Violence Against Women current issue

Guest Editor's Introduction

Brush, L. D. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

A Battered Women's Movement Perspective of Coercive Control

Arnold, G. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

In Coercive Control, Evan Stark calls on battered women’s activists to reorient their understanding of abusive relationships. Rather than being primarily about physical violence, he maintains, domestic violence is better conceptualized as men’s attempts to destroy women’s autonomy and reinstate patriarchy in intimate relationships. His analysis suggests important changes to defending battered women in court, modifications to the kinds of support services the movement provides for battered women, and changes in the laws and law enforcement regarding battering. Stark also maintains that, to end coercive control, the battered women’s movement must renew its commitment not only to ensuring the safety of individual women but also to attaining the feminist goal of substantive freedom and equality for women in both public and private life. I contend that Stark’s reframing of woman abuse is useful for battered women’s advocates and may, in some cases but not in others, lead to more effective practices in battered women’s programs. At the same time, it is likely to complicate activists’ efforts to mobilize public opinion, resources, and public policy to address the problem of woman abuse.

Gendering Coercive Control

Anderson, K. L. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

This article examines the theory of gender presented in Stark’s Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Personal Life. Stark suggests that gender is a form of structural inequality that makes women more vulnerable than men to the strategies of coercive control. However, Stark assumes rather than demonstrates that gendered structural inequality increases women’s vulnerability. In this article, the author applies the multilevel theory of gender as identity, interaction, and social structure to document the multiple ways coercive control is gendered. The author argues that, to understand the gender dynamics of coercive control, researchers must examine the interactions across levels of gender. The author concludes with an assessment of the prospects and pitfalls of applying the concept of coercive control to renew the feminist social movement to end domestic violence.

The Paradox of Progress: Translating Evan Stark's Coercive Control Into Legal Doctrine for Abused Women

Hanna, C. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

This article examines Evan Stark’s model of coercive control and what this paradigm shift might mean for the law. Coercive control can help redefine both criminal offenses involving domestic violence and defenses available to women who kill their abusers. This redefinition would shift the law away from incident-based violence and toward a more comprehensive and accurate paradigm that accounts for the deprivation of a woman’s autonomy within the context of an abusive relationship. Such a change would likely provide more effective state intervention into what were once considered private relationships. Yet, this approach may also have some unintended consequences, including refocusing the law on a victim’s mental state and complicity in her own abuse rather than on the harm caused by abusive men. Thus, although the law should more fully account for coercive control, lawyers must be cautiously optimistic in implementing Stark’s proposed reforms.

Reframing Violence Against Women as a Human Rights Violation: Evan Stark's Coercive Control

Libal, K., Parekh, S. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

Evan Stark claims that partner-perpetrated physical abuse and other forms of violence against women ought to be understood as a human rights violation. The authors engage Stark’s rhetorically powerful political and analytical innovation by outlining one theoretical and one practical challenge to shifting the paradigm that researchers, advocates, and policy makers use to describe, explain, and remedy the harms of coercive control from misdemeanor assault to human rights violation. The theoretical challenge involves overcoming the public/ private dichotomy that underpins liberal conceptions of human rights.The practical challenge involves using the human rights framework in the United States, given public indifference to human rights rhetoric or law, reluctance of U.S. policy makers to submit to scrutiny or justice-oriented processes under international law on issues of human rights and especially war crimes, and the consequent U.S. legacy of refusal to participate meaningfully in the international human rights process. The authors conclude that employing a human rights framework holds potential in the United States, but the paradigm shift Stark advocates will not materialize without widespread mobilization of interest in and understanding of human rights among domestic violence advocates and the society in general.

How to Tell a New Story About Battering

Polletta, F. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

As Evan Stark observes, getting domestic violence against women recognized as coercive control will require a major effort of storytelling. Women’s accounts of subjugation have to be narrated in a way that is both true to their experiences and capable of eliciting public understanding, sympathy, and action. This essay draws on an interdisciplinary literature on narrative to show why doing that poses such a formidable challenge. In lieu of the tragic form that has dominated battered women’s storytelling, and in lieu of the quest and mystery forms that appear in Stark’s own accounts, this article argues for using a rebirth story line.This genre, which has affinities with the fairytales Snow White and Sleeping Beauty, seems an unlikely vehicle for asserting battered women’s combination of victimization and agency. Drawing on the stories told by battered women as part of a successful reform effort, however, this article shows how women have used the form effectively.

Rethinking Coercive Control

Stark, E. — Fri, 13 Nov 2009 11:25:55 PST

The critical appraisals of Coercive Control focus largely on what my analysis implies for intervention, a matter to which the book devotes only limited space. In this reply, I reiterate core concepts in the book and acknowledge that much more work is needed to translate the realities of coercive control into practical legal and advocacy strategies. I review how coercive control differs from partner assaults and so why it merits a distinct response; the extent to which coercive control targets gender identity; the wisdom of complementing the focus on violence with an emphasis on male domination, sexual inequality and personal liberty; what this implies for shelters and the law; why sexual inequality differentiates coercive control from female partner abuse of men; how sexual equality can be both cause and antidote for coercive control; why I think an affirmative concept of freedom is essential to grasp the human rights violations inflicted by coercive control; and what it means to "story" coercive control by integrating women into the larger liberty narrative on which our national identity rests.