The Harmony Trap: How Chinese Cultural Values Undermine Domestic Violence Protection

From Historic Policy Progress to a Continuing Crisis

Ten years ago, China introduced its Anti-Domestic Violence Law, marking the first time that domestic violence was explicitly defined within the national legal system and elevated from a “private family matter” to a public issue of state concern (Zhang, 2023; Su et al., 2022). Since the introduction of this law, despite significant legislative progress in addressing domestic violence and the introduction of new policies on the prevention and control of domestic violence in China,  tragic, unjust fatalities to domestic violence continue to remind us how persistent the problem is, and highlight the inadequacies in the enforcement of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law.

My Masters dissertation research involved an evidence review of 16 academic studies and 9 grey literature documents, informed by the Health Policy Triangle framework (Walt and Gilson, 1994), which draws out the interactions between four components: actors (the people, groups, or organizations involved), content (the substance of the policy), process (how the policy is developed and implemented), and context (the social, economic, political, and cultural environment). 

My findings identified that that in spite of high-level political commitment (Guo and Zheng, 2017), deep-rooted sociocultural norms, fragmented institutional responsibilities, and the ambiguity inherent in the law itself collectively constitute a persistent and complex "implementation paradox".

Compromise within the “Harmony” Narrative

Arguably, the roots of this “implementation paradox” lie in the strategic ambiguity embedded within the policy design itself. The first article of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law explicitly states its goal as “promoting family harmony and advancing social equity”(Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2015). This prioritization of family harmony means that the commitment to gender equality and the protection of survivors’ rights become secondary (Luo, 2020).

The emphasis on “family harmony” leads the law to become gender-neutral rather than addressing the structural gendered nature of domestic violence (Zhao and Hu, 2022). Key abusive behaviors are also inadequately defined. While physical and psychological abuse are explicitly mentioned, sexual violence and economic control, which forms of abuse that are equally damaging, are only vaguely classified as “other forms” (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2015).

This ambiguity is not accidental, but rather a political compromise made by legislators to balance international norms with the Chinese preference for prioritising social stability (Luo, 2020; Dan, 2025). However, this compromise has direct consequences, in that the law grants frontline enforcers enormous discretion in interpreting legal content and defining acts of domestic violence.

The Dilemma of Implementers: Cultural Resistance and Mediation Preferences

The ambiguity in the legal content directly creates enforcement dilemmas for frontline implementers such as the police. As the primary responders to domestic violence cases, police responsibilities are vaguely described as "taking action" (Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress, 2015), lacking clear procedural guidance. Under such procedural ambiguity and the institutional expectation of pursuing "social harmony", police officers tend to adopt informal mediation rather than mandatory intervention measures when enforcing the law (Wang et al., 2020; Yang, 2023) . This over-reliance on mediation reflects the prioritization of "family harmony" in the legal content, which directly influences police enforcement practices. Moreover, the police's own sociocultural biases further constrain the effectiveness of intervention. When police officers hold gender-discriminatory attitudes, such as viewing domestic violence as a "family matter" or believing that women are subordinate to men, they are more likely to perceive domestic violence intervention as beyond their duty and hence, refuse to take mandatory measures (Yu et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2020).

Frontline implementers’ resistance to the law has also led to the underutilization of key legal protection mechanisms. Personal Safety Protection Orders (PSPOs), which represent an important breakthrough in the law, have rarely been issued in reported domestic violence cases (Equality, 2025). Furthermore, nearly 70% of rejected applications are due to insufficient evidence, reflecting either excessively high evidentiary requirements in judicial practice, or persistent ambiguity in the understanding of the concept of "domestic violence" (Equality, 2025; Jiang, 2019). Some further research indicates that deeper police knowledge of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law may actually correlate negatively with their willingness to assist in applying for protection orders. This may be attributed to the burdensome procedural complexities and the behavioral pattern of victims withdrawing cases due to cultural factors such as shame (Wang et al., 2020; Liu, 2025), which leads police to favor the operationally "simpler" mediation pathway that aligns with traditional perceptions.

Fragmented Coordination Mechanisms and Protection Gaps

The implementation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law also faces challenges of insufficient institutional coordination and uneven resource allocation. Although cross-departmental coordination mechanisms were rapidly established at the central level (Supreme People’s Court, 2019), the division of powers and responsibilities among institutions remains fragmented and ambiguous. The All-China Women's Federation, as an important coordinator operating under the ADVL, lacks statutory enforcement powers and independent funding sources (Luo, 2020).

On the service provision side, resource bottlenecks are particularly prominent. Although more than 2,000 shelters were established nationwide, the actual number of cases served in the first year of implementation of the law was extremely low (Ministry of Civil Affairs, 2016). Low service transparency and insufficient cross-departmental data sharing remain persistent constraining factors (Jiang, 2019). Additionally, enforcement capacity and support measures vary significantly across the country, constrained by China's uneven resource distribution. For example, police in China's more developed regions demonstrate higher willingness to provide support services and referrals compared to their counterparts in less developed areas (Xue et al., 2024). Meanwhile, local budgets lack designated anti-domestic violence expenditures (Equality, 2025), which limits the capacity of the social service system to provide follow-up psychological support and safety protection.

Conclusion: Realigning Policy Objectives to Achieve Genuine Protection

The promulgation of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law is undoubtedly an important achievement that successfully defines domestic violence as a public issue. However, only when human rights and gender equality principles are elevated above cultural inertia can the spirit of the Anti-Domestic Violence Law truly be transformed into a tangible force for protecting victims.

Author biography

Yingying Liu recently graduated with a Master of Global Health Policy from the University of Edinburgh with Merit. As an Outstanding Graduate of Nursing, she combines clinical insight with rigorous policy analysis to address structural public health issues. 

References

Dan, S. (2025) Expansion and Concretization of the Definition of Domestic Violence. Available at: https://www.cwu.edu.cn/fxy/info/1862/7072.htm (Accessed: 11 July 2025).

Equality (2025) 《中华人民共和国反家庭暴力法》 实施九周年系列监测报告 概述篇. Available at: http://www.equality-beijing.org/editor/attached/file/20250303/20250303103435_4009.pdf (Accessed: 12 August 2025).

Guo, X. and Zheng, X. (2017) The Evolution of Anti-Domestic Violence Policy Framework in Foreign Countries and Its Enlightenment to China. Journal of Zhejiang University (Humanities and Social Science), 47. doi:1 0 .3 7 8 5/j .issn.1 0 0 8-9 4 2 X.CN3 3-6 0 0 0/C.2 0 1 6 .0 1 .2 8 3.

Jiang, J. (2019) The Family as a Stronghold of State Stability: Two Contradictions in China’s Anti-Domestic Violence Efforts. International Journal of Law, Policy and the Family, 33 (2): 228–251. doi:10.1093/lawfam/ebz004.

Liu, X. (2025) 刘小楠：消除一切形式针对妇女的暴力——中国对针对妇女暴力行为的30年治理之路-人权研究院. Available at: https://rqyjy.cupl.edu.cn/info/1116/5933.htm (Accessed: 30 July 2025).

Luo, Q. (2020) Three Narratives of Chinese Anti-domestic Violence Legislation. 法制与社会发展, 26 (1): 188–106.

Ministry of Civil Affairs (2016) 民政部全国妇联关于做好家庭暴力受害人庇护救助工作的指导意见__2016年第6号国务院公报_中国政府网. Available at: https://www.gov.cn/gongbao/content/2016/content_5046092.htm (Accessed: 11 July 2025).

Standing Committee of the National People’s Congress (2015) Anti-domestic Violence Law of the People’s Republic of China中华人民共和国反家庭暴力法（主席令第三十七号）. Available at: https://www.gov.cn/zhengce/2015-12/28/content_5029898.htm (Accessed: 11 August 2025).

Su, Z., McDonnell, D., Cheshmehzangi, A., et al. (2022) What “Family Affair?” Domestic Violence Awareness in China. Frontiers in Public Health, 10. doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.795841.

Supreme People’s Court (2019) 最高人民法院全国妇联关于进一步加强合作建立健全妇女儿童权益保护工作机制的通知 - 中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报. Available at: http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/fa1841610affb20d291ddf57c42526.html (Accessed: 11 July 2025).

Supreme People’s Court, All-China Women’s Federation, Ministry of Education, et al. (2022) 最高人民法院 全国妇联 教育部 公安部 民政部 司法部 卫生健康委关于加强人身安全保护令制度贯彻实施的意见 - 中华人民共和国最高人民法院公报 Opinion on Strengthening the Implementation of the Personal Safety Protection Order System. Available at: http://gongbao.court.gov.cn/Details/f8a68034be6b64acce09cf52857b68.html (Accessed: 11 July 2025).

WALT, G. & GILSON, L. (1994) Reforming the health sector in developing countries: the central role of policy analysis. Health policy and planning. [Online] 9 (4), 353–370.

Wang, X., Hayes, B.E. and Zhang, H. (2020) Correlates of Chinese Police Officer Decision-Making in Cases of Domestic Violence. Crime & Delinquency, 66 (11): 1556–1578. doi:10.1177/0011128719850502.

Xue, J., Lin, K., Li, L., et al. (2024) Supportive Interventions of Chinese Police in Domestic Violence: Do Officer Knowledge and Training Matter? Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 39 (15–16): 3508–3542. doi:10.1177/08862605241233266.

Yang, W. (2023) Coercion with Morality: Chinese Police Officers’ Gendered Policing Strategies in Domestic Violence Cases. Feminist Criminology, 18 (3): 205–224. doi:10.1177/15570851231164885.

Yu, Y., Xia, C. and Zhu, Z. (2025) Gender, Sexism, and Police Attitudes Toward Policing Intimate Partner Violence in China. Violence Against Women, 31 (8): 1771–1792. doi:10.1177/10778012241236668.

Zhang, D. (2023) Learning to see, learning to say, and learning to eradicate domestic violence in China. Journal of Gender-Based Violence. doi:10.1332/239868021X16557434018638.

Zhao, S. and Hu, A. (2022) 中国“反家庭暴力”话语实践变迁及其逻辑 Changes and Logic in the Discursive Pactice of “Anti-Domestic Violence” in China. 求是学刊, (6): 94–104.