An Analysis of "Wicked" Through The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control and Institutional Betrayal
"Wicked," the renowned Broadway musical reimagining of "The Wizard of Oz," offers a compelling narrative for exploring the intricate dynamics of power, manipulation, and coercive control within both personal relationships and institutional contexts. By employing a multifaceted approach that combines my Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control, Evan Stark's framework of coercive control, Steven Hassan's BITE Model, and Harsey & Freyd's theory of institutional betrayal, we can uncover profound insights into the characters' motivations and actions, and learn potentially effective ways for addressing coercive control in our own families, groups, businesses and communities.
This analysis will demonstrate how Elphaba's journey in "Wicked" mirrors the insidious progression from being ensnared, entrapped, and exploited by systemic coercive control, before culminating in her acts of resistance and escape. Through this lens, we will explore how the musical serves as a powerful allegory for the complex interplay between individual agency, institutional power, and societal expectations, reflecting real-world dynamics of manipulation, betrayal, and the struggle for autonomy.
By examining the characters' experiences through these theoretical frameworks, we can gain a deeper understanding of how coercive control operates on both personal and institutional levels, and how resistance to systemic coercive control can manifest even in the face of overwhelming odds.
The Quicksand Model® and Coercive Control: A Brief Overview
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control, developed by me, Kate Amber MSc, is a tool used to understand and articulate patterns of power, coercion and control, particularly in relationships. It emphasizes how the target becomes gradually entrapped, much like sinking in quicksand, with the coercive controller exerting control subtly and progressively.
This model aligns with Evan Stark's work on coercive control, which highlights how abusers use various tactics to dominate and control their targets, extending their dominance over time and through social space. Stark's research emphasizes that coercive control is not merely a pattern of abuse, that may or may not include physical violence, but a pattern of behavior that can predict extremely negative outcomes.
Elphaba and The Mirage of Coercive Control
Elphaba's journey in "Wicked" reflects the often circuitous steps of the Quicksand Model®, from the coercive controller ensnaring and entrapping her to her acts of resistance and escape from the quicksand of coercive control. Her experience can be analyzed through the lenses of Steven Hassan's BITE Model, which outlines four primary methods of control: Behavior, Information, Thought, and Emotional control.
At first, Elphaba's unique magical abilities are celebrated and nurtured by Madame Morrible and the Wizard. This admiration is part of 'The Mirage' – a triad of manipulative behaviors including future-faking, mirroring, and manipulative kindness (also known as love-bombing). These tactics align with the Emotional Control aspect of the BITE Model, where cults, high-control, or coercively controlling groups use emotional manipulation to foster dependency and loyalty.
Future-faking involves making grand (but false) promises about the future to seduce the target into the relationship. Madame Morrible and the Wizard fill Elphaba with visions of a future where she can use her powers for the greater good, ensnaring her in the quicksand. This aligns with the Thought Control aspect of the BITE Model, where members are indoctrinated and discouraged from questioning the group's teachings.
Mirroring, the act of mimicking the target's desires and values, is also used to draw Elphaba in. The Wizard, in particular, presents himself as a kindred spirit, further deepening Elphaba's trust and dependence on him. This tactic falls under the Information Control category of the BITE Model, where information is manipulated to maintain control.
Manipulative kindness, or love-bombing, is used to make Elphaba feel special and valued, setting the stage for deeper entrapment. This emotional manipulation is a key aspect of coercive control as described by Stark, where abusers use a range of controlling behaviors to dominate their targets.
The D's of Coercive Control in "Wicked"
The Wizard's interactions with Elphaba in "Wicked" exemplify a stark abuse of power through the application of insidious double standards, as he exploits her innate magical abilities for his own agenda while simultaneously vilifying her as the "Wicked Witch of the West" to the public, thereby maintaining his facade of benevolent leadership while covertly undermining Elphaba's autonomy and reputation. This type of behavior is common with covert narcissists, who often maintain their dominance through subtle and subversive means.
This manipulation not only serves to isolate Elphaba but also reinforces the Wizard's superficial authority, highlighting the disparity between his public persona as a wise and just ruler and his private machinations of coercion and deceit. The Wizard's actions reflect a broader pattern of authority figures using double standards to maintain control, where their own morally questionable behaviors are overlooked or justified, while resistance or challenges to their power are swiftly condemned and punished.
The Wizard's regime creates Double Binds for Elphaba, forcing her into situations where any choice leads to negative consequences, such as when she must decide between using her powers for the Wizard's agenda or being labeled as wicked.
Double Speak is a prevalent tactic employed by both the Wizard and Madame Morrible, who use ambiguous language and propaganda to obscure the truth about their oppressive regime and Elphaba's true nature.
The Double Team tactic is demonstrated when the Wizard and Madame Morrible enlist the flying monkeys to turn against Elphaba, creating a hostile environment that amplifies her isolation, and provokes them to attack her unfairly.
The Wizard's promises of acceptance and power to Elphaba, which he never intends to fulfill, exemplify the Double Cross tactic.
When confronted with the truth, the Wizard often Doubles Down on his lies, reinforcing the false narrative about Elphaba's wickedness.
The cumulative effect of these tactics results in Double Vision for Elphaba, distorting her self-image and sense of worth as she struggles against the labels imposed upon her.
Finally, the Wizard's regime employs DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) by consistently portraying Elphaba as the villain while presenting themselves as the protectors of Oz, manipulating societal sympathies to maintain their power. Through these intricate character dynamics and plot elements, "Wicked" provides a nuanced exploration of coercive control within a fantastical setting, mirroring real-world power structures and manipulation tactics.
Glinda's Role in Elphaba's Isolation and Resistance
Glinda's character development in "Wicked" plays a crucial role in the dynamics of coercive control and isolation experienced by Elphaba, illustrating key aspects of The Quicksand Model®. Initially portrayed as a superficial and naive young woman, Glinda undergoes a transformation that highlights the complexities of complicity in systems of oppression. Her relationship with Elphaba exemplifies the "divide and conquer" (aka Double Team) tactic often employed in coercive control situations, where the creation of rivalries and jealousies serves to isolate the victim.
Glinda's silence and compliance with the Wizard's propaganda, despite her friendship with Elphaba, contribute significantly to Elphaba's isolation and eventual labeling as the "Wicked Witch." This dynamic reflects the "Double Team" tactic from The Quicksand Model®, where multiple parties, even unwittingly, collaborate to reinforce the isolation of the targeted victim. This juxtaposition between Glinda's conformity and Elphaba's defiance underscores the themes of The Quicksand Model®, particularly the goals of the coercive controller to ensnare, entrap, and prevent escape through escalation, and ultimately the target's resistance and escape from coercive control.
Institutional Betrayal in Oz
As the story progresses, the Wizard and Madame Morrible exploit Elphaba's abilities for their own purposes, manipulating her into believing that she is using her powers for the greater good. This exploitation can be seen as a form of institutional betrayal, a concept developed by Jennifer Freyd and Sarah Harsey.
The Emerald City, as an institution, fails to protect Elphaba and instead perpetuates harm through its actions and policies. The Wizard's regime demonstrates various forms of institutional betrayal:
This betrayal is particularly damaging because it involves a violation of trust and dependency, which can have severe negative effects on mental and physical health.
Entrapment and Isolation
Elphaba's journey also illustrates the concepts of entrapment and isolation central to Evan Stark's work on coercive control and The Quicksand Model®. As she becomes more deeply involved with the Wizard's regime, Elphaba finds herself increasingly isolated from her former life and relationships. This isolation is a key tactic in maintaining coercive control, as it limits the targeted victim's access to support and alternative perspectives.
The Behavior Control aspect of the BITE Model is also evident in how Elphaba's actions are increasingly dictated by the Wizard and Madame Morrible, from her public appearances to her use of magic. This control extends to her social interactions, further isolating her from potential allies.
Resistance and Escape
Despite being ensnared, entrapped, exploited, and enslaved, Elphaba ultimately shows remarkable resilience. Her journey of resistance and escape embodies the entrapped target's goal - 'Resistance and Possible Escape.' This resistance aligns with Stark's emphasis on the importance of recognizing and addressing the full scope of coercive control, including its psychological and emotional dimensions.
Elphaba's escape from the Wizard's control can be seen as an act of "institutional courage," a concept proposed by Freyd and Harsey as a counterpoint to institutional betrayal. By standing up against the corrupt regime, in the final song Defying Gravity, Elphaba demonstrates the power of truth-seeking and moral action in the face of systemic oppression.
Conclusion
By analyzing "Wicked" through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, alongside concepts from Stark's work on coercive control, Hassan's BITE Model, and Freyd and Harsey's institutional betrayal framework, we gain a deeper understanding of the characters' motivations and actions. The musical serves as a powerful allegory for the complex dynamics of coercion, power, control, and resistance in personal relationships and broader societal contexts.
Elphaba's journey from entrapment to resistance illustrates the insidious nature of coercive control and the profound impact of institutional betrayal. At the same time, her ultimate defiance and escape offer a hopeful message about the possibility of resistance and the importance of challenging oppressive systems, even in the face of overwhelming odds.
While we've dived into 'Wicked' and unraveled some of its layers through a coercive control lens, it's worth noting that there's a whole lot more to this musical! Our exploration is just scratching the surface, and there are countless other interpretations and hidden gems tucked away in the complex narrative and colorful characters of 'Wicked'.
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
As we approach the end of 2024, it's crucial to shed light on the pervasive issues plaguing our family court systems and the devastating impact they have on protective parents, mostly mothers, and their children. Today, I want to delve into the interconnected web of coercive control, parental alienation, reunification camps, and institutional abuse within family courts. These issues are not just theoretical concepts but real-life nightmares for countless families worldwide.
The Insidious Nature of Coercive Control
Coercive control is a pattern of behavior that seeks to strip away the victim's sense of self, their autonomy, and their ability to make decisions for themselves and their children. One form of coercive control is domestic abuse which goes beyond physical violence, encompassing psychological, emotional, and financial manipulation, among other types of coercion and control.
A systematic review published in the journal "Trauma, Violence, & Abuse" titled "Interparental Coercive Control and Child and Family Outcomes" highlights the devastating impact of coercive control on children. The study found that children exposed to coercive control between parents experience a range of negative outcomes, including:
- Increased risk of mental health problems
- Behavioral issues
- Poor academic performance
- Difficulties in forming healthy relationships
What's particularly alarming is how coercive control can persist and even escalate after separation, often using the family court system as a tool for continued abuse.
The Misuse of Parental Alienation Theory
One of the most insidious weapons in the arsenal of abusive partners is the misuse of the concept of "parental alienation." This pseudo-scientific theory suggests that one parent (usually the mother) is deliberately turning the child against the other parent (usually the father). However, this concept has been widely criticized by experts in the field of domestic violence and child abuse.
A collective international response to the claim of parental alienation being a "gender-neutral" empirical phenomenon challenges this notion. The response, authored by a group of renowned researchers and practitioners, argues that:
- Parental alienation lacks a clear, consistent definition
- There are no reliable measures to assess it
- It often ignores the context of abuse and violence
- It can be used to silence and punish protective parents, usually mothers
The use of parental alienation claims in family courts has led to dangerous outcomes, where abusive parents are granted custody of children, and protective parents are punished for trying to keep their children safe.
The Trauma of Reunification Camps
In some extreme cases, family courts may order children to attend "reunification camps" or programs designed to repair relationships with allegedly alienated parents. These programs, often lacking proper oversight and evidence-based practices, can inflict severe trauma on children and protective parents alike.
The article "'Swim, swim and die at the beach': family court and perpetrator induced trauma (CPIT) experiences of mothers in Brazil" provides a harrowing account of how these interventions can go terribly wrong. The study documents cases where children were forced into contact with abusive parents, leading to severe psychological distress and, in some cases, tragic outcomes.
Institutional Abuse: When the System Fails Protective Mothers
Perhaps one of the most heartbreaking aspects of this issue is the institutional abuse perpetrated by the very systems meant to protect vulnerable families. The article "Institutional Abuse: When Protective Mothers Become Victims of the System" exposes how family courts, child protective services, and other institutions often re-traumatize victims of domestic violence.
Key findings from this research include:
- Protective mothers are often disbelieved or dismissed when reporting abuse
- The burden of proof is disproportionately placed on victims
- Financial abuse continues through prolonged court battles
- Children's voices and experiences are frequently ignored
This institutional abuse is further compounded by what researchers term "judicial patriarchy." The article "JUDICIAL PATRIARCHY AND DOMESTIC VIOLENCE: A CHALLENGE TO THE CONVENTIONAL FAMILY PRIVACY NARRATIVE" explores how deeply ingrained patriarchal attitudes within the judiciary can lead to biased decision-making that favors abusive fathers over protective mothers.
The Silencing of Mothers
Another critical aspect of this issue is the silencing of mothers who experience abuse from their adolescent children. The study "Silenced Mothers: Exploring Definitions of Adolescent-to-Parent Violence and Implications for Practice" sheds light on this often-overlooked form of family violence.
The research reveals that:
- Mothers experiencing violence from their adolescent children often face disbelief and stigma
- There's a lack of appropriate support services for these mothers
- The violence is often a continuation of patterns established by an abusive partner
This silencing further compounds the trauma experienced by mothers navigating the complex landscape of family violence and court interventions.
A Framework for Change
In light of these interconnected issues, it's clear that a comprehensive framework is needed to address allegations of domestic violence in child custody disputes. The article "A Framework for Addressing Allegations of Domestic Violence in Child Custody Disputes" proposes a model that:
- Prioritizes child safety and well-being
- Recognizes the impact of coercive control on parenting
- Implements evidence-based assessment tools
- Provides specialized training for judges, lawyers, and court personnel
- Ensures ongoing monitoring and accountability
As we move forward, it's crucial that we continue to raise awareness about these issues and push for systemic change. The lives of countless mothers and children, and those who love them, depend on our ability to recognize and respond to the complex dynamics of family violence, coercive control, and institutional abuse.
In conclusion, as the creator of The Quicksand Model® of coercive control, I urge all professionals working in the family court system, policymakers, and the general public to educate themselves on these critical issues. Only through increased awareness, evidence-based practices, and a commitment to prioritizing the safety and well-being of victims can we hope to create a justice system that truly protects the most vulnerable among us.
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
Debunking the Myth of Mutual Abuse
In the complex world of interpersonal relationships, one unfounded myth continues to persist – the myth of mutual abuse. This notion, which proposes that both parties in a relationship engage in consistent, reciprocal abuse, is not only ill-defined but can also be dangerously misleading. Let's delve into the reasons why this is a dangerous misconception and explore a more effective framework for understanding abusive dynamics: coercive control, utilizing The Quicksand Model®.
The Myth of Mutual Abuse
The myth of mutual abuse is often born out of misunderstandings about the nature of abusive and coercively controlling relationships. It suggests that both individuals involved are equally to blame for the violence or mistreatment, which can mask the power imbalances that frequently characterize abusive situations.
The primary issue with the mutual abuse concept is that it assumes an equal distribution of power and responsibility. It implies that both parties have an equal ability to harm the other and to stop the abuse and violence, which is rarely (if ever) the case in coercively controlling relationships.
Understanding Coercive Control
Coercive control provides a more accurate and nuanced framework for understanding abusive dynamics. This concept, developed by Evan Stark, describes a pattern of behavior by which coercive controllers seek to gain and maintain control over their targeted victims through threats, humiliation, manipulation etc.
Coercive control goes beyond physical violence and often includes emotional, psychological, sexual and financial abuse. It involves a pattern of domination that can infiltrate every aspect of a target's life, severely limiting their freedom and autonomy.
In the complex dynamic of coercive control, the coercive controller's actions are always aimed at domination, while the target's responses are primarily self-protective measures or attempts to minimize harm, what The Quicksand Model® (and the Safe & Together Institute) refer to as #ActsOfResistance. To an outside observer, particularly one unfamiliar with the context of coercive control, the actions of both parties may seem equally abusive. However, a deeper understanding reveals a stark contrast: the coercive controller is intentionally entrapping and exploiting the target. Within this context, it becomes clear that the onus of the inflicted harm rests entirely on the coercive controller, debunking the myth of mutual abuse and highlighting the insidious nature of coercive control.
The Quicksand Model®
The Quicksand Model® is a powerful metaphor for understanding the dynamics of coercive control. Like quicksand, an abusive coercive controller can draw targets in slowly and subtly. The more they struggle to escape, the deeper they're pulled in.
The Quicksand Model® challenges traditional understandings of domestic abuse by offering a nuanced perspective on the tactics of coercion and control. This model, unlike others that depict abuse as a linear process or a repeating cycle, asserts that coercive control is an ongoing assault starting from day one - a phrase coined by our recently departed colleague Andrew Cicchetti.
Coercive controllers employ a variety of tactics, known as 'The E's,' to establish dominance, oppress their targets, and prevent escape. These tactics (The E's / Goals of Coercive Control) are strategic and flexible, applied from the outset of the relationship or group involvement and continuing even post-separation. Intriguingly, some tactics may masquerade as acts of kindness or love, such as manipulative kindness. However, these are not genuine expressions of affection but meticulously designed strategies to camouflage the coercive controller's efforts to maintain power, thus making them invisible in plain sight.
Ensnare
The coercive controller uses methods such as future faking, mirroring, and manipulative kindness (also known as love bombing) to create an illusion, or #TheMirage. This is not a stage, but a tactic that can be used at any point to keep the targeted victim off balance and seeing the coercive controller in a falsely positive light.
Entrap
Entrapment is another tactic where the coercive controller subtly establishes malignant control. They may isolate the victim from their support network, gradually assert control over their life decisions, or create an environment of dependence. This can be used whenever the controller feels the need to strengthen their hold on the target.
Exploit
Exploitation is a tactic where the coercive controller uses the established control for their own advantage. This could include emotional and psychological manipulation, unpaid labor, free childcare, financial exploitation etc. The coercive controller employs exploitation based on the target's vulnerabilities and the current state of the "relationship."
Enslave
Enslavement represents the coercive controller’s tactic of stripping away the victim's autonomy. The controller may dictate all aspects of the target's life, making the targeted victim feel trapped and powerless. This tactic can be employed whenever the controller wishes to exert total control over the targeted victim, destroy their dignity, and remind them that they are powerless to resist.
Prevent Escape Through Escalation
Preventing escape through escalation is used by the coercive controller whenever the target shows signs of resistance or attempts to escape. This could involve escalating the intensity of abuse or manipulation, handing out harsh punishments, or even resorting to threats and acts of violence. The goal is to instill fear and uncertainty, making the victim too afraid or unsure to escape. The controller may also use manipulative tactics such as promising change or expressing remorse to maintain their control over the victim.
Moving Forward
Understanding the dynamics of coercive control and The E's (the coercive controller's goals) from The Quicksand Model® can help us debunk the myth of mutual abuse. It's important to recognize the power imbalances inherent in coercively controlling relationships, instead of blaming both parties equally. While targets are never perfect, they are never to blame for the coercive control inflicted upon them by a coercive controller.
Knowledge and awareness are crucial in preventing abuse and providing support for targeted victims. By shifting our perspective from mutual abuse to the framework of coercive control, we can develop more effective strategies to combat domestic violence and support those entrapped in the quicksand of coercive control.
In conclusion, the myth of mutual abuse simplifies the complex dynamics of coercively controlling relationships and groups and can potentially harm targeted victims further. A more nuanced understanding of these dynamics, as provided by coercive control and The Quicksand Model®, can provide the necessary perspective to support targeted victims and address the problem more effectively.
____________________________________________
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be very dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
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.
