Factors include “low education, exposure to child maltreatment or witnessing violence in the family, harmful use of alcohol, attitudes accepting of violence, and gender inequality”

(Goldsworthy and Raj 2014)

I will look at what defines coercive control inside intimate partner violence, how it is contextualised in the law, how those laws are adapting in response to coercive control and how coercive control within a relationship can then turn into physical violence when the relationship ends. In the past, intimate partner violence was thought of as a violent act that others can see on the victim, a mark on the women’s arm or a black eye.  More recently, we understand intimate partner violence to be so much more than one incident but a series of repeat behaviours some of which do not leave a physical mark but can injure all the same.  During my exploration I will seek how IPV controls the victim through intimidation and manipulation through coercive control which can involve physical or sexual harm, psychological, emotional, spiritual and financial abuse.  

Power and control are at the centre of intimate partner violence.  It is designed to entrap the woman and to create fear (Wangmann, pg 222, 2020). This type of violence isn’t based on one incident but a series of incidents that demoralise the victim. This power “erodes the woman’s independence” over time (Wendt, 2014).  They call this “coercive control” (2014). In the past violence that can be seen, “primarily physical or visible forms of violence” (Wangmann, pg 220, 2020). Where (IPV) was easy to recognise, the violence inflicted on them could be brought to justice.  There are revelations around the pattern of abuse as understanding that an act of violence “maintain(s) or establish(es) control” (pg. 222,2020). Coercion though, is difficult to identify as it can be done without physical violence but slowly erodes the women’s confidence in her abilities over time using “fear, constraints on autonomy, belittlement, and other facets of abuse elicit “entrapment” without any notable incidents of violence” (Stark and Hester, 2019). This creates ambiguity as the law tries to encompass an unseen pattern of violence “regardless of what definitions police are given, the narrow purview of a justice system attuned to physically violent incidents will constrain its response in these cases to extreme violence and thereby perpetuate the false impression that coercive control is rare” (Stark, pg.35 2018). Due to the lack of understanding around what classifies as IPV and how it is maintained in a relationship, it is hard to persecute those persons involved, “domestic violence movement has stalled as a result of its focus on violence and not coercive control”(Wangmann, 221). There is a broad range of behaviours at play in defining how coercive control is experienced for the victim and how those behaviours are defined for lawmakers to understand and create a working framework. Police are learning and realising how these behaviours, “deployed over a considerable time period to monopolise a partner’s access to the scarce resources without which she cannot thrive” (Stark, pg.36, 2018).

I will now explore the structural background (IPV) exists in and how it is thought to be gendered in our society.  It is important to mention there is no one type of male that is more prone to partner violence, WHO has identified a combination of risk factors contributing to the reasons why men resort to violence. These factors “include low education, exposure to child maltreatment or witnessing violence in the family, harmful use of alcohol, attitudes accepting of violence, and gender inequality” (Goldsworthy and Raj 2014). It is also suggested that gender, poverty, unemployment, and history of incarceration can also increase (IPV) (Hattery and Smith, 2012). These risk factors may not play out to create (IPV) however when financial stress occurs, and these factors are present it can lead to an abusive relationship (2012). At the macro level, what type of country you live, down to the micro level, what type of environment where you raised in are all contributing risk factors for interpersonal violence. The structure that develops this type of criminal activities rest more in societies that have hierarchical systems, “society uses gender to organize daily life and to construct gender differences” (Anderson, pg. 1449 2009).  Capitalistic countries that have more of a gender imbalance tend to have higher rates of IPV as appose to socialistic countries where genders as seen as more equal. Interestingly, the trend in economies run by capitalism is that when a downturn in the economy happens (IPV) rates go up (Hattery and Smith, 2012). Within this structure it has been hypothesised “that vulnerability and instability of masculine identities may lead some men to use violence to temporarily shore up or restore their sense of selves as ‘real men’” (Anderson, pg. 1445, 2009). In heteronormative relationships the gendered pattern of men is to have some kind of control i.e. hold the door open, drive the car, be a doting boyfriend, which lends to why law enforcement “struggle with labelling stalking as criminal because the tactics of stalkers match the normative script for heterosexual courtship… Coercive control is thus ‘invisible in plain sight’” (Anderson, 1448, 2009). Coercive control escalates into physical attacks when a woman attempts to exert her own control by removing herself from a manipulative and demoralising relationship, as the man tries to re-establish his dominance.

When we talk of agency in the realm of the man and the women within domestic violence. The men who commit violence believe they are within their right to do so inside their home and when they become angry they claim the were “provoked” by the other taking no responsibility for their actions. (Goldsworthy and Raj, 2014).  In society it is also believed that woman are able to leave a violent relationship if they wish and that the violence would cease once they are separated.  There is a myth that woman have the agency but just don’t leave. What needs to be realised is that a woman’s agency is slowly diminished overtime, “coercive control erodes confidence and is corrosive of self-belief, including the belief that change is possible and that one deserves to be safe and treated with respect” (Sharps-Jeffs, pg. 165, 2017).  In fact ex-partners who have only used coercive control have the potential to become violent with the threat of losing or have lost their partner, even if no physical violence occurred previous to the break up.  Even when the woman is being victimised in the relationship the responsibility seems to lie solely on the woman to make the change, “women are expected to exercise agency by leaving or else they are thought to lack agency if they choose to remain within or return to a violent relationship” (Brutton and Tyson, 2018). Leaving an controlling relationships is dangerous, as the decision between staying and going looms, women exert agency within the scope of their relationship depending on the type of abuse, the hope that things will change and trying to protect themselves or their children from more harm (Bruton and Tyson, 2018).  Woman practice a lot of agency in reducing harm and increasing ways to escape the coercive control. (2018). Within the criminality aspect of IPV the “focus [is]on incidents rather than patterns, … coercive control constitutes a form of ruthless dominance with little room for negotiation and compromise” (Sharp-Jeffs, pg.164, 2017) Some women may not even know they are in an controlling relationship due to the gendered roles and also the misconception that a man has to hit you to be in an abusive relationship.  Due to limited understanding of coercive control, even woman who are experiencing it may not know they are in it.  Only when a woman exerts her autonomy and decide to leave the relationship, she finds that their partner becomes heightened and threatening does she realise there may be a problem outside normal behaviour. As with the case of Hannah Clarke, a Brisbane woman, who when she found out she was in a coercive relationship and tried to end it she and her three children were set alight in their car outside their Camp Hill home. A friend whom she confided in when she started questioning the health of her relationship said this, “We talked about the different types of violence including financial abuse, sexual abuse, emotional abuse and you [Hannah] experienced all of them,” she wrote. “The more he [Rowan] convinced the public of the love for his children and you [Hannah], the more he was able to exercise his coercive control by isolating you and manipulating others into perceiving him as being a good partner” (Mckenna and Roberts, 2020).

In conclusion, intimate partner violence can take many forms of control designed to impede the liberty of the victim’s personhood. Within the literature it was uncovered that this type of abuse is much more embedded in the relationship, harder to witness from an outsider’s perspective due to the lack of physical marks and as such harder to criminalise.  I also explored how our current gender structures create a false normative in heterosexual relationships and when that relationship becomes toxic it is harder to act towards the protection of the victims due to the lack of distinguishing marks. As well as how society unwittingly perpetuates the gender differences while at the same time trying to protect those within it. The concealed nature of coercive control is hard to uncover and its impact to individuals and communities need more informed legislation to combat and define more succinctly what IPV is and how society can protect the most vulnerable.

 Womensline 1800 811 811, Mensline 1800 600 636 Sexual Assault Helpline 1800 010 120.

References

Anderson, K. L. (2009). Gendering Coercive Control. Violence Against Women, 15(12)           1444–1457. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801209346837

Bruton, Crystal ; Tyson, Danielle. 2018. Leaving violent men: A study of women’s experiences of separation in Victoria, Australia. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 2018-09, Vol.51 (3), p.339-354. Available online on 18/10/2020 https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/doi/full/10.1177/0004865817746711

Goldsworthy, Terry and Raj, Matthew. (2014). Out of the Shadows: the rise of domestic violence in Australia. The Conversation. Available online: 18/10/2020 https://theconversation.com/out-of-the-shadows-the-rise-of-domestic-violence-in-australia-29280

Hattery, Angela and Smith, Earl. (2012) The Social Dynamics of Family Violence: The social Dynamics of Intimate Partner Violence. West View Press. Available online: 18/10/2020 https://ebookcentral-proquest-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/lib/uql/detail.action?docID=866692#

McKenna, Kate and Roberts, George. (2020) Brisbane car fire killer stalked wife Hannah Clarke and used ‘scary’ controlling tactics before final evil act.Posted Friday 21 Feb 2020 available online on: 26/10/2020 https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-02-21/brisbane-car-fire-hannah-clarke-rowan-baxter-family-violence/11985024

Sharp-Jeffs, Nicola, Kelly, Liz, & Klein, Renate. (2017) Long Journeys Toward Freedom: The Relationship Between Coercive Control and Space for Action—Measurement and Emerging Evidence. Violence Against Women, 24(2), 163–185. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216686199

Stark, Evan; Hester Marianne. (2018) Criminalising Coercive Control: Family Violence and the criminal Law. Vol.25 (1 ) Ch 2. pg 33-49 Available on 26/10/2020. https://link-springer-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/book/10.1007%2F978-981-15-0653-6

Stark, Evan ; Hester, Marianne.(2019) Coercive Control: Update and Review. Violence against women. Vol.25 (1), p.81-104. Available on 18/10/2020 https://journals-sagepub-com.ezproxy.library.uq.edu.au/doi/full/10.1177/1077801218816191

Wendt, Sarah. (2014) Why Doesn’t she just leave? The realities of Partner Violence. The Conversation. Available online: 18/10/2020 https://theconversation.com/why-doesnt-she-just-leave-the-realities-of-escaping-domestic-violence-29537