Choices: Victim Blaming, or Empowering?
Do victims actually have the power of choice in an abusive relationship?
Is the term "abusive relationship" victim blaming?
How can we navigate the world of domestic violence advocacy in a way that both holds the abuser accountable for their actions, and gives victims personal responsibility for their actions without suggesting that they are responsible for the abuse they've suffered?
Is that even possible, or is it a self-defeating and contradictory idea?
In this article we hope to clear up the waters muddied by many well-meaning advocates who in their attempt to absolve victims of all guilt and blame, end up cementing them in their victimhood with no clear path out.
Laying the Groundwork
In order to have any type of discussion in which semantics and terminology is disputed, it is important to define your terms. This section will lay the groundwork for the argument of this article.
A "relationship" is defined by the A.P.A. as:
"a continuing and often committed association between two or more people, as in a family, friendship, marriage, partnership, or other interpersonal link in which the participants have some degree of influence on each other’s thoughts, feelings, and actions"
So by definition, a relationship of any kind requires the participation of two or more parties. Without participation from both parties, there is no relationship. If one of the two parties severs the connection and withdraws their participation, there is no longer a relationship and each party's actions will no longer have a direct effect on the other.
A relationship "dynamic" describes the state or condition of the association of the two or more parties involved.
"Abuse" is defined by the A.P.A. as:
"interactions in which one person behaves in a cruel, violent, demeaning, or invasive manner toward another person or an animal. The term most commonly implies physical mistreatment but also encompasses sexual and psychological (emotional) mistreatment."
An "Abusive Relationship" is a relationship in which two people are connected to each other in some way, where one party is mistreating the other, taking advantage of their position of power in order to assert themselves as a controlling force in the other's life.
Remember:
relationship = two or more connected parties or "participants"
Abuse = misuse of power to take advantage of someone's vulnerabilities.
"Abusive relationship" means that two people are involved in a relationship where abuse is present.
The term "Abusive relationship" does NOT mutualize the abuse, because the word "abuse" already holds the understanding that there is a misuse of power (whatever form "power" may take in any given situation). It is describing the imbalance of power where two people are connected, in which one person's vulnerabilities are being taken advantage of.
The truth is that every relationship, whether good or bad, requires at least two participants who are engaging with each other with at least SOME degree of willingness. Because being connected to another human is a choice. It may be a forced, coerced, or difficult choice, but it is a choice. It may be a choice made out of fear or self preservation, but it is a choice.
So this article is specifically concerned with the subset of abuse occurring within adult relationships. In this context, absolving a victim of the responsibility of their choices by saying they "had no choice", robs them of their autonomy, placing them in an even more helpless position. If a person believes they have no control over their choices, then they have no options. If they have no options, they have no way forward. With no way forward, there is no escape from victimhood.
Remember:
Personal responsibility does not equal blame, and choice does not mean the absence of coercion or applied pressure.
Taking responsibility for your actions means nothing more than acknowledging that you alone are in control of your own mind and body.
A person might say, "I had no choice but to spend my grocery budget on rent", but this frames it in such a way that suggests there were absolutely no other options available. But it WAS a choice, and there were other options, even if those options had much more dire consequences. They chose to pay rent, because temporarily going hungry was a better alternative to becoming homeless. It's an obvious and painful choice, but it's still a choice.
Never fall for any narrative that attempts to absolve the uncertainty or guilt you feel by erasing your personal autonomy of choice. It's a controlling ideology disguised as self-empowerment.
You cannot be empowered if you have no choice.
No choice = no control
Choice = freedom and personal autonomy
Choices - As Relating to the Victim
A victim may choose to act in a way that appeases the anger of the abuser, because appeasement and submission is safest when there is no support system in place to protect them from the fallout of standing up to the abuser and leaving.
They may choose to comply in any given moment, because they are being coerced by the threat of harm (intimidation).
Emphasizing personal responsibility of choice is crucial to building up a victims sense of empowerment and freedom. Without recognition of personal choice, you undermine their sense of autonomy. If you have no choices, then you have no control. Allowing a victim to believe that they "had no choice" does a disservice to them, and sets them up to be revictimized by someone who has identified them as someone who is able to be controlled.
A victim may be manipulated or coerced into compliance, but their compliance is still chosen by the victim as it is often the safest of any available courses of action. It's important to note, that manipulation is not mind control... No individual is able to climb inside another person to force their movements or thoughts. This is why the idea of choice is so important... Because to eliminate choice, leaves a person susceptible to the belief that someone else can control their mind and actions, removing all individual autonomy. How much more vulnerable can a person be, than to believe that they have no options and choices other than those given to them by an abuser?
Here are some examples of situations in which a victim may APPEAR to have no choice, and ways to reframe the same situation to preserve the victims autonomy:
"I had to lie, or he would have hurt me" vs "I chose to lie in order to preserve my safety"
"I was forced to try and keep the house unrealistically spotless, or he would hurt my children" vs "I chose to try and maintain his imposed standards of cleanliness, because not doing so would have put the physical safety of my children at risk"
"He made me do _______" vs "I chose to do _______ when he demanded it of me, because it was easier and safer to just do what he asked than to have to manage the fallout of resisting"
Here are some examples of choices made out of self preservation instincts, and keep the victim safe.
"He hit me, so I chose to lie so he would hopefully stop."
"I decided to pretend that I was having a good time, because when I was honest in the past, he refused to speak to me for days."
This is what it looks like for a victim to "take responsibility for their choices". It merely acknowledges the choice they made in any given moment, and why they made it. It passes no value judgement on them, but helps to reframe their experience in a way that empowers them to see themselves as an individual who is capable of taking control of their life.
Conclusion:
Encouraging a victim to take responsibility for their choices is not done in order to imply blame for the abuse they have suffered- it merely provides an important distinction between the actions of the victim, versus the actions of the abuser.
The abuser may act in a way that compels the victim to choose the safest of multiple actions, but it is still the victims choice.... To comply, or to resist outwardly. The first is by far the safest of the two options when there is no immediate protection... It's often seen as a "non choice" because opposition may mean to die. But in that moment, it's crucial to remember that it is still a CHOICE. Even when faced with a choice as obvious as life or death.
You are responsible for every action YOU take, regardless of the reason or consequence. In the same manner, you bear absolutely NO responsibility for the abuse acted out on you by another person. The abuser alone is responsible for the abuse.
I'll say it again, because there is no ambiguity on this topic: you are responsible for your own actions, and the ABUSER ALONE is responsible for the abuse.
Ps82Rose
2 comments
I can appreciate this perspective to an extent. How would you frame this in terms of a father/child relationship though? Does a child truly have freedom? They have no independence. Also, if someone physically stronger than you is holding you down, you don’t actually have the choice to leave—-even if you are an adult. You can fight or succumb, but the outcome is the same. If someone threatens your life with a gun if you don’t do what they say, then most likely the only sane option in the moment is to do what they say. For all intents and purposes, you don’t have a choice. If you’ve been brainwashed to think that silence and complete submission are the only righteous responses, then your mind might not be able to rationally analyze options. Calling it a choice actually implies that they had the freedom to decide without coercion and fear. Abuse hinders agency, and I think maybe saying that it doesn’t ends up minimizing the impact of the abuse. Try making choices when you have a drunk, belligerent man holding your toddler. The decision about what you are going to do is being made for you because not complying isn’t really a reasonable or rational option for a mother in that moment. You are being forced to make the decision your abuser wants you to make. You are being controlled, which is why it’s abuse. And for the victims of child sexual abuse, telling them that they had a choice in the matter might actually bring more shame.
Offering victims protection and space to make their own choices promotes agency. Telling them their agency isn’t being hindered/taken from them is only minimizing their experience.
I could definitely be incorrect in how I’m viewing this. I would appreciate your response to my reply.
One of the problems we have in discussing abuse is that we are dealing with a topic with a relatively broad spectrum regarding severity, and it is also a complex system that is not adequately answered with a few universals. That is why this article is chiefly concerned with a relational abuse dynamic (as opposed to event-based understanding of an individual abusive act).
In addition, not every abusive relationship (or event for that matter) involves the same level of coercion, which means that there is a spectrum of coercion, thus a spectrum of freedom, and thus also responsibility.
We can illustrate the crux of the problem like this: If my big brother grabbed my hand as a child and used it to hit my sister as she passed, the big brother is entirely accountable for the hit (his agency / not mine). If my brother bribes me to hit my sister as she passes, we are both accountable: him for the bribe and me for the hit. Each is solely accountable for their personal agency and for their own volitional actions.
However, we can complicate the case a bit. If I know the big brother is going to use my arm to hit my sister, I may not be able to prevent the hit (and thus I would not be accountable for the hit), but I am morally responsible to object and/or resist. On the other hand, if I don’t resist because I think my sister deserves it for eating my candy, then I would be morally responsible for failing to object or resist, even though my brother bears the responsibility for the hit. It is my volition that makes the difference with regard to my own accountability, not the ultimate action.
In an abusive context, a victim will resist in a variety of ways (internal, external, passive, active, etc...), but the form of that resistance should always be recognized as a choice made by that person. (Compliance can understood as a form of internal resistance.) The results of that choice may or may not achieve the desired end, but it is important to respect the individual's autonomous choice and their reasons for that choice. This is a much better framework for helping the victim work through the abuse, rather than removing entirely the concept of choice in all circumstances.
It should be clear that where an injustice has been done, the one who has mistreated the other is entirely accountable for that mistreatment. However, if I watch passively as an injustice occurs and do nothing to object or prevent it (if I am able to), I am also accountable for my inaction. If I allow another to incite me to mistreat someone, then I am still accountable for what I did to them. If I am forced to mistreat someone, then I am likewise accountable to resist or object to that mistreatment.
Removing the concept of choice entirely also removes the concept of agency, and while this is true in some abuse events, it is not universally true of abuse in general, across the spectrum. Where this is not true, it is important to respect those choices as such. It is also important to note that the helper is not in the business of evaluating those choices - we are respecting them and walking with the victim as they come to understand their situation, what happened, and how they responded. The helper's role is never that of judge of motives, or choices, or not.
These distinctions become particularly important in cases where a victim chooses to take an action contrary to their own moral judgment, thus incurring a moral injury. It is also important in cases such as where the victim's choices ended up resulting in them abusing their own children. (For example, victim delivers abusive "discipline" under coercion by the abuser.) They cannot erase the children's memory of their abuse or their own sense of guilt simply because they were making what seemed like an impossible choice. The children will need the mother to take responsibility for their choices, and the impact those choices had on them.