on this show, rather than the one abused.

Bringing up John would probably start a wankstorm, but I see it in discussions of him as well.

[rivkat]

I have also been thinking about John and wondering when he did more than raise his voice. I can definitely see him using his belt for discipline. Plus the whole difference between "best he could under the circumstances" (arguable, though I think less so now that we know about Adam; I wanted to resurrect John and let him see Dean's reaction to the stuff about birthdays and baseball games) and "in any way healthy," which is the background for Dean's failure to understand the role of beating and being beaten in an intimate relationship.

Castiel has suffered his own form of emotional (and physical) abuse; those to whom evil is done do evil in return. I just want it acknowledged as such.

[amonitrate]

I have also been thinking about John and wondering when he did more than raise his voice. I can definitely see him using his belt for discipline....which is the background for Dean's failure to understand the role of beating and being beaten in an intimate relationship.

Yes. Dean's reactions towards Sam, using violence when he's upset, was a red flag for me. There are little hints here and there, nothing particularly concrete, but I wouldn't be surprised if there had been some level of physical abuse in the Winchester family.

I really appreciate the way the show has dealt with the deep dysfunction of the Winchester family, because John was an abusive parent who clearly loved his kids, and this isn't typically how abusive parents are portrayed in media. Usually they're THE EVIL STEPMOTHER/FATHER and lack any kind of sympathetic characterization. Which is patently unrealistic.

[rivkat]

And now I'm totally going to recommend Split again, because I think it's another great, painful version of the abusive loving parent.

[amonitrate]

i will have to check it out!

[readingz]

If it's the abuser behavior you want to understand you have to try their POV, i think. It's quite obvious to me that it's all up to the victim, it's their decision if they want to forgive whoever hurt them, them being able to decide is the whole point for me. Has Castiel ever been violent towards Dean before? Because I don't remember it and I insist, abuse is not once, abuse is consistent behavior. Abuse is always wrong, even in cases where the victim has the resources to leave and doesn't but jumping at any kind of violence as automatically abuse seems a bit extremist to me. I mean, I think about fighting with my sisters and sure, I didn't beat them up or them me, but it was violence none the less and I don't think it was wrong, I think it wasn't very nice and that we could have probably solved our differences in better ways but I also think it's a hallmark of intimacy to be able to show someone a part of yourself that's not socially acceptable.

There's no harm on some violence, as long as it's *limited* and you don't bash someone's head in because they stole your toys. I read Castiel's reaction here as the reaction of someone who has given up everything for someone and had that someone forget their sacrifice and Dean's as someone's who understands violence as a way to express your feelings. Now, Dean is obviously messed up in a number of ways but the way in which he shrugs off physical pain is not necessarily related to domestic violence in his past, it could be that the guy gets beaten up almost to death on a weekly basis and has been tortured in Hell and so really, it isn't a big deal for him to get punched and thrown against walls. So if he chooses to accept the incident as acceptable, as part of a language he understands, even accept Castiel's anger as something he earned, well, *I* wouldn't but I have agreed that pulling my hair was forgivable and, ultimately, I think your limits are your choice and not respecting other people's choices is the worse thing you can do to them.

Which segues into Castiel deciding Dean's suicidal plan is not a choice he's allowed to make, which everybody reads as suicide-watch but if Dean *wants* to sacrifice himself, who has the right to stop him?

Basically, I'm not sure one set of morals fit all.

[(Anonymous)]

When I was talking about people identifying with the abuser, I was referring to the way people talked about/excused Cas's actions in that episode. Not necessarily that Cas's actions were abuse per se, though I think you can make that argument, especially if as Rivka did in her original request for fic, you are talking about an established cas/dean relationship.

It is the way people have repeatedly excused the violence and give it legitimacy that I object to, because as the commenter I responded to pointed out, they tend to use the very same framing and words as abusers use to excuse/rationalize/justify their actions.

And frankly, none of that was present in the show. So I find it disturbing.

[amonitrate]

crap that was me.

[readingz]

Nah, don't worry, disagreeing is fine, I thought somebody might. Don't know which country you mean, though.

Here's what I think: Human beings are capable of violence. Human beings are not perfect. Sometimes they will be violent, some of these times it will be intentional and some it will not be. In both those cases they might be sorry afterwards and apologize, if they don't do it again I'm inclined to believe they meant the apology and think what they did was wrong. Sometimes their action will have such terrible consequences (death, permanent injury) that it will be impossible for their victim/s to forgive them, in any court of law the degree to which the victim was injured is relevant to the sentence, on a simple logical level I feel the difference between short and long term consequences is also important. Which doesn't change the fact that they were violent, sure, but there is a very big difference between being violent once and being an abuser.

Denying our capacity for violence, our violent inclinations, doesn't make them less real. And imo to attempt to control them is the whole point so when someone who's furious manages to control themselves I consider it an improvement than when they don't. And when someone discovers their capacity for violence towards someone they love and then works not to do it again, whatever their impulses, I also consider it an improvement. Oth, I don't think violence is not ever appropiate, abuse is never right, violence is a way wider spectrum and saying that you have no right to be violent, say, if someone threatens you with violence or attacks you first... Well, it would be pretty if it worked that way...