ACCOMMODATION TO DEVIANCE: How Women Experience Battering
by Kathleen J. Ferraro & John M. Johnson
Reprinted from “How Women Experience Battering: The Process of Victimization,” Social Problems, Vol. 39, NO.3 (February 1983), pp. 325-335, by permission of the Society for the Study of Social Problems and the authors. Copyright © 1983 by the Society for the Study of Social Problems.
Conduct depends upon social definitions. Before people can take some action, they have to have some ideas about what kind of action to take and with whom. Some general questions the sociology of deviance asks are the following: Who creates the definitions of deviance? Who applies those definitions? and What are the consequences of applying definitions? Applications of definitions and their consequences vary considerably according to the kinds of groups in which labeling and responses to deviance occur. If in some groups there is a lapse of time between repeated violations and labeling, in others there is a history of repeated violations without labeling.
Battered women are a case in point. For example, Kathleen J. Ferraro and John M. Johnson note that the general question asked about battered women is “Why do they stay with their partners?” People outside the situation of battering are quick to define the batterer as the deviant. By contrast, battered women in the early stages of the relationship may not see the batterer’s actions as deviant or may define themselves as the deviant ones. In time, over a long series of stages, some battered women are able to see the batterer as the one who is the deviant. And some are able to end the relationship with their partner when others assist them in redefining their situation.
On several occasions since 1850, feminists in Britain and the United States have initiated campaigns to end the battering of women by husbands and lovers, but have received little sympathy or support from the public (Dobash and Dobash, 1979). Sociologists systematically ignored the existence of violence against women until 1971, when journal articles and conferences devoted to the topic of domestic violence began to appear (Gelles, 1974; O’Brien, 1971; Steinmetz and Straus, 1974).
Through the efforts of grass-roots activists and academics, battering has been recognized as a widespread social problem (Tierney, 1982). In 1975 a random survey of U.S. families found that 3.8 percent of women experienced severe violence in their marriage (Strauss et al., 1980). The National Crime Survey of 1976 found that one-fourth of all assaults against women who had ever been married were committed by their husbands or ex-husbands (Gacquin, 1978). Shelters providing services to battered women in the United States have not been able to keep pace with requests for assistance (Colorado Association for Aid to Battered Women, 1978; Ferraro, 1981a; Roberts, 1981; Women’s Advocates, 1980).
Although the existence of violence against women is now publicly acknowledged, the experience of being battered is poorly understood. Research aimed at discovering the incidence and related social variables has been based on an operational definition of battering which focuses on the violent act. The Conflict Tactic Scales (CTS) developed by Straus (1979), for example, is based on the techniques used to resolve family conflicts.
The Violence Scale of the CTS ranks eight violent behaviors, ranging in severity from throwing something at the other person to using a knife or gun (Straus, 1979). The scale is not designed to explore the context of violent actions, or their meanings for the victim or perpetrator. With notable exceptions (Dobash and Dobash, 1979), the bulk of sociological research on battered women has focused on quantifiable variables (Gelles, 1974, 1976; O’Brien, 1971; Steinmetz, 1978; Straus, 1978).
Interviews with battered women make it apparent that the experience of violence inflicted by a husband or lover is shocking and confusing. Battering is rarely perceived as an unambiguous assault demanding immediate action to ensure future safety. In fact, battered women often remain in violent relationships for years (Pagelow, 1981).
Why do battered women stay in abusive relationships? Some observers answer faciley that they must like it. The masochism is the predominant response of psychiatrists writing about battering in the 1960s (Saul, 1972;1 Snell et al., 1964). More sympathetic studies of the problem have revealed the difficulties of disentangling oneself from a violent relationship (Hilberman, 1980; Martin, 1976; Walker, 1979).
These studies point to the social and cultural expectations of women and their status within the nuclear-family as reasons for the reluctance of battered women to flee the relationship. The socialization’ of women emphasizes the primary value of being a good wife and mother,’ at the expense of personal achievement in other spheres of life. The patriarchal ordering of society assigns a secondary status to women, and provides men with ultimate authority, both within and outside the family unit.
Economic conditions contribute to the dependency of women on men; in 1978 U.S. women earned, on the average, 58 percent of what men earned (U.S. Department of Labor, 1980). In sum, the position of women in U.S. society makes it extremely difficult for them to reject the authority of men and develop independent lives free of marital violence (Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Pagelow, 1981).
Material and cultural conditions are the background in which personal interpretations of events are developed. Women who depend on their husbands for practical support also depend on them as sources of self-esteem, emotional support, and continuity. This paper looks at how women make sense of their victimization within the context of these dependencies. Without dismissing the importance of the macro forces of gender politics, we focus on inter- and intrapersonal responses to violence. We first describe six techniques of rationalization used by women who are in relationships where battering has occurred. We then turn to catalysts which may serve as forces to reevaluate rationalizations and to initiate serious attempts at escape. Various physical and emotional responses to battering are described, and finally, we outline the consequences of leaving or attempting to leave a violent relationship.
RATIONALIZING VIOLENCE
Marriages and their unofficial counterparts develop through the efforts of each partner to maintain feelings of love and intimacy. In modem, Western cultures, the value placed on marriage is high; individuals invest a great amount of emotion in their spouses, and expect a return on that investment.
The majority of women who marry still adopt the roles of wives and mothers as primary identities, even when they work outside the home, and thus have a strong motivation to succeed in their domestic roles. Married women remain economically dependent on their husbands. In 1978, married men in the United States earned an average of $293 a week, while married women earned $167 a week (U.S. Department of Labor, 1980).
Given these high expectations and dependencies, the costs of recognizing failures and dissolving marriages are significant. Divorce is an increasingly common phenomenon in the United States, but it is still labeled a social problem and is seldom undertaken without serious deliberations and emotional upheavals (Bohannan, 1971). Levels of commitment vary widely, but some degree of commitment is implicit in the marriage contract.
When marital conflicts emerge there is usually some effort to negotiate an agreement or bargain, to ensure the continuity of the relationship (Scanzoni, 1972). Couples employ a variety of strategies, depending on the nature and extent of resources available to them, to resolve conflicts without dissolving relationships. It is thus possible for marriages to continue for years, surviving the inevitable conflicts that occur (Sprey, 1971).
In describing conflict-management, Spiegel (1968) distinguishes between “role induction” and “role modification.” Role induction refers to conflict in which “one or the other parties to the conflict agrees, submits, goes along with, become convinced, or is persuaded in some way” (196h: 402). Role modification, on the other hand, involves adaptations by both partners. Role induction seems particularly applicable to battered women who accommodate their husbands’ abuse.
Rather than seeking help or escaping, as people typically do when attacked by strangers, battered women often rationalize violence from their husbands; at least initially. Although remaining with a violent man does not indicate that a woman views violence as an acceptable aspect of the relationship, the length of time that a woman stays in the marriage after abuse begins is a rough index of her efforts to accommodate the situation. In a U.S. study of 350 battered women, Pagelow (1981) found the median length of stay after violence began was four years; some left in less than one year, others stayed as long as 42 years.
Battered women have good reasons to rationalize violence. There are few institutional, legal, or cultural supports for women fleeing violent marriages. In Roy’s (1977:32) survey of 150 battered women, 90 percent said they “thought of leaving and would have done so had the resources been available to them.” Eighty percent of Pagelow’s (1981) sample indicated previous, failed attempts to leave their husbands.
Despite the development of the international shelter movement, changes in police practices, and legislation to protect battered women since 1975, it remains extraordinarily difficult for a battered woman to escape a. violent husband determined to maintain his control. At least one woman, Mary Parziale, has been murdered by an abusive husband while residing in a shelter (Beverly, 1978); others have been murdered after leaving shelters to establish new, independent homes (Garcia, 1978). When these practical and social constraints are combined with love for and commitment to an abuser, it is obvious that there is a strong incentive-often a practical necessity-to rationalize violence.
Previous research on the rationalizations of deviant offenders has revealed a typology of “techniques of neutralization,” which allow offenders to view their actions as normal, acceptable, or at least justifiable (Sykes and Matza, 1957). A similar typology can be constructed for victims. Extending the concepts developed by Sykes and Matza, we assigned the responses of battered women we interviewed to one of six categories of rationalization: (1) the appeal to the salvation ethic; (2) the denial of the victimizer; (3) the denial of injury; (4) the denial of victimization; (5) the denial of options; and (6) the appeal to higher loyalties. The women usually employed at least one of these techniques to make sense of their situations; often they employed two or more, simultaneously or over time.
[1]. THE APPEAL TO THE SALVATION ETHIC.
The appeal to the salvation ethic: This rationalization is grounded in a woman’s desire to be of service to others. Abusing husbands are viewed as deeply troubled, perhaps “sick,” individuals, dependent on their wives’ nurturance for survival. Battered women place their own safety and happiness below their commitment to “saving my man” from whatever malady they perceive as the source of their husbands’ problems (Ferraro, 1979a).
The appeal to the salvation ethic is a common response to an alcoholic or drug-dependent abuser. The battered partners of substance-abusers frequently describe the charming, charismatic personality of their sober mates, viewing this appealing personality as the “real man” being destroyed by disease. They then assume responsibility for helping their partners to overcome their problems, viewing the batterings they receive as an index of their partners’ pathology. Abuse must be endured while helping the man return to his “normal” self. One woman said:
I thought I was going to be Florence Nightingale. He had so much potential; I could see how good he really was, and I was going to “save” him. I thought I was the only thing keeping him going, and that if I left he’d lose his job and wind up in jail. I’d make excuses to everybody for him. I’d call work and lie when he was drunk, saying he was sick. I never criticized him, because he needed my approval.
[2]. THE DENIAL OF THE VICTIMIZER.
The denial of the victimizer: This technique is similar to the salvation ethic, except that victims do not assume responsibility for solving their abusers’ problems. Women perceive battering as an event beyond the control of both spouses, and blame it on some external force. The violence is judged situational and temporary, because it is linked to unusual circumstances or a sickness which can be cured.
Pressures at work, the loss of a job, or legal problems are all situations which battered women assume as the causes of their partners’ violence. Mental illness, alcoholism, and drug addiction are also viewed as external, uncontrollable afflictions by many battered women who accept the medical perspective on such problems. By focusing on factors beyond the control of their abuser, women deny their husbands’ intent to do them harm, and thus rationalize violent episodes.
He’s sick. He didn’t used to be this way, but he can’t handle alcohol. It’s really like a disease, being an alcoholic …. I think too that this is what he saw at home, his father is a very violent man, and alcoholic too, so it’s really not his fault, because this is all he has ever known.
[3]. THE DENIAL OF INJURY
The denial of injury: For some women, the experience of being battered by a spouse is so discordant with their expectations that they simply refuse to acknowledge it. When hospitalization is not required- and it seldom is for most cases of battering1 -routines quickly return to normal. Meals are served, jobs and schools are attended, and daily chores completed.
Even with lingering pain, bruises, and cuts, the normality of everyday life overrides the strange, confusing memory of the attack. When husbands refuse to discuss or acknowledge the event, in some cases even accusing their wives of insanity, women sometimes come to believe the violence never occurred. The denial of injury does not mean that women feel no pain. They know they are hurt, but define the hurt as tolerable or normal. Just as individuals tolerate a wide range of physical discomfort before seeking medical help, battered women tolerate a wide range of physical abuse before defining it as an injurious assault. One woman explained her disbelief at her first battering:
I laid in bed and cried all night. I could not believe it had happened, and I didn’t want to believe it. We had only been married a year, and I was pregnant and excited about starting a family. Then all of a sudden, this! The next morning he told me he was sorry and it wouldn’t happen again, and I gladly kissed and made up. I wanted to forget the whole thing, and wouldn’t let myself worry about what it meant for us.
[4]. THE DENIAL OF VICTIMIZATION
The denial of victimization: Victims often blame themselves for the violence, thereby neutralizing the responsibility of the spouse. Pagelow (1981) found that 99.4 percent of battered women felt they did not deserve to be beaten, and 51 percent said they had done nothing to provoke an attack. The battered women in our sample did not believe violence against them was justified, but some felt it could have been avoided if they had been more passive and conciliatory.
Both Pagelow’s and our samples are biased in this area, because they were made up almost entirely of women who had already left their abusers, and thus would have been unlikely to feel major responsibility for the abuse they received. Retrospective accounts of victimization in our sample, however, did reveal evidence that some women believed their right to leave violent men was restricted by their participation in the conflicts. One subject said:
Well, I couldn’t really do anything about it, because I did ask for it. I knew how ta get at him, and 1’d keep after it and keep after it until he got fed up and knocked me right out. I can’t say I like it, but I shouldn’t have nagged him like I did.
As Pagelow (1981) noted, there is a difference between provocation and justification A battered woman’s belief that her actions angered her spouse to the point of violence is not synonymous with the belief that violence was therefore justified. But belief in provocation may diminish a woman’s capacity for retaliation or self-defense, because it blurs her concept of responsibility.
A woman’s acceptance of responsibility for the violent incident is encouraged by an abuser who continually denigrates her and makes unrealistic demands. Depending on the social supports available, and the personality of the battered woman, the man’s accusations of inadequacy may assume the status of truth. Such beliefs of inferiority inhibit the development of a notion of victimization.
[5]. THE DENIAL OF OPTIONS.
The denial of options: This technique is composed of two elements: practical options and emotional options. Practical options, including alternative housing, source of income, and protection from an abuser, are clearly limited by the patriarchal structure of Western society. However, there are differences in the ways battered women respond to these obstacles, ranging from determined struggle to acquiescence. For a variety of reasons, some battered women do not take full advantage of the practical opportunities which are available to escape, and some return to abusers voluntarily even after establishing an independent lifestyle.
Others ignore the most severe constraints in their efforts to escape their relationships. For example, one resident of the shelter we observed walked 30 miles in her bedroom slippers to get to the shelter, and required medical attention for blisters and cuts to her feet.
On the other hand, a woman who had a full-time job, had rented an apartment, and had been given by the shelter all the clothes, furniture, and basics necessary to set up housekeeping, returned to her husband two weeks after leaving the shelter. Other women refused to go to job interviews, keep appointments with social workers, or move out of the state for their own protection (Ferraro, 1981b). Such actions are frightening for women who have led relatively isolated or protected lives, but failure to take action leaves few alternatives to a violent marriage.
The belief of battered women that they will not be able to make it on their own-a belief often fueled by years of abuse and oppression-is a major impediment to [acknowledgment] that one is a victim and taking action.
The denial of emotional options imposes still further restrictions. Battered women may feel that no one else can provide intimacy and companionship. While physical beating is painful and dangerous, the prospect of a lonely, celibate existence is often too frightening to risk. It is not uncommon for battered women to express the belief that their abuser is the only man they could love, thus severely limiting their opportunities to discover new, more supportive relationships. One woman said:
He’s all I’ve got. My dad’s gone, and my mother disowned me when I married him. And he’s really special. He understands me, and I understand him. Nobody could take his place.
[6]. THE APPEAL TO HIGHER LOYALTIES.
The appeal to higher loyalties: This appeal involves enduring battering for the sake of some higher commitment, either religious or traditional. The Christian belief that women should serve their husbands as men serve God is invoked as a rationalization to endure a husband’s violence for later rewards in the afterlife. Clergy may support this view by advising women to pray and try harder to please their husbands (Davidson, 1978; McGlinchey, 1981).
Other women have a strong commitment to the nuclear family, and find divorce repugnant. They may believe that for their children’s sake, any marriage is better than no marriage. One woman we interviewed divorced her husband of 35 years after her last child left home. More commonly women who have survived violent relationships for that long do not have the desire or strength to divorce and begin a new life. When the appeal to higher loyalties is employed as a strategy to cope with battering, commitment to and involvement with an ideal overshadows the mundane reality of violence.
CATALYSTS FOR CHANGE
Rationalization is a way of coping with a situation in which, for either practical or emotional reasons, or both, a battered woman is stuck. For some women, the situation and the beliefs that rationalize it, may continue for a lifetime. For others, changes may occur within the relationship, within individuals, or in available resources which serve as catalysts for redefining the violence. When battered women reject prior rationalizations and begin to view themselves as true victims of abuse, the victimization process begins.2
There are a variety of catalysts for redefining abuse; we discuss six:
(1) a change in the level of violence;
(2) a change in resources;
(3) a change in the relationship;
(4) despair;
(5) a change in the visibility of violence; and
(6) external definitions of the relationship.
[1]. A CHANGE IN THE LEVEL OF VIOLENCE.
A change in the level of violence: Although Gelles (1976) reports that the severity of abuse is an important factor in women’s decisions to leave violent situations, Pagelow (1981) found no significant correlation between the number of years spent cohabiting with an abuser and the severity of abuse. On the contrary: the longer women lived with an abuser, the more severe the violence they endured, since violence increased in severity over time.
What does seem to serve as a catalyst is a sudden change in the relative level of violence. Women who suddenly realize that battering may be fatal may reject rationalizations in order to save their lives. One woman who had been severely beaten by an alcoholic husband for many years explained her decision to leave on the basis of a direct threat to her life:
It was like a pendulum. He’d swing to the extremes both ways. He’d get drunk and beat me up, and then he’d get sober and treat me like a queen. One day he put a gun to my head and pulled the trigger. It wasn’t loaded. But that’s when I decided I’d had it. I sued for separation of property. I knew what was coming again, so I got out. I didn’t want to. I still loved the guy, but I knew I had to for my own sanity.
There are, of course, many cases of homicide in which women did not escape soon enough. In 1979, 7.6 percent of all murders in the United States where the relationship between the victim and the offender was known were murders of wives by husbands (Flanagan et al., 1982). Increases in severity do not guarantee a reinterpretation of the situation, but may play a part in the process.
[2]. A CHANGE IN RESOURCES.
A change in resources: Although some women rationalize cohabiting with an abuser by claiming they have no options, others begin reinterpreting violence when the resources necessary for escape become available. The emergence of safe homes or shelters since 1970 has produced a new resource for battered women. While not completely adequate or satisfactory, the mere existence of a place to go alters the situation in which battering is experienced (Johnson, 1981).
Public support of shelters is a statement to battered women that abuse need not be tolerated. Conversely, political trends which limit resources available to women, such as cutbacks in government funding to social programs, increase fears that life outside a violent marriage is economically impossible. One 55-year-old woman discussed this catalyst:
I stayed with him because I didn’t want my kids to have the same life I did. My parents were divorced, and I was always so ashamed of that…. Yes, they’re all on their own now, so there’s no reason left to stay.
[3]. A CHANGE IN THE RELATIONSHIP.
A change in the relationship: Walker (1979), in discussing the stages of a battering relationship, notes that violent incidents are usually followed by periods of remorse and solicitude. Such phases deepen the emotional bonds, and make rejection of an abuser more difficult. But as battering progresses, periods of remorse may shorten, or disappear, eliminating the basis for maintaining a positive outlook on the marriage, After a number of episodes of violence, a man may realize that his victim will not retaliate or escape, and thus feel no need to express remorse. Extended periods devoid of kindness or love may alter a woman’s feelings toward her partner so much so that she eventually begins to define herself as a victim of abuse. One woman recalled:
At first, you know, we used to have so much fun together. He has kind’ve, you know, a magnetic personality; he can be really charming. But it isn’t fun anymore. Since the baby came, it’s changed completely. He just wants me to stay at home, while he goes out with his friends. He doesn’t even talk to me, most of the time …. No, I don’t really love him anymore, not like I did.
[4]. DESPAIR.
Despair: Changes in the relationship may result in a loss of hope that “things will get better.” When hope is destroyed and replaced by despair, rationalizations of violence may give way to the recognition of victimization. Feelings of hopelessness or despair are the basis for some efforts to assist battered women, such as Al-Anon.3 The director of an AI-Anon organized shelter explained the concept of “hitting bottom”:
Before the Al-Anon program can really be of benefit, a woman has to hit bottom. When you hit bottom, you realize that all of your own efforts to control the situation have failed; you feel helpless and lost and worthless and completely disenchanted with the world. Women can’t really be helped unless they’re ready for it and want it. Some women come here when things get bad, but they aren’t really ready to be committed to AlAnon. Things haven’t gotten bad enough for them, and they go right back. We see this all the time.
[5]. A CHANGE IN THE VISIBILITY OF VIOLENCE.
A change in the visibility of violence: Creating a web of rationalizations to overlook violence is accomplished more easily if no intruders are present to question their validity. Since most .violence between couples occurs in private, there are seldom conflicting interpretations of the event from outsiders. Only 7 percent of the respondents in Gelles’ (1974) study who discussed spatial location of violence indicated events which took place outside the home, but all reported incidents within the home. Others report similar findings (Pittman and Handy, 1964; Pokorny, 1965; Wolfgang, 1958).
If violence does occur in the presence of others, it may trigger a reinterpretation process. Battering in private is degrading, but battering in public is humiliating, for it is a statement of subordination and powerlessness. Having others witness abuse may create intolerable feelings of shame which undermine prior rationalizations.
He never hit me in public before-it was always at home. But the Saturday I got back (returned to husband from shelter), we went Christmas shopping and he slapped me in the store because of some stupid joke I made. People saw it, I know, I felt so stupid, like, they must all think what a jerk I am, what a sick couple, and I thought, “God, I must be crazy to let him do this.”
[6]. EXTERNAL DEFINITIONS OF THE RELATIONSHIP.
External definitions of the relationship: A change in visibility is usually accomplished by the interjection of external definitions of abuse. External definitions vary depending on their source and the situation; they either reinforce or undermine rationalizations. Battered women who request help frequently find others-and especially officialsdon’t believe their story or are unsympathetic (Pagelow, 1981; Pizzey, 1974). Experimental research by Shotland and Straw (1976) supports these reports. Observers usually fail to respond when a woman is attacked by a man, and justify nonintervention on the grounds that they assumed the victim and offender were married. One young woman discussed how lack of support from her family left her without hope:
It wouldn’t be so bad if my own family gave a damn about me …. Yeah, they know I’m here, and they don’t care. They didn’t care about me when I was a kid, so why should they care now? I got raped and beat as a kid, and now I get beat as an adult. Life is a big joke.
Clearly, such responses from family members contribute to the belief among battered women that there are no alternatives and that they must tolerate the abuse. However, when outsiders respond with unqualified support of the victim and condemnation of violent men, their definitions can be a potent catalyst toward victimization. Friends and relatives who show genuine concern for a woman’s well-being may initiate an awareness of danger which contradicts previous rationalizations.
My mother-in-law knew what was going on, but she wouldn’t admit it …. I said, “Morn, what do you think these bruises are?” and she said “Well, some people just bruise easy. I do it all the time, bumping into things. ” … And he just denied it, pretended like nothing happened, and if I’d said I wanted to talk about it, he’d say, “life goes on, you can’t just dwell on things.” … But this time, my neighbor knew what happened, she saw it, and when he denied it, she said, “I can’t believe it! You know that’s not true!” … and I was so happy that finally, somebody else saw what was gain’ on, and I just told him then that this time I wasn’t gonna come home!
Shelters for battered women serve not only as material resources, but as sources of external definitions which contribute to the victimization process. They offer refuge from a violent situation in which a woman may contemplate her circumstances and what she wants to do about them. Within a shelter, women meet counselors and other battered women who are familiar with rationalizations of violence and the reluctance to give up commitment to a spouse. In counseling sessions, and informal conversations with other residents, women hear horror stories from others who have already defined themselves as victims. They are supported for expressing anger and rejecting responsibility for their abuse (Ferraro, 1981a). The goal of many shelters is to overcome feelings of guilt and inadequacy so that women can make choices in their best interests. In this atmosphere, violent incidents are reexamined and redefined as assaults in which the woman was victimized.
How others respond to a battered woman’s situation is critical. The closer the relationship of others, the more significant their response is to a woman’s perception of the situation. Thus, children can either help or hinder the victim. Pizzey (1974) found adolescent boys at a shelter in Chiswick, England, often assumed the role of the abusing father and themselves abused their mothers, both verbally and physically. On the other hand, children at the shelter we observed often became extremely protective and nurturing toward their mothers. This phenomenon has been thoroughly described elsewhere (Ferraro, 1981a). Children who have· been abused by fathers who also beat their mothers experience high levels of anxiety, and rarely want to be reunited with their fathers. A 13-year-old, abused daughter of a shelter resident wrote the following message to her stepfather:
I am going to be honest and not lie. No, I don’t want you to come back. It’s not that I am jealous because mom loves you. It is [I] am afraid I won’t live to see 18. I did care about you a long time ago, but now I can’t care, for the simple reason you[‘ re J always calling us names, even my friends. And another reason is, I am tired of seeing mom hurt. She has been hurt enough in her life, and I don’t want her to be hurt any more.
No systematic research has been conducted on the influence children exert on their battered mothers, but it seems obvious that the willingness of children to leave a violent father would be an important factor in a woman’s desire to leave.
The relevance of these catalysts to a woman’s interpretation of violence vary with her own situation and personality. The process of rejecting rationalizations and becoming a victim is ambiguous, confusing, and emotional. We now turn to the feelings involved in a victimization.
THE EMOTIONAL CAREER OF VICTIMIZATION
As rationalizations give way to perceptions of victimization, a woman’s feelings about herself, her spouse, and her situation change. These feelings are imbedded in a cultural, political, and interactional structure. Initially, abuse is contrary to a woman’s cultural expectations of behavior between intimates, and therefore engenders feelings of betrayal. The husband has violated his wife’s expectations of love and protection, and thus betrayed her confidence in him. The feeling of betrayal, however, is balanced by the husband’s efforts to explain his behavior, and by the woman’s reluctance to abandon faith. Additionally, the political dominance of men within and outside the family mediate women’s ability to question the validity of their husband’s actions.
At the interpersonal level, psychological abuse accompanying violence often invokes feelings of guilt and shame in the battered victim. Men define violence as a response to their wives’ inadequacies or provocations, which leads battered women to feel that they have failed. Such character assaults are devastating, and create long-lasting feelings of inferiority (Ferraro, 1979b):
I’ve been verbally abused as well. It takes you a long time to … you may say you feel good and you may … but inside, you know what’s been said to you and it hurts for a long time. You need to build up your self-image and make yourself feel like you’re a useful person, that you’re valuable, and that you’re a good parent. You might think these things, and you ma .say them …. I’m gonna prove it to myself.
Psychologists working with battered women consistently report that self-confidence wanes over years of ridicule and criticism (Hilberman and Munson, 1978; Walker, 1979).
Feelings of guilt and shame are also mixed with a hope that things will get better, at least in the early stages of battering. Even the most violent man is nonviolent much of the time, so there is always a basis for believing that violence is exceptional and the “real man” is not a threat. The vacillation between violence and fear on the one hand, and nonviolence and affection on the other was described by a shelter resident:
First of all, the first beatings-you can’t believe it yourself. I’d go to bed, and I’d cry, and I just couldn’t believe this was happening. And I’d wake up the next morning thinking that couldn’t of happened, or maybe it was my fault. It’s so unbelievable that this person that you’re married to and you love would do that to you but yet you can’t leave either because, ya’ know, for the other 29 days of the month that person loves you and is with you.
Hope wanes as periods of love and remorse dwindle. Feelings of love and intimacy are gradually replaced with loneliness and pessimism.
Battered women who no longer feel love for their husbands but remain in their marriages enter a period of emotional dormancy. They survive each day, performing necessary tasks, with a dull depression and lack of enthusiasm. While some battered women live out their lives in this emotional desert, others are spurred by catalysts to feel either the total despair or mortal fear which leads them to seek help.
Battered women who perceive their husbands’ actions as a life-threatening experience: a penetrating fear that consumes all their thoughts and energies. The awareness of murderous intent by a presumed ally who is a central figure in all aspects of her life destroys all bases for safety. There is a feeling that death is imminent, and that there is nowhere to hide. Prior rationalizations and beliefs about a “good marriage” are exploded, leaving the woman in· a crisis of ambiguity (Ridington,1978).
Feelings of fear are experienced physiologically as well as emotionally. Battered women experience aches and fatigue, stomach pains, diarrhea or constipation, tension headaches, shakes, chills, loss of appetite, and insomnia. Sometimes, fear is expressed as a numbed shock, similar to rape trauma syndrome (Burgess and Holmstrom, 1974), in which little is felt or communicated.
If attempts to seek help succeed, overwhelming feelings of fear subside, and a rush of new emotions is felt: the original sense of betrayal reemerges, creating strong feelings of anger. For women socialized to reject angry feelings as unfeminine, coping with anger is difficult. Unless the expression of anger is encouraged in a supportive environment, such women may suppress anger and feel only depression (Ball and Wyman, 1978).
When anger is expressed, it often leads to feelings of strength and exhilaration. Freedom from threats of violence, the possibility of a new life, and the unburdening of anger create feelings of joy. The simple pleasures of going shopping, taking children to the park, or talking with other women without fear of criticism or punishment from a husband, constitute amazing freedoms.
One middle-aged woman expressed her joy over her newly acquired freedom this way:
Boy, tomorrow I’m gain’ downtown, and I’ve got my whole day planned out, and I’m gonna’ do what I wanna’ do, and if somebody doesn’t like it, to hell with them! You know, I’m having so much fun, I should’ve done this years ago!
Probably the most typical feeling expressed by women in shelters is confusion. They feel both sad and happy, excited and apprehensive, independent, yet in need of love. Most continue to feel attachment to their husbands, and feel ambivalent about divorce. There is grief over the loss of an intimate, which must be acknowledged and mourned.
Although shelters usually discourage women from contacting their abusers while staying at the shelter, most women do communicate with their husbands-and most receive desperate pleas for forgiveness and reconciliation. If there is not strong emotional support and potential material support, such encouragement by husbands often rekindles hope for the relationship. Some marriages can be revitalized through counseling, but most experts agree that long-term batterers are unlikely to change (Pagelow, 1981; Walker, 1979).
Whether they seek refuge in shelters or with friends, battered women must decide relatively quickly what actions to take. Usually, a tentative commitment is made, either to independence or working on the relationship, but such commitments are usually ambivalent. As one woman wrote to her counselor:
My feelings are so mixed up sometimes. Right now I feel my husband is really trying to change. But I know that takes time. I still feel for him some. I don’t know how much. My mind still doesn’t know what it wants. I would really like when I leave here to see him once in a while, get my apartment, and son of like start over with our relationship for me and my baby and him, to try and make it work. It might. It kind of scares me. I guess I am afraid it won’t …. I can only hope this works out. There’s no telling what could happen. No one knows.
The emotional career of battered women consists of movement from guilt, shame, and depression to fear and despair, to anger, exhilaration, and confusion. Women who escape violent relationships must deal with strong, sometimes conflicting, feelings in attempting to build new lives for themselves free of violence. The kind of response women receive when they seek help largely determines the effects these feelings have on subsequent decisions.
NOTES
- National crime survey data for 1973-76 show that 17 percent of persons who sought medical attention for injuries inflicted by an intimate were hospitalized. Eighty-seven percent of injuries inflicted by a spouse or ex-spouse were bruises, black eyes, cuts, scratches, or swelling (National Crime Survey Report, 1980).
- Explanation of why and how some women arrive at these feelings is beyond the scope of this paper. Our goal is to describe feelings at various stages of the victimization process.
- Al-Anon is the spouse’s counterpart to Alcoholics Anonymous. It is based on the same self-help, 12-step program that AA is founded on.
REFERENCES
Ball, Patricia G., and Elizabeth Wyman. 1978. “Battered wives and powerlessness: What can counselors do?” Victimology 2(3-4):545-552.
Beverly. 1978. “Shelter resident murdered by husband.” Aegis, September/October: 13.
Bohannan, Paul (ed.). 1971. Divorce and After. Garden City, New York: Anchor.
Burgess, Ann w., and Linda Lytle Holmstrom. 1974. Rape: Victims of Crisis. Bowie,
Maryland: Brady.
Colorado Association for Aid to Battered Women. 1978. Services to Battered Women.
Washington, D.C.: Office of Domestic Violence, Department of Health, Education
and Welfare.
Davidson, Terry. 1978. Conjugal Crime. New York: Hawthorn.
Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell P. Dobash. 1979. Violence Against Wives. New York:
Free Press.
Ferraro, Kathleen J. 1979a. “Hard love: Letting go of an abusive husband.” Frontiers 4(2): 16-18.
—. 1979b. “Physical and emotional battering: Aspects of managing hurt.” California Sociologist 2(2):134-149.
—. 1981a. “Battered women and the shelter movement.” Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation, Arizona State University.
—. 1981b. “Processing battered women.” Journal of Family Issues 2(4):415-438.
Flanagan, Timothy J., David J. van Alstyne, and Michael R. Gottfredson (eds.). 1982.
Sourcebook of criminal Justice Statistics: 1981. U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau
of Justice Statistics, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Gacquin, Deidre A. 1978. “Spouse abuse: Data from the National Crime Survey.”
Victimology 2:632-643.
Garcia, Dick. 1978. “Slain women ‘lived in fear.”’ The T1Il1es (Erie, Pa.) June 14:B1.
Gelles, Richard J. 1974. The Violent Home. Beverly Hills: Sage.
—.1976. “Abused wives: Why do they stay?” Journal of Marriage and the Family
38(4):659-668.
Hilberman, Elaine. 1980. “Overview: The ‘wife-beater’s wife’ reconsidered.” American
Journal of Psychiatry 137(11):1336-1347.
Hilberman, Elaine, and Kit Mnnson. 1978. “Sixty battered women.” Victimology 2(3-4):
460-470.
Johnson, John M. 1981. “Program enterprise and official cooptation of the battered
women’s shelter movement.” American Behavioral Scientist 24(6): 827-842.
McGlinchey, Anne. 1981. “Woman battering and the church’s response.” pp. 133-140 in
Albert R. Roberts (ed.), Sheltering Battered Women. New York: Springer.
Martin, Del. 1976. Battered Wives. San Francisco: Glide.
National Crime Survey Report. 1980. Intimate Victims. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.
O’Brien, John E. 1971. “Violence in divorce-prone families.” Journal of Marriage and
the Family 33(4):692-698.
Pagelow, Mildred Daley. 1981. Woman-Battering. Beverly Hills: Sage.
Pittman, D. J. and W. Handy. 1964. “Patterns in criminal aggravated assault.” Journal of
Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 55(4):462-470.
Pizzey, Erin. 1974. Scream Quietly or the Neighbors Will Hear. Baltimore: Penguin.
Pokorny, Alex D. 1965. “Human violence: A comparison of homicide, aggravated
assault, suicide, and attempted suicide.” Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science 56(December):488-497.
Ridington, Jillian. 1978. “The transition process: A feminist environment as reconstitutive
milieu.” Victimology 2(3-4):563-576.
Roberts, Albert R. 1981. Sheltering Battered Women. New York: Springer.
Roy, Maria (ed.). 1977. Battered Women. New York: Van Nostrand.
Saul, Leon 1. 1972. “Personal and social psychopathology and the primary prevention of
violence.” American Journal of Psychiatry 128(12):1578-1581.
Scanzoni, John. 1972. Sexual Bargaining. Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall.
Shotland, R. Lance, and Margret K. Straw. 1976. “Bystander response to an assault:
When a man attacks a woman.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology
34(5):990-999.
Snell, John E., Richard Rosenwald, and Ames Robey. 1964. “The wifebeater’s wife: A
study of family interaction.” Archives of General Psychiatry l1(August):107,….112.
Spiegel, John P. 1968. “The resolution of role conflict within the family.” pp. 391-411 in
- W Bell and E. F. Vogel (eds.), A Modern Introduction to the Family. New York;
Free Press.
Sprey, Jetse. 1971. “On the management of conflict in families.” Journal of Marriage
and the Family 33(4):699-706.
Steinmetz, Suzanne K. 1978. “The battered husband syndrome.” Victimology 2(3-4):499-
Steinmetz, Suzanne K., and Murray A. Straus (eds.). 1974. Violence in the Family. New York: Harper & Row.
Straus, Murray A. 1978. “Wile beating: How common and why?” Victimology 2(3-
4):443-458.
—. 1979. “Measuring intrafamily conflict and violence: The conflict tactics (CT) scales.”
Journal of Marriage and the Family 41(1):75-88.
Straus, Murray A., Richard 1. Gelles, and Suzanne K. Steinmetz. 1980. Behind Closed
Doors:Violence in the American Family. Garden City: Doubleday.
Sykes, Gresham. M., and David Matza. 1957. “Techniques of neutralization: A theory of
delinquency.” American Sociological Review 22(6):667-670.
Tierney, Kathleen J. 1982. “The battered women movement and the creation of the wife
beating problem.” Social Problems 29(3):207-220.
U.S. Department of Labor. 1980. Handbook of Labor Statistics. Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Government Printing Office.
Walker, Lenore E. 1979. The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Wolfgang, Marvin E. 1958. Patterns in Criminal Homicide. New York: John Wiley.
Women’s Advocates. 1980. Women’s Advocates: The Story of a Shelter. St. Paul, Minnesota: Women’s Advocates.
