The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control serves as a vital framework for training programs aimed at educating individuals and organizations on how to recognize, intervene in, and prevent coercive control. These programs are tailored to support families, businesses, non-profits, communities, and various organizations in dismantling harmful patterns of coercive control. The ultimate goal is to replace these negative dynamics with policies and practices that uphold human dignity, autonomy, safety, and freedom.
The D's: An Arsenal of Coercive Control Tactics
In the Quicksand Model®, the tactics of coercive control are encapsulated in what I affectionately call The D's, which include Double Standards, Double Binds, Double Speak, Double Down, Double Cross, Double Team, Double Vision, and DARVO. Each of these tactics can be viewed as a weapon in the coercive controller's arsenal, designed to undermine their target's sense of self and agency.
The Weapons of Coercive Control
Double Standards: This tactic involves applying different rules or principles to different groups, creating a sense of inequality. When wielded by a coercive controller, it weaponizes Inequality against the target.
Double Binds: A double bind places the victim in a no-win situation, where any choice leads to negative consequences. This tactic weaponizes Choice, leaving the target feeling trapped.
Double Speak: This refers to the use of ambiguous or euphemistic language to obscure the truth. In the context of coercive control, it weaponizes Communication, making it difficult for the target to discern reality. One especially harmful type of Double Speak is gaslighting.
Double Team: Here, the coercive controller enlists others to turn against the target, creating a hostile environment. This tactic weaponizes Social Connection, amplifying the victim's isolation.
Double Cross: This involves a betrayal where the coercive controller says one thing but acts in opposition. It supercharges the weaponization of Betrayal, deepening the victim's confusion and pain.
Double Down: When confronted, a coercive controller often doubles down on their lies, reinforcing their false narrative. This tactic weaponizes Repetition, making it harder for the target to challenge the controller's version of events.
Double Vision: This term describes the negative impact on the victim's perception and reality due to coercive control. It weaponizes the target's Humanity, distorting their self-image and sense of worth.
DARVO: Standing for Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender, this strategy is commonly used by perpetrators to evade accountability and shift blame onto the victim. It weaponizes Himpathy, and women's Mental Health Impacts, manipulating societal sympathies to protect the abuser.
Conclusion
In my upcoming blog, I will delve deeper into these weapons of coercive control, exploring how they ensnare victims in the quicksand of manipulation and abuse. Stay tuned for a more detailed examination of each tactic and how we can work together to dismantle these harmful patterns.
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control is a groundbreaking training program designed to make the often invisible tactics of coercive control visible and understandable. This model synthesizes 70 years of research and theory across various fields, including domestic abuse, human trafficking, cults, extremism, and trauma, to provide professionals with the tools needed to detect, intervene in, and prevent coercive control.
Key Aspects of the Quicksand Model
1. Evidence-Based Synthesis
The Quicksand Model® is an evidence-based model that integrates research from multiple disciplines, including neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and human rights. This comprehensive approach ensures that the model addresses the complex and multifaceted nature of coercive control.
2. Training for Professionals
The model is designed to quickly train professionals to recognize and address coercive control, which is often invisible in plain sight. By incorporating research on deep learning, metaphor, and alliteration, The Quicksand Model® helps overcome professional and societal biases that hinder the protection of targeted victims and accountability of perpetrators.
3. Identifying Coercive Control
The Quicksand Model® simplifies the strategies and tactics used by coercive controllers, making it easier to identify and hold perpetrators accountable. It focuses on recognizing coercive control in both the behavior of perpetrators and within system policies and practices that harm targeted victims.
4. Systemic Transformation
The model aims to facilitate systemic transformation by addressing the root causes of coercive control and shifting victim-blaming narratives. It provides real solutions for addressing systemic failures and offers collective societal hope and transformation.
5. Survivor-Centered Approach
The Quicksand Model® is trauma-informed and survivor-centered, drawing from the lived experiences of individuals and group survivors of coercive control. This approach ensures that interventions are empathetic and effective, focusing on the liberty, needs, and safety of victims.
Supporting Research and Expert Insights
1. Evan Stark's Work on Coercive Control
Renowned expert Evan Stark characterizes victims of coercive control as "hostages at home," emphasizing the systematic pattern of behavior that strips the targeted victim's liberty, freedom, and sense of self. Stark's work supports The Quicksand Model®'s focus on identifying and understanding the patterns of coercive control that underpin abusive relationships.
2. Pattern-Based Approach
The Quicksand Model™ aligns with the pattern-based model of coercive control, which contrasts with the incident-based model of domestic violence. This approach emphasizes the importance of recognizing coercive control behaviors such as isolation, excessive monitoring, denying autonomy, gaslighting, economic abuse, and post-separation abuse as red flags for intervention and support.
3. Ethical Decision-Making and Cultural Sensitivity
The model incorporates ethical decision-making skills and emphasizes the importance of cultural humility, sensitivity, and a trauma-informed lens in assessments. This ensures that professionals can effectively support targeted victims and address the full spectrum of coercive control tactics.
Conclusion
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control is a comprehensive and innovative training program that equips professionals with the knowledge and tools needed to detect, intervene in, and prevent coercive control. By making the invisible coercive controllers tactics visible, the QSM™ facilitates systemic transformation and provides real solutions for protecting victims and holding coercive controllers accountable. This model represents a significant step forward in the fight against coercive control and the promotion of a safer, more just society.
In response to the question "Could criminalizing coercive control further harm female victims?" the concise answer is a resounding yes.
This concern is frequently voiced by global domestic violence organizations when survivors seek legislative changes to outlaw coercive control. While this apprehension is valid, it’s worth noting that from the 1970s onwards, as domestic violence laws began to take shape across the United States, we've often witnessed the unintended fallout of laws designed to safeguard victims.
Various regulations, such as mandatory reporting and mandatory arrest laws, protective order procedures, supervised visitation and child support policies, among others, have been manipulated by coercive controllers. This manipulation allows them to inflict additional harm on their intended victims. This misuse extends to various other legal frameworks, policies, and procedural norms as well.
In my view, the potential for unforeseen ramifications should not deter us from enacting laws that criminalize coercive control. The reason? Coercive controllers are masters of manipulation, exploiting laws, policies, procedures, and indeed every aspect of their environment to their advantage. Thus, they will seize any opportunity to misuse any law or regulation that is implemented. To do this they use tactics such as Double Standards, Double Speak, Double Binds, Double Team, Double Cross, and DARVO etc.
So, if a coercive controller will consistently employ this form of manipulation to deceive and control, regardless of context or situation, how can we effectively reduce its prevalence? In my humble opinion, the answer lies in a comprehensive systemic transformation that addresses existing inequities and fosters liberty, freedom, and autonomy for all.
Coercive controllers are omnipresent, and their knack for securing positions of power grants them significant sway over others and larger systems. This necessitates effective strategies for identifying instances of coercive control in all situations and dislodging these manipulators from their positions of authority.
The ECCUSA recommends the following steps to revolutionize systems and prevent coercive control.
1. Criminalize coercive control so that victims have a pursuable legal means to hold coercive controllers accountable.
2. Enact additional legislation that shields vulnerable victims by safeguarding their rights and freedoms. This could be achieved through measures such as extending the statutes of limitations, and implementing laws that categorize crimes against women as hate crimes, thus mandating punitive sentences for these offenses. Make it compulsory to protect children's rights against abuse, even when the abuser is a parent. Furthermore, it's critical to establish clear legal definitions of consent. This shift would mean that victims are no longer burdened with proving their consent was infringed upon; instead, the onus would be on the perpetrators to demonstrate that they did not violate consent.
3. Amplify public understanding of the nature and dynamics of coercive control to equip individuals with the ability to identify it when they come across it. ECCUSA is employing The Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control as a tool for this purpose, but it's important to note that other organizations are also actively participating in similar awareness-raising efforts.
4. Displace coercive controllers from power, replacing them with empathetic, driven, and intelligent individuals dedicated to enhancing our communities, businesses, and the wider world.
5. Overhaul systems by eliminating coercive and controlling policies and procedures, and advocate for policies that are fair and foster liberty, freedom, and autonomy.
6. Discourage coercive controllers from utilizing coercive control by incentivizing the creation of environments that flourish through cooperation, partnership, and support for both individual and systemic growth.
This is no minor undertaking. It might be a goal that won't be realized within my lifetime, or even that of my children or grandchildren. Nonetheless, it is a noble objective that ECCUSA and I are devoted to pursuing, step by step. This includes advocating for laws that criminalize the most perilous and damaging form of abuse, coercive control.
Coercive controllers are the puppeteers of manipulation! Every strategy they employ against their chosen victims at the start of the "relationship" to fabricate The Mirage, is also utilized on friends, family, and anyone within their surrounding circle. The implementation of these coercive control tactics usually intensifies when their main target begins to comprehend the abuse. However, there's no doubt, the coercive controller has likely been practicing manipulation and deceit from the get-go.
Cunning coercive controllers understand that no one relishes the experience of abuse, and when their control over their primary target strengthens, this person may begin to resist the abusive behaviors causing them harm and/or distress. As a result, they often introduce the Double Team strategy early on, in an attempt to thwart any possible escape plans by their main target.
In my paradigm, The Quicksand Model™, I've coined the term Double Team for a specific tactic often seen in manipulative relationships. Interestingly, this tactic is colloquially known as deploying flying monkeys, a term inspired by the minions in The Wizard of Oz. The concept of "flying monkeys" or Double Team, as I prefer to call it, is generally associated with a form of psychological manipulation termed narcissistic abuse.
Though I acknowledge the term narcissistic abuse can be enlightening for victims, helping them comprehend the intricate methods their manipulators employ, an overemphasis on psychological terms like narcissism, psychopathy, or sociopathy can inadvertently limit our understanding. Such a narrow focus might overlook other equally important aspects of manipulative behavior, especially a pattern of coercively controlling abusive behavior. Hence, I prefer referring to these patterns not as traits of a specific disorder, but as tactics, strategies, or tell-tale signs of coercive control. Through this lens, we can appreciate the broader spectrum of manipulative behavior and its effects on victims, while avoiding the problematic issues that can arise from viewing a person's abuse through a diagnostic lens.
I refer to 'The Double Team' as the tactic used by a coercive controller to manipulate others into believing negative things about the target, with the intention of isolating the victim, making them appear psychologically unsound, or discrediting them in some way. The coercive controller employs this Double Team strategy to evade responsibility for their abusive actions. The presence of the Double Team is a major red flag for coercive control and its deliberate nature. This is because it often starts while the coercive controller still maintains a facade of being actively involved in the "relationship" (I'm hesitant to label these situations as genuine relationships, as they echo more of a captive scenario) with their targeted victim.
In a harmonious relationship, partners refrain from negative talk about each other. They champion one another and always extend the benefit of the doubt. They lend support to their partners in the pursuit of their dreams, and they communicate positively about them to others. When their partner is unwell or fatigued, they respond with kindness, empathy, compassion, and attentive care.
On the contrary, in a situation that only resembles a relationship in name , the victim often experiences derogatory talk from their coercive controller, usually behind their back and often well before the "relationship" breaks up. This sly and manipulative method, designed to inflict harm on the partner unknowingly and sever them from external support, unveils the intentional nature of what I refer to as the Double Team.
The Double Team isn't the sole maneuver used in coercive control that exposes the intentional characteristic of this behavior. Other signs of coercive control under The Quicksand Model™ – like Double Standards, Double Binds, Double Speak, Double Cross, Double Down, and DARVO (the D's) are equally deliberate. The same applies to the The F's of Force, Fraud, and Fear.
Certain indicators may be more discreet than others, which can make it tougher to discern their purposeful intent. However, once you identify that multiple tactics are being deliberately used to control or dominate you, it's safe to assume that even the less conspicuous behaviors also serve the same purpose.
This research study on coercive control is being conducted by Kacey Baker, a master's student in the psychology of coercive control program at the University of Salford.
If you have been targeted by coercive control, please consider participating. Here are the important details:
I am a researcher from The University of Salford conducting a study titled Investigating the potentiality of an “Extent of Coercive Control Universal Scale” - an exploratory study as part of my master’s programme dissertation in the Psychology of Coercive Control (supervised by Dr Rod Dubrow-Marshall).
The purpose of this study is to develop and validate the 'Extent of Coercive Control Universal Scale,' a tool designed to assess experiences of coercive control in different environments such as domestic situations, workplaces, cults, and human trafficking scenarios. My aim is to refine this scale to ensure it is reliable and effective for identifying if coercive control exists and presents similarly across different contexts, thereby contributing to better support and interventions for affected individuals.
I am seeking participants who have experienced coercive control in any environment to complete three short questionnaires to contribute to this study.
For more information about the study, please visit https://app.onlinesurveys.jisc.ac.uk/s/salford/extent-of-coercive-control-universal-scale
Thank you for considering this request.
Best regards, Kacey Baker K.baker7@edu.salford.ac.uk
Coercive control is a complex, nuanced, and dangerous pattern of abuses of power. It is the pattern of behavior that establishes and maintains oppression, and it is often said to be invisible in plain sight. In order to be able to see the signs of coercive control, we need to understand the biological, psychological, and social forces that are keeping coercive control invisible.
In today's blog post, I'll be discussing the initial trio of signs that constitute The Mirage™ in coercive control. Recognizing these preliminary indicators may not prevent you from being targeted, but it could potentially help you from becoming ensnared, and eventually entrapped, in the bio-psycho-social quicksand of a coercive controller.
The Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control has been meticulously crafted to expose the often unseen signs of coercive control, making the invisible visible. ECCUSA's training programs featuring The Quicksand Model™ aim to unveil the triad of aspects that coercive controllers frequently combine to ensure their targets are entranced, disoriented, and blind to the looming threat posed by the controller.
The image above illustrates how The Mirage™ encompasses three potent tactics of coercive control: manipulative kindness (also known as love-bombing), future-faking, and mirroring. Each of these tactics, individually, has the potential to destabilize a target, but when they converge, they form a formidable, almost irresistible force. That is, of course, unless you're equipped with the knowledge to identify these signs of coercive control even as they're being employed against you.
Do you see the signs of manipulative kindness, mirroring and future-faking in the image? Let's cover each one individually.
Frequently, the initial strategy deployed by a coercive controller is mirroring. "Mirroring is a behavior where one person subconsciously replicates the movements, speech patterns, or attitudes of another." Mirroring isn't inherently negative: many of us use it to some degree in our interactions. However, when wielded by a coercive controller, mirroring isn't a subconscious act, but a calculated tactic. This intent becomes apparent when we realize that it's employed to connect with the target, with the sole aim of ensnaring and eventually trapping them in the treacherous quicksand of coercive control.
Following the mirroring phase, the manipulative kindness tactic, often termed as "love-bombing", is typically set into motion. Once the target experiences a bond with the coercive controller, fostered by the use of mirroring, they might begin to notice the subsequent signs indicating that they are being subjected to coercive control. These signs can be categorized into four primary indicators: 1. The declaration of "soulmate status", 2. The showering of exaggerated compliments, 3. The giving of gifts, and 4. An onslaught of constant communication.
The concluding element of The Mirage™ is the tactic known as future-faking. Concurrent with mirroring tactics and the deployment of manipulative kindness, the coercive controller meticulously observes the target's values, aspirations, dreams, and more. They then craft a picture-perfect future, adeptly aligning it with the idealized version in the target's mind. This constructed future becomes almost irresistible for the target, as it resonates with their deepest desires and aspirations.
Coercive controllers utilize these tactics across various environments to construct The Mirage™. The more subtly and consistently these strategies are implemented, the more potent The Mirage™ becomes, masking the perilous quicksand of coercive control lurking behind its seductive surface.
Revisit the illustration provided above. Can you identify the signs of coercive control manifesting in the image of The Mirage™? Reflecting on your past, can you recall instances of these signs being used to strategically manipulate you or someone you know?
Seeing The Mirage™ unfold before you doesn't necessarily make it easy to resist, especially during significant life transitions. Instances such as departing for college, enduring a breakup, suffering a substantial loss, coping with financial instability, or relocating can heighten your susceptibility to becoming a target of coercive control.
Coercive controllers wield The Mirage™ not solely against their primary targets, but also extend its reach to professionals, friends, and family members. This becomes particularly evident when the primary victim (target) recognizes the harm being inflicted upon them and seeks help.
Professionals including therapists, attorneys, judges, police officers, and child protective services workers are not exempt from The Mirage's™ lure. They are just as susceptible as any other individual to the manipulative tactics and deceptions designed to obscure the reality of coercive control.
If you ever find yourself inexplicably drawn to someone unfamiliar, or if you're unable to articulate what you find attractive about them, recall the signs of coercive control we've discussed today that compose a coercive controller's Mirage™. And remember, if you detect a mirage masking the quicksand of coercive control, don't merely walk away - sprint in the opposite direction! The life you save could very well be your own!
In my upcoming blog post, I'll delve into detailed examples illustrating how coercive controllers employ The Mirage™ to orchestrate a 'Double Team' effect. They manipulate professionals, bystanders, friends, and family members into forming a united front against their primary victim, isolating them and, sometimes, terrorizing them further. Stay tuned for this insightful exploration.
Commencing prior to 1970, the battered women's movement, spearheaded by survivors and driven by aspirations to diminish domestic violence and safeguard women seeking refuge, initially framed domestic violence through a lens that persists in law enforcement and the legal system today. This lens, known as the violent incident model, continues to shape perceptions and responses to domestic violence.
The violent incident model proves to be especially inadequate when applied to the intricate and nuanced patterns of behavior characteristic of domestic abuse, domestic violence, and coercive control. Why? Because relying solely on this lens to evaluate cases, particularly those involving coercive control, is akin to judging a book solely by its cover. By focusing solely on individual incidents, the most crucial elements of the pattern—the context—are overlooked, thereby undermining a comprehensive understanding of the situation. When law enforcement and court professionals employ this insufficient perspective to assess targeted victims and offenders, they not only overlook the critical elements of the behavior pattern, but they also frequently misconstrue the dynamics entirely, leading to harmful, and even dangerous outcomes.
The Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control provides one possible solution to this problem. The Quicksand Model™ was created by synthesizing 70 years of evidence-based research on coercive control, plus trauma learning styles, metaphor and alliterations, to make it easy to learn and apply. While there are other models that apply to individual contexts, like Evan Stark's framework for coercive control within domestic abuse, Cialdini's 7 principles of persuasion that applies to influence within sales, Biderman's chart of coercion, based on prisoners of war research and Steve Hassan's BITE Model of Authoritarian Control from cults, The Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control was designed to apply across all of these contexts and more.
The Quicksand Model™ was purposefully crafted and refined to aid professionals in comprehensively understanding the entire context of behavioral patterns, steering them away from the limitations of the violent incident model towards a more holistic perspective.
Today, I'll delve into two significant issues with the prevailing violent incident model (there are many more that I'll save for another blog).
1. It fosters a false equivalency that often causes professionals to mistakenly perceive the victim as the perpetrator and vice versa.
2. It places undue emphasis on physical violence, effectively allowing perpetrators to evade detection despite exhibiting other forms of abusive behavior.
You might be wondering, what exactly is a false equivalency? Well, if you've experienced coercive control, you've likely encountered false equivalencies numerous times. Coercive controllers often create false equivalencies to cause confusion, cognitive dissonance (aspects of double vision) and to avoid accountability. It's simply a sophisticated way of saying "comparing apples and oranges." The violent incident model essentially compels our systems to make this comparison by disregarding context. But what does that mean? Let's break it down with a quick example.
Take Mary and Scott, a married couple. Scott becomes angry with Mary for not having dinner ready at 6 pm as he demanded. In frustration, he slaps her to assert his dominance and to motivate her, in his mind, to comply with his demands in the future. Distressed, Mary attempts to leave the room to escape Scott's verbal abuse, but he blocks her path, continuing to belittle her. When Scott grabs Mary's arm to restrain her, she instinctively slaps him back and then pushes past him to escape.
According to the violent incident model, both Scott and Mary are guilty of assault and domestic violence because they both engaged in physical violence. However, this is a false equivalency because their actions are not equal. Their motivations, levels of fear, harm inflicted, and goals differ significantly. By solely focusing on the physical altercation, the system effectively treats perpetrator and victim as equally responsible. But are they truly equally responsible? Scott's actions were driven by a desire for control and domination, while Mary acted out of a need to preserve her dignity, autonomy, and safety. Scott's violence extended beyond the physical slap, encompassing emotional abuse and coercion, aspects overlooked by the violent incident model. Mary's slap likely left her feeling frightened, humiliated, and diminished, impacting her self-esteem and autonomy. Holding Scott accountable for his actions requires acknowledging not only the physical violence but also the broader context of coercion, fear, and degradation inflicted upon Mary.
We need to abandon this violent incident model for a more effective pattern-based approach, one that not only provides for context, but requires it.
Have you ever found yourself unjustly shouldering the blame for the actions of your coercive controller? Victim-blaming is a pervasive issue, particularly in cases involving coercive control.
Unveiling the invisible nature of coercive control is crucial to understanding this phenomenon. Despite its prevalence, coercive control remains unnoticed in plain sight. Imagine a scenario where evidence is abundantly available, easily identifiable for those in the know, yet elusive to those unaware of its existence – a hidden reality right before our eyes.
Let's explore the reasons behind victim-blaming, demystify the covert nature of coercive control, and empower ourselves with knowledge to break free from its insidious grasp.
In this discussion, I'll explore the Karpman Triangle, a well-known model for understanding dysfunction in relationships. We'll delve into how this model can be manipulated by coercive controllers to exert dominance and control, ultimately ensnaring their targets in a web of coercive and controlling abuse... often with the unwitting assistance of a well-meaning therapist.
What is The Karpman Triangle? Let's see what Chat GPT has to say...
"The Karpman Drama Triangle is a social model developed by psychologist Stephen Karpman in the 1960s. It illustrates the dynamics of dysfunctional relationships and the roles that people often unconsciously adopt in conflict situations. The triangle consists of three interconnected roles: the Victim, the Persecutor, and the Rescuer.
Victim: The person in the Victim role perceives themselves as helpless, oppressed, or mistreated. They often feel overwhelmed by circumstances and may seek pity or sympathy from others. In the context of the triangle, the Victim may unknowingly contribute to their own victimization and can switch roles with others in the drama.
Persecutor: The Persecutor is the one who blames, criticizes, or attacks others. They may appear aggressive, controlling, or superior. In the drama triangle, the Persecutor may target the Victim, holding them responsible for the perceived issues. Interestingly, individuals can shift from the Victim to the Persecutor role and vice versa.
Rescuer: The Rescuer believes they must intervene to save others from their problems. They often offer unsolicited advice, assistance, or protection. While appearing helpful, the Rescuer can inadvertently perpetuate the drama by reinforcing the Victim's sense of helplessness or triggering the Persecutor's defensive reactions.
The Karpman Drama Triangle describes a cyclical pattern where individuals move between these roles, creating a dynamic and often unhealthy dance in relationships. Awareness of these roles can be a first step in breaking free from the drama and fostering healthier interactions. The goal is to encourage individuals to move towards more empowering and constructive ways of relating to each other, transcending the limitations of the Drama Triangle."
As I see it, The Karpman Triangle (AKA Drama Triangle), can be, and likely is, quite useful when used in counseling with two parties that are equally committed to healthier ways of relating. If two relatively healthy and normal people are involved, this concept has real potential.
However, the concepts in the Drama Triangle have also been effectively weaponized by those with malicious intent who have essentially redefined the word victim, and that has done a great disservice to those who have been truly victimized.
Here are three definitions from the Oxford Dictionary for victim:
1. a person harmed, injured, or killed as a result of a crime, accident, or other event or action. "victims of domestic violence"
2. a person who is tricked or duped. "the victim of a hoax"
3. a living creature killed as a religious sacrifice. "sacrificial victims for the ritual festivals"
Compare these definitions to the definition of victim in the Karpman Triangle:
"Victim: The person in the Victim role perceives themselves as helpless, oppressed, or mistreated. They often feel overwhelmed by circumstances and may seek pity or sympathy from others. In the context of the triangle, the Victim may unknowingly contribute to their own victimization and can switch roles with others in the drama."
The definition of the Karpman Triangle presents a stark departure from the conventional understanding of victimhood. Rather than acknowledging genuine victimization, it ascribes blame to the victim for their own abuse. When the Drama Triangle refers to someone as being in the role of a victim, it implies that the individual is "playing the victim" rather than actually experiencing victimization.
It is crucial to emphasize that targets of coercive control are not merely "playing victim" or seeking unwarranted sympathy. They are seeking compassion and understanding for the intentional harm inflicted upon them by another person. Targets of coercive control have undeniably been victimized.
Conversely, within the coercive control dynamic, it is often the coercive controller who assumes the role of "playing the victim." These controllers are adept at switching between all three roles in the Drama Triangle, causing confusion and psychological harm to the true victim. Strategies like DARVO are employed to manipulate perceptions and portray the coercive controller as the victim, thereby obscuring the reality of the situation.
In therapeutic settings, coercive controllers may exploit theories like the Karpman Triangle to obfuscate the truth and divert attention away from their abusive behavior. Therapy presupposes honesty and a willingness to change, qualities that coercive controllers typically lack. If therapists mistakenly perceive the coercive controller as sincere, it becomes challenging to identify and address tactics like gaslighting. Consequently, victims may find themselves repeatedly re-traumatized as blame is unfairly shifted onto their shoulders.
Whether in therapeutic settings or other contexts, it is paramount to apply appropriate context to prevent potentially harmful outcomes. Stay tuned for my upcoming blog where I will delve into the significance of context and its impact when assessing a situation for coercive control.
Coercive control laws are being proposed and passed around the world. Laws that define coercive and controlling behaviors began in the UK, and Australia, Scotland, Canada and the US are taking steps to address coercive control in criminal and/or civil legislation. But coercive control legislation is moving slowly, and I believe one big reason for that is not that we haven't defined what coercive control IS, but that we have not defined what it is NOT.
You see, at it's most basic, coercive control is a pattern of behaviors that violate another person's autonomy. It is a pattern of abuses of power. When one person ignores another person's right to their own thoughts, feelings and behaviors, in order to control or dominate them, that IS coercive control. And definitions of coercive control are being codified across the world as coercive control legislation is being proposed and implemented.
But there is a major problem. There are many people fighting to stop, or at least slow down, the passage of coercive control laws. Why?
Logistically coercive control can be hard to prove, because our current laws do not define the thing that coercive control violates... Consent.
Current coercive control laws offer examples of coercive and controlling behaviors. But this presents problems when it comes to implementation.
Domestic violence, family violence, domestic abuse can be more easily proven than coercive control, because these laws rely heavily on incidents of physical violence, and physical violence is easier to prove. If you have a black eye when the police arrive, it is pretty clear that you are the victim. Physical violence is rather black and white. However, domestic abuse, domestic violence and coercive control, without the presence of physical violence, is not as straight forward. Even physical violence is not straight forward when victims fight back.
Over the past fifty years domestic violence and domestic abuse advocates have attempted to put laws in place to protect victims. However, mandatory arrest laws and primary aggressor laws have often had unintended consequences for victims. In some states dual arrests, where both parties are arrested, are common, and worse, many cases involve arresting the victim instead of the perpetrator.
Why is this happening?
The truth is domestic violence, family violence and domestic abuse laws have never really been adequate to address the ways victims experience abuse or the ways perpetrators exploit systems to avoid accountability. Most current laws still focus on the single incident model of physical violence, which ignores nearly all coercive control. If all the system looks for is physical violence, it misses psychological violence, emotional violence, financial violence, weaponization of children, abuse by proxy, stalking, veiled threats, cultural violence, sexual violence, spiritual violence, litigious violence etc.
The single incident model misses nearly 100% of Consent Violations!
Joyce Short, Cheif Executive of the Consent Awareness Network says in this Indoctrination Podcast interview, that if there is fear, fraud or force involved, there is no consent. Well, isn't that exactly what coercive control is... the use of fear, fraud or force to violate consent.
Right now crimes of domestic violence, sexual assault, abuse by controlling groups like cults, human trafficking, all contexts where coercive control thrives, are rarely reported, charged or prosecuted. Why? Because we don't have the thing that coercive control violates defined in the law. We have not defined consent, and so police, attorneys, and judges have nothing against which to compare the perpetrator's actions with illegal activity.
So, when a woman alleges she has been raped, a violation of her bodily autonomy, because consent is not defined in the law, she is expected to "prove" that she did not consent, but with no definition for the jury to refer to. How can a jury determine if she consented unless they know what consent means? And, because, in the US, we have a presumption of innocence, most perpetrators are never held accountable for rape. The same is true for domestic violence victims and victims of coercive and controlling groups.
However, if consent were defined in law as Freely Given Knowledgable and Informed Agreement (#FGKIA) or as FRIES, Freely Given Reversible Informed Enthusiastic and Specific, it would become much more clear that a crime had occurred. These are two possible definitions of consent that could be codified in the law, which, if they were, could potentially lead to a much higher percentage of coercive control cases being charged and prosecuted.
Evan Stark calls coercive control a "liberty crime", and I would argue, that makes it a criminal violation of consent.
What do you think of these two potential definitions of consent? Do you prefer one over the other? Why?
This blog is a shout out to my colleague Elle Kamihira for her podcast Subject to Power and the terrific interview she conducted with Riane Eisler, titled Systems of Peace.
As I continue to develop my Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control I often come across new, and not so new, research and theories that are compatible and useful enhancements to my model. Riane Eisler's work on partnership systems and domination systems definitely fits that bill.
"Riane Eisler is a social systems scientist, cultural historian, futurist, and attorney whose research, writing, and speaking has transformed the lives of people worldwide." Just like the Quicksand Model™, the partnership domination continuum is a systems-based approach to transformation (which can be especially important when addressing things like domestic abuse and coercive control).
I have a deep appreciation for this model! Its foundation in systems thinking, which I see as crucial for putting an end to coercive control, makes it even more commendable. Additionally, it's remarkably straightforward and accessible. The partnership systems model classifies cultures by their position on the partnership-to-domination continuum, and its simplicity is truly brilliant!
Despite its ease of understanding and straightforward application, the model accommodates nuance by situating cultures on a continuum rather than at extreme ends. This avoids fostering divisive black and white thinking that could fuel extremism and hate. The partnership domination continuum serves as a valuable guide, steering away from domination and towards peace.
You might be curious about the connection to coercive control. Coercive control involves a recurring pattern of behavior aimed at dominating someone through force, fraud, or fear, and it thrives within domination systems. Listening to Elle's podcast interview with Riane Eisler, I realized how seamlessly the partnership domination continuum offers a straightforward framework for identification and serves as an antidote to coercive control, aligning perfectly with the Quicksand Model™.
I strongly endorse this podcast! Perhaps, after tuning in, you'll feel as inspired as I did to delve into Riane Eisler's writings. I'm currently halfway through Nurturing Our Humanity, which when coupled with the application of the Quicksand Model™, has the potential to genuinely reshape the world.
Thank You to Elle & Riane for their dedicated efforts in combating domination (coercive control) and gender-based violence (also coercive control)!