"It ends with domination": ruptures with patriarchal law's hegemonic discourse based on the analysis of domestic violence inserted in Colleen Hoover's work

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2023.65870

Palavras-chave:

Domestic violence, Colleen Hoover, Gender, Symbolic domination, Male possessiveness.

Resumo

This article aims to analyze the aspects of domestic violence as portrayed in the book “It ends with us”, by American Writer Colleen Hoover, under the feminist perspective of gender domination. The foundation of this paper lays in the understanding that not only the classics, but also the contemporary literature work, as cultural instruments, are able to bring to light the most diverse set of social patterns, such as gender domination. Its methodology was based on bibliographic studies regarding the setting of western gender comprehension, Pierre Bourdieu’s symbolic domination in his work “Masculine domination" and previous marriage representations in literature. It was also supported by the psychoanalytic implications of gender studies on kinship, phallus and parricide. Through those elements we seek to understand which moments of Hoover’s book counterpose the domination ruse throughout the main character’s development and, critically, analyze the possibility of any revealing type of corroboration towards the so called domination.

Biografia do Autor

Ana Paula Gonçalves Lima, Federal University of Jataí (UFJ)

Law undergraduate student with focus on the study of women's rights.

Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/9500591730167319

Bruno Gadelha Xavier, Federal University of Jataí (UFJ)

Associate Professor of criminal law at the Federal University of Jataí, PHD in Fundamental Rights and Guarantees (FDV-BRAZIL)

Lattes: http://lattes.cnpq.br/2625523883364160

Downloads

Publicado

2023-03-28

Como Citar

Lima, A. P. G., & Xavier, B. G. (2023). "It ends with domination": ruptures with patriarchal law’s hegemonic discourse based on the analysis of domestic violence inserted in Colleen Hoover’s work. REVISTA QUAESTIO IURIS, 16(1), 238–258. https://doi.org/10.12957/rqi.2023.65870