REFRAMING DOMESTIC ABUSE AS COERCIVE CONTROL Evan Stark

REFRAMING DOMESTIC ABUSE AS COERCIVE CONTROL Evan Stark, Ph. D, MSW Leverhulme Fellow CRFR, University of Edinburgh the italian woman henri matisse

Challenges Current Approach Isn’t Working Violence Model Doesn’t Fit Women’s Experience Reframe Domestic Abuse as Coercive Control Apply the Model to Improve Outcomes

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REVOLUTION

THE DOMESTIC VIOLENCE REVOLUTION IS STALLED

U. S. INTIMATE PARTNER HOMICIDE RATE DECLINE 1976 -2000 FBI (SHR, 1976 -2000) FEMALE

The Violence Model Violence Focused Incident Based Injury as Marker Calculus of Harms Intimate Relationships Target Victim/Offender

across the lifespan. .

…. a discrete event? “repeated” 60 -85% 89% of victims suffered previous assaults; 35% abused daily (Memphis) Women who charged husbands average 35 prior assaults (Canada) NCVS 25 -30% serial abuse (more than l/wk) 7. l assaults/yr (London survey)

Severe injury in UK Sample 70% choked or strangled 60% beaten in their sleep 24% cut or stabbed 26. 5% “beaten unconscious” 10% tied up. ” 60% sex against their will 27% forced to engage in sex “often” or “all the time “ 31% of rapes are by partners 38% suffered “permanent damage”

IS DV ABOUT SEVERE INJURY?

HOW LONG DOES ABUSE LAST?

Health Consequences Alcohol Abuse Drug Abuse Child Abuse Suicide Attempts Mental Illness Homelessness HIV

Cause or Effect?

What’s Love got to do with it? 75% of abusive injuries presented by women who are single, separated or divorced The majority of men who are arrested for domestic assault are not living with the women they abuse Leaving and staying part of a single process Men who abuse one woman also abuse others

ABUSE IS PREVENTABLE Of every 100 women who come to the hospital 15 are in long standing abusive relationships 2 -3 are in newly abusive relationships Of every 100 cases of abuse, 79 -86 are ongoing and 14 to 21 are new Early Intervention Would Reduce DA 79%-86%

VIOLENCE MODEL vs. EXPERIENCED REALITY Episode/Incident “Continuous” Injury focused Calculus of Harms Multiple/Cumulative Harms Entrapment Intimate Relations Frequency/Duration Crosses Social Space

When Abuse is Viewed through the De-gendered Framework: Abuse and Rape are Trivialized No jail No injury, no crime or ID Escalating abuse makes arrest & prosecution less likely Victim fears appear exaggerated Victims minimize abuse Abuse and Rape are NORMALIZED

COERCIVE CONTROL A strategic course of conduct in which violence, sexual coercion, intimidation, isolation and control are used to dominate and exploit a partner and deprive her of basic rights and resources.

Partner Assault 40% of women’s help-seeking Motive: to hurt or control Repeated, but “episodic” Women initiate as well as men Women more likely to be injured & seek help “Sometimes you have to take a beating” May remain choice is communities/cultures where state/cultural/familial patriarchy in place

TYPOLOGY OF ABUSE • • • FIGHTS PARTNER ASSAULT (20%+) COERCIVE CONTROL (60%+)

u Assault u Intimidation Coercive Control u Isolation u Control

ASSAULT l l Repeated, minor routine Little or no “conflict” May not exist Aim is to Subjugate 11

SEXUAL COERCION ’Sex Ag. Rape Will— 34% 60%. Sexual Degrainspect dation Rape as Routine

INTIMIDATION Threats of violence l Violence against others l Destruction of property l Harassment through the network l “The silent treatment” l 12

INTIMIDATION STALKING l. Use of the Children l Surveillance l Use of legal system l Witness intimidation –recantation l INVISIBLE THREATS l 12

PARTNER STALKING • • • Largest category of cases (50%) 57% of MARAC Cases 4. 8%-14. 5% of women vs. . 6% men 18+ 74%-81% experienced violence/sexual assault 2. 2 yrs vs. 1 yr by strangers) 57% stalked during relationship > 50% report “proxy stalking” Greater psychological stress than violence 8. 4 times more likely to experience threats to children

DEGRADATION Ritual enactments associated with sex, bodily functions or obedience TARGET AREAS OF GENDER IDENTITY FROM WHICH PARTNERS GET THEIR SELFRESPECT, ESTEEM AND POWER Link to Ownership

The Continuum of Degradation Anal sex Pornography Marking Digital Inspections Punishment Shaming Toileting Personal Hygiene Treated like an animal Use of Children to Enforce Sexual Compliance

ISOLATION Family and friends l School, work, church l Communication/Transportation l Helping Professionals l Private Life l

control Deprivation Exploitation Regulation of how women enact default gender roles

TARGETS WOMEN’S DEFAULT ROLES • Homemaker • Mother • Sexual Partner • “Wife”

Control Prevalence US/GB • • • Took her Money (. 54) Monitored Time (. 85) (. 66) Kept from Medical Care (. 29) (. 22) Did Not Allow to Go to School (. 62) (. 52) No Socializing with Friends (. 79) (. 71) Kept from Seeing Family (. 60) (. 50) Restricted Car Use (. 54) (. 31) Can’t Leave House (. 62) (. 47) Threatened to Take Children (. 44) (. 40) Did Not Allow to Work (. 34) (. 40) Tried to Make Crazy (. 89) (. 75) Sources: Tolman, l 989; Rees, Agnew-Davies & Barkham, 2006; Buzawa et al. l 999

SAFETY ZONES SEARCH & DESTROY MISSIONS Control in the context of no Control

Magdelena Lucsak: Killer or Victim?

FROM INJURY TO ENTRAPMENT What makes a battered woman is her socially constructed inability to effectively resist or escape

From injury to ENTRAPMENT HARMS TO: PHYSICAL SAFETY (chronic fear) MATERIAL SECURITY (dependence) SOCIAL /FAMILY LIFE (isolation) DIGNITY (shame) AUTONOMY (loss of independent decisionmaking) LIBERTY (subjugation)

LETHALITY Presence of gun/threats to kill Threatened or Real Separation Sexual Assault Level of Control (e. g. control + estrangement = 5 x grter risk

CC and risk in mediation Post separation 47% reported escalating violence. 51. 9% reported at least l threat to their lives 23. 2% reported forced sex CC vs. DV CC accounted for 81% of escalating violence; 80% of threats to life & 76% of forced sex DV accounted for 20% escalated DV; 17% threats & 24% forced sex 75% (CC) vs. l 8% (DV) expressed fear in mediation

ASSESSMENT FEAR INJURY ENTRAPMENT

ASSESSING OFFENDER’S RISK WEAPONS/THREATS DEPRESSED OR PARANOID OBSESSED/STALKING VIOLATION OF ORDERS SEPARATED HIGHLY CONTROLLING RECENT CHANGES IN PATTERN

DV vs. Coercive Control Assault crime • • • Discrete acts Gender neutral and often mutual Violence to hurt Measured by frequency, severity & means Safety • • • CC Crime Course of Conduct Gendered Tactics to Subjugate Entrapment Liberties/Rights Personhood Safe, Free & Equal

Because it occurs in the context of sexual inequality, male violence & coercive control have dramatically different outcomes than other forms of interpersonal violence or abuse. So this is where reconstruction begins

Invisible in Plain Sight There is nothing like it in men’s experience Liberties violated are taken for granted Corresponds with women’s default roles There are no words to describe it There are few images on the media It is built around personal knowledge and invention—role of learning is minimal Unintelligible at the level of individual s or relationships

Challenges Ahead Give CC a Name Recognize a Class in Rights in Personal Life Criminalize the Violation of these Rights Apply the Typology Revise Interventions: Refuge, Social Work, Batterer Programs Distinguish “Violence in the Strong Sense”