Explaining Intimate Partner Violence: Why Does not She Just Leave Him?
In criminology, an offender-oriented question would be, “Why does he beat her so viciously?” A victim-centered question that is often asked is, “If he is so brutal, then why does she put up with it and stay with him?” Until the 1970s, this compli- cated situation was dismissed with the victim- blaming rejoinder that being regularly beaten must somehow fulfill a pathological need of hers. For example, battered wives have been accused of being masochistic and of enjoying feeling miserable or of looking forward to the passionate lovemaking that supposedly follows when a repentant husband or boyfriend asks her for forgiveness. They could leave the dysfunctional love hate relationship at any time but choose to stay, some victim-blamers say (see Paglia, 1994; and Celock, 2013).
Therapists developed a more nuanced answer when they began to recognize that a cycle of vio- lence often marred the lives of their clients, accom- panied by “learned helplessness,” which they termed the battered-woman syndrome. Beatings often follow a pattern and escalate in frequency and intensity unless the couple receives help. Three phases make up a cycle that resets and then repeats itself periodically in their relationship: tension building; the violent explosion; and the tranquil, loving aftermath (Walker, 2009).
During the tension-building phase, the aggres- sor hurls insults and even breaks objects while his docile target tries to appease him in a vain attempt
300 CH APT ER 9
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
to stave off a blow-up and preserve their relation- ship. She attempts to cope with her mate’s bad behavior and conceals it from others, isolating her- self from potential rescuers. When her accommoda- tions and sacrifices fail, the second stage of acute violence erupts. He goes on a rampage and savagely assaults her. Feeling trapped, she acts submissively as part of a defense mechanism to avoid his wrath. The injuries that he inflicts shock and confuse her. When he becomes fearful of driving her away, he begins to show shame and remorse, and the third stage—the reconciliation or “honeymoon” phase— commences. He apologizes, pledges it won’t hap- pen again, and acts tenderly. Still seeking marital bliss and unwilling to confront the seriousness of her plight, she blames herself for his loss of control and forgives him. Believing she can head off his next round of assaults, she becomes protective of him, covers up what really happened, and decides not to seek outside help or try to leave him. An illusion of normalcy prevails for a while. But noth- ing has been resolved or corrected, and soon the lull that soothed her into staying with him ends, ten- sions rise, and the cycle repeats itself. But his next round of attacks may increase in ferocity. He expresses less contrition and she feels less confident about being able to defuse his anger. He ratchets up his efforts to dominate her life, and she finds herself more isolated, trapped, vulnerable, and endangered than before (Walker, 2009).
However, some criticisms of the concept of “syndrome” have arisen, since it implies that virtu- ally every battered woman shares these experiences and their consequences, that the fault lies with her lack of initiative rather than with his coercive con- duct, and that she is a passive recipient rather than an active and resilient partner (see Wallace, 2007). Furthermore, findings drawn from files about women undergoing treatment cannot be general- ized to the entire population because these battered women in therapy do not constitute a representa- tive sample (this is called the clinical fallacy) (Straus, 1991).
Besides the possibility of the battered woman’s syndrome, researchers have discovered a number of other plausible reasons why women stay with their
violent mates and repeatedly endure the cycle of battering/reconciliation/battering. Some feel dependent, dread being alone, and despair that they have nowhere to go and no one to turn to for aid and comfort. They are intimidated, even terrorized, and fear reprisals if they dare to try to escape their possessive and controlling husbands who are obsessed with a “You belong to me!” and “If I can’t have you, no one can!” mentality. They worry about their children’s welfare (emo- tional damage, loss of financial support, and custody and visitation issues). Some still love their tormen- tors and invoke higher loyalties (a commitment to the institution of marriage and to the vows they took “for better or worse, in good times and in bad, till death do us part”). Some are ashamed of the stigma of “abandoning” or “deserting” a hus- band and of contributing to a “failed marriage” because of cultural and religious traditions. Many believe they should stand by their men and try to help cure them—attributing the whole mess to external causes such as alcoholism, unemployment, or stress at work. Finally, trying to escape from a batterer is a risky course of action. Some find them- selves stalked and beaten more viciously and subject to greater dangers when they try to break up or after they separate from their abusive partners (Frieze and Browne, 1991; Steinman, 1991; Barnett and LaViolette, 1993; Kirkwood, 1993; Hampton, Oliver, and Magarian, 2003; and Malkin, 2013).
Practical considerations also might have deterred her from trying to escape. Abruptly severing an intimate relationship is difficult when a couple has children, property in common, and intertwined fam- ilies, friends, daily routines, and jobs. A woman who separates from an abusive mate with a good job may lose custody of her children (Catania, 2005).
Before women who are trapped in abusive relationships can be helped, they must begin to rec- ognize that they genuinely are crime victims. They must reject the illusions that they can prevent or maintain control over future outbursts and that the beatings are their fault. They must stop mini- mizing the extent of the physical and emotional injuries their partner inflicts, and they must resist shifting the blame to his drinking problem or
V I C T IMS O F V IOL E NC E B Y LO VE RS AND FAM IL Y MEMB ER S 301
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
other external triggers. Also they must override their impulses to isolate themselves to hide their troubles and avoid embarrassment (Arriaga and Capezza, 2005).
A number of more elaborate explanations have been put forward to explain why domestic violence remains such a widespread problem and why women endure repeated assaults by the men who profess to love them. Psychological theories empha- size personal pathologies. Most center on the bat- terers’ problems, such as poor impulse control, paranoia, substance abuse, hypersensitivity, an inability to manage anger, or even brain injuries. But some intrapersonal explanations implicate the targets of IPV by contending that they too have personality problems, suffering from low self- esteem and bouts of depression and anxiety. The traumatic bonding theory posits that certain bat- tered women developed unhealthy attachments to their abusive and neglectful parents and recreate these destructive relationships with their violent mates. Investment theory explains repeated attacks in terms of her deep commitment to maintain their love affair. Similarly, a psychological entrapment explanation proposes that the woman stays because she feels she has worked so hard to make the rela- tionship successful that she must endure anything to save it. Wives who become overly dependent, pas- sive, and submissive serve as inviting targets for their husband’s displaced aggression and misplaced blame. The women seem resigned, crushed, and defeated and have feel helpless without an exit strategy because attempts to escape seem emotion- ally destructive to the children, economically disas- trous, and likely to trigger even more violence.
But activists in the battered women’s move- ment believe it is a mistake to attempt to “patholo- gize” intimate partner abuse as a problem that burdens merely a limited number of emotionally unstable couples. But it is also incorrect to try to normalize family violence as a by-product of unavoidable conflicts that occasionally arise in every romantic relationship. The problem of male violence persists because acting aggressively is gen- erally taught and encouraged, as is female passivity and resignation, as part of sex-role socialization,
according to social learning theory. This theory explains how the unleashing of violence as a reac- tion to internal and external strains is a behavioral response modeled by abusive parents to their chil- dren. Intergenerational transmission of IPV takes place when girls who see their mothers beaten by their fathers come to accept periodic outbursts of violence as tolerable; similarly, boys grow up watching their fathers beat their mothers in times of stress or during bouts of heavy drinking.
Social scientists have developed a variety of competing explanations that focus on the dynamics between the two parties to account for the preva- lence of partner abuse (see Gelles, 1987; and Hotaling et al., 1988). Those who apply exchange theory start with the explanation that in every couple each partner supplies the other with valued services and benefits. The problem arises when a domineer- ing person employs force to obtain his goals and discovers that the gains outweigh the losses (rough treatment pays off). In nuclear families where cou- ples live in isolation from the scrutiny and support of others, the benefits of violence can exceed the costs because authorities are reluctant to violate the privacy of intimates. Resource theory views power as stemming from economic, social, or psychologi- cal benefits and advantages. Decision-making influ- ence within a family flows from the income, property, contacts, and prestige that each partner contributes to the relationship. Because men have advantages in the outside economy, they command much more power in most families, leaving women in a subordinate and therefore vulnerable position. But men lacking these resources can become aggressive as a reaction to a perceived loss of con- trol. Some couples are on a collision course when- ever the head of the household feels that his wife’s assertions of independence threaten his privileges and social status as protector and provider, and he may hit her in order to once again take charge of a situation. Violence is the outward manifestation of their underlying battle over power and control. Coping theory suggests that when one or both partners in a troubled relationship experience severe stress, resorting to force may be considered a way of regaining normalcy while outside forces work to
302 CH APT ER 9
Copyright 2016 Cengage Learning. All Rights Reserved. May not be copied, scanned, or duplicated, in whole or in part. WCN 02-200-203
tear the couple apart. According to the subculture- of-violence theory, resorting to physical force to settle disputes is more acceptable in poor commu- nities than within the middle class, whose members purportedly believe in negotiation and compro- mise. As a result, more cases of child abuse and intimate partner violence take place in poverty- stricken neighborhoods where this outlook prevails (see Sampson, 2007a; and Winter, 2010).
Feminist theory regards IPV as a consequence of the persistence of patriarchy, a system of male dominance that is promoted and enforced through coercion. Inequities and injustices within relation- ships are maintained through force, especially if the female shows streaks of independence and chal- lenges his supremacy in decision making. The divi- sion of domestic labor in families places the husband in the dominant role and assigns him male preroga- tives; the wife is compelled to accept a subordinate position burdened by female duties. These distinc- tions are legitimized by religion and the state, as symbolized by the wife’s marriage vows to “love, honor, and obey” her husband. In a society con- trolled by giant corporations and large government bureaucracies, some men seize upon domination over their wives and children as a substitute for real autonomy in their personal lives. As long as women with children are financially dependent on men, and both sexes are raised to accept male aggression and tolerate female passivity, woman battering will persist as a serious social problem (see Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Schechter, 1982; Yllo and Bograd, 1988; Rhode, 1989; Viano, 1992; Healy and Smith, 1998; and Walker, 2009).