NOTE: This blog is written primarily for victimized mothers of coercive control. The statements within are not intended to imply that mothers are never abusive or coercively controlling, or that fathers are never victimized. Some are. However, the majority of coercive control within families is perpetrated by males against adult females and children, so this article focuses primarily on that evidence-based finding.
Let me start by saying that you have the right and the freedom to call these behaviors whatever you choose to call them. The following are my thoughts on the usefulness of using certain terms within the family court system in the US...
Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Alienation, and Alienation all refer to a theory created by Richard Gardner, who promoted victim blaming and pedophilia. (Read prior blogs on Parental Alienation here, and here). This theory, which is not evidence-based, refers to one parent intentionally turning the child(ren) against the other parent.
Parental alienation is most often used in custody cases as a legal strategy, where coercively controlling parents (usually fathers) claim that the protective parent (most often the mother) has convinced the children to dislike the father and to make "false" allegations of abuse against him. In other words, parental alienation theory is used to DARVO the court into disbelieving valid abuse allegations and instead reversing the blame for the children's natural fear of the abusive parent onto the adult victim.
There is no valid empirical evidence that mothers make false abuse claims and coach their children to turn against their father. This is a widespread misconception in family court, that false abuse claims are common. They aren't. Research indicates that false allegations of abuse are no more common than false allegations of other crimes. However, the misconception has taken root, co-opting legitimate research regarding alienating behaviors and estrangement.
To be clear, there is evidence that some parents turn their children against the other parent. However, this is most often the case with the coercive controlling parent using the tactics, not the victimized one.
Parental Alienation "experts" sprung up all over the US after Gardner's theory took root, and these "professionals" have been facilitated by the AFCC (Association of Family & Conciliation Courts) and the court evaluators who are indoctrinated into this dangerous theory. The AFCC has been so successful in using parental alienation to remove children from their protective mothers in the US that it has spread to most of the rest of the world. (Do I smell a class action lawsuit?)
On April 13, 2023 the United Nations banned the use of parental alienation theory. Check out what Doreen Ludwig, an expert on Govt-funded Custody Court Systematic Malfeasance, had to say about the AFCC and it's connection to the "father's rights" movement (I call it the abuser's rights movement).
"AFCC members include judges, court employees, legal and mental health practitioners. AFCC’s genius is in this symbiotic relationship between the judiciary and those that profit from positions of appointment (judicial orders for services). An obvious, unethical interdependence reaps enormous profits for those who align themselves within this structure. AFCC’s publications and conferences bring an ever-increasing number of family court dignitaries into the fold. An illusion of legitimacy helps hide a subterranean layer of family court operators – those who willingly commit fraud and align themselves with the more nefarious principles of the father’s rights movement."
There are two main reason not to use the terms parental alienation syndrome, parental alienation, or even the further watered-down term "alienation".
First, we don't want to promote a debunked theory of Parental Alienation, which has led to misconceptions about tactics of child estrangement and primarily functions to remove children from protective parents and give them to abusive coercive controllers (usually fathers). And second, if you are a protective mother, claiming parental alienation is not likely to work for you in court anyway.
Joan Meier's research showed that claiming alienation in family court really only works for fathers (usually coercively controlling fathers). When mothers claimed alienation, in the cases she reviewed, it rarely worked. The AFCC claims parental alienation is non-gendered, but that appears to be another deceptive smokescreen to protect their interests by falsely claiming they are unbiased.
Unfortunately, the wide use of parental alienation theory, and especially this misconception that women lie about abuse, has caused a great deal of confusion for genuine victims of coercive control and domestic abuse who discover the theory on legitimate-sounding web sites promoting its use in family court. Promoters of parental alienation do not come right out and say they function (primarily) to protect coercive controlling abusers from accountability, so when targeted victims of coercive control read articles on parental alienation, they think this is what they are experiencing.
What targeted victims of coercive control are really experiencing is just another tactic of coercive control, where their coercive controller is weaponizing the children, and the unscientific aspect of Gardner's theory, to maintain control over them and/or punish them for daring to leave.
But he IS turning my children against me, if I don't call it Parental Alienation Syndrome, what do I call it?
Great Question! After all, it is well-known to coercive control experts that coercive controllers are divisive and often turn their children against their protective parents in order to further isolate and control both their children and their adult targeted victims. So, when I recommend you NOT use terms related to parental alienation theory, I do so not because alienating children from their parents doesn't occur, but because parental alienation "experts" are using these terms to DARVO family court using deceptive means, and if you want to protect you and your children, while maintaining your integrity, you do not want to associate yourself with these "professionals" or this theory.
Instead I recommend terming it a tactic of coercive control, and more specifically, the term Dr. Emma Katz uses, parent-child relationship sabotage.
Coercive control and parental alienation are diametrically opposed concepts, and coercive control has been widely researched, whereas parental alienation is based purely on Richard Gardner's own ideas. Coercive control research can be found in the related terms of undue influence, brainwashing, mind control, thought reform, coercive persuasion, domestic abuse etc.
While parental alienation relies on a simplistic patriarchal and misogynistic foundation... that women are "vindictive" and lie... coercive control is more nuanced and complex. Coercive control tactics and strategies can be detected and documented, whereas parental alienation is essentially "see, she must have told them to lie about me", and relies on implicit bias and "himpathy". There is no actual evidence supporting this aspect of parental alienation theory... only the suggestion that women are vindictive, and children love their parents, so therefore, if a child does not want to spend time with a parent, the other parent must have turned them against them.
Parental alienation theory completely disregards what we know about children's development, trauma, abuse, toxic stress, coercive control, ACES etc., whereas coercive control is founded on these evidence-based principles Parental alienation theory that is often used by coercive controllers to entrap their targeted victims. It is a #DoubleBind, because once claimed in court, the person accused has no way to disprove it. Any attempt to disprove alienation would include proof that the coercive controller is abusive, and reinforces the abuser's claim that the victim does not support a relationship between the father and child. Since PAS relies on the false belief that women are deceptive and vindictive (misogyny), those who have internalized this implicit gender bias are often swayed to believe the coercive controller's claim and completely ignore all true evidence to the contrary (or worse, use it against the victim as further "proof" of alienation).
Coercive control is different. Coercive control includes context, while parental alienation intentionally REMOVES context. Someone claiming parental alienation is most often using the theory to cover up their coercive control. If they have been accused of abuse, PAS becomes their defense... their legal strategy. In order to do this, they must decontextualize actions by each party. They must prevent the court from seeing the coercive control they have been perpetrating and shift the blame to their targeted victim. They do this by cherry picking information and re-framing party's actions using DARVO. They exaggerate the victim's responses to their coercive control and use these normal reactions to being tortured and terrorized against the targeted victim, often claiming the victim is "crazy" or "mentally unfit" to parent. Coercive controllers also regularly fabricate "evidence", which indoctrinated court professionals, unfortunately, often take at face value.
Coercive control is backed up by evidence, and parental alienation is not. Coercive control shows a consistent pattern of (usually multiple forms) behaviors over time. Parental alienation claims are often no more than smoke and mirrors. This is why "parental alienation experts" shifting their language to that of coercive control is dangerous. These "parental alienation experts" are attempting to exploit the legitimacy of coercive control to continue their systemic coercive control within the family court system. If a person used to promote parental alienation and now they are claiming it's the same thing as coercive control... Watch Out!
If you are a protective parent, especially if you are a protective mother, parental alienation theory is NOT your friend! If your partner/ex-partner is sabotaging your relationship with your child(ren), what you are experiencing is coercive control and parent-child relationship sabotage (or the newest term Child and Mother Sabotage - CAMS).... NOT parental alienation . If we are going to shift the family court system away from unscientific biased theories to evidence-based science that protects children and targets of coercive control, it is critical that we use the appropriate language.
And I didn't even get into the horrors of reunification therapy, the abusive "cure" promoted by "experts" in parental alienation. Perhaps I will tackle that in a future blog.
What are your thoughts? Feel free to comment below.
If you are a protective parent attempting to navigate the family court system in the US (or any other country), you have probably run into the problematic use of the terms Parental Alienation Syndrome, Parental Alienation and Alienation... all of which refer to the same phenomenon. (Read my prior blog on Parental Alienation here, if you are unfamiliar with these terms and their deceptive use by coercive controllers in family court).
Parental Alienation "experts" have infiltrated the family court system in many countries, causing a hostile environment for protective parents, especially mothers, when attempting to prevent their children from being further coercively controlled by the child's coercively controlling parent. Parental Alienation theory has been debunked by every credible organization, including the UN. It does not, and has not ever, been included in the DSM. However, untrained professionals, often monetarily motivated, continue to introduce this unscientific theory, created by Richard Gardner, an advocate of pedophilia, sexual sadism, necrophilia, zoophilia, coprophilia, klismaphilia and urophilia, into family court proceedings as a strategic means of obtaining custody of children for coercive controllers and other abusive parents.
The introduction of PAS into a family court case is often the death nil for protective mothers (and sometimes protective fathers) facing a sadistic coercive controller in family court.
If that weren't bad enough, there appears to be a distressing trend emerging. Parental Alienation "Experts" appear to be re-branding themselves as Coercive Control Experts. As a legitimate coercive control expert, with decades of lived experience, and a master's degree in the psychology of coercive control, this infuriates me!
Let me be crystal clear... Parental Alienation Syndrome is NOT Coercive Control! These two phenomena are diametrically opposed. You are either on the side of the debunked science of parental alienation, assisting coercive controllers to DARVO family court into granting custody of a child to an abuser, or you are an expert in coercive control, helping to prevent a coercive controller from obtaining custody of a child. While a person may be an expert on both terms, as I am, if you are making claims that coercive control and parental alienation are the same, you are either highly confused, or, more likely, a wolf in sheep's clothing and NOT an expert with true scientific knowledge!
The parental alienation "experts" appear to be trying to cash in on the growing trend to criminalize and/or include coercive control into legislation. As the term coercive control becomes more widely recognized and respected, and parental alienation further debunked and dismissed, these so called "experts" need a new gravy train. They have been parasites on the family court system for decades now, robbing protective parents of healthy relationships with their children, and now they are jumping ship and turning to coercive control to save them.
BEWARE! If someone claims to be a proponent of both parental alienation AND coercive control, I recommend you do your due diligence before hiring someone who may turn out to promote the exact OPPOSITE of what you need to protect your children!
In my next blog I will go into how and why this confusion is taking hold and the importance of keeping the terms Parental Alienation and Coercive Control from becoming synonymous... especially in family court proceedings.
A large majority of targeted victims of coercive control have, or will, develop symptoms of, or full-blown, PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder). In my opinion, based on the research I've reviewed and the clients I have worked with, if you are targeted by a coercive controller, unless you are able to effectively escape their PsychoSocial Quicksand™ early on, developing symptoms of PTSD is practically inevitable. And, if you already had significant trauma when you became entrapped by the coercive controller, your chances of developing full blown PTSD, or even CPTSD (complex post traumatic stress disorder) increase.
NOTE: The Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control terms all of the negative impacts to the target #DoubleVision. This includes all mental, emotional, physical, and psychological symptoms caused by the coercive controller.
The fact that many targeted victims of coercive control will develop PTSD or CPTSD creates additional challenges for survivors, by providing coercive controllers more avenues to further terrorize and torture their targeted victims. Receiving a mental health diagnosis on top of already having been victimized by a coercive controller can increase shame and stigma and lead to victim-blaming.
Since the name PTSD (post traumatic stress disorder) was introduced in 1980, there has been debate over the term. By using disorder in the name post traumatic stress disorder, there is an implication that the condition is not treatable, and is permanent. Such is the case for personality disorders, which are known to be "permanent and persistent" across the lifetime. Personality disorders are known to be incredibly difficult to treat, if not impossible, and there is often a link between domestic abuse, especially coercive controlling domestic abuse, and personality disorders.
Because PTSD and personality disorders are both considered mental illnesses (I won't go into all my reasons why I believe this should not be the case here) when a targeted victim of coercive control develops symptoms, and is then diagnosed with post traumatic stress disorder, it opens the door for the coercive controller to claim the two conditions present equal risk. This gives the coercive controller the opportunity to claim mutualize harm.
More commonly though, coercive controllers use the targeted victim's diagnosis to obscure and distract outsiders from detecting their own personality disorder and/or pattern of coercive and controlling behaviors, focusing attention on the targeted victim's "disorder" instead.
But post traumatic stress disorder and personality disorders are not the same. PTSD is treatable. The symptoms of PTSD can be reduced and even eliminated with treatment. Therefore, "post traumatic stress disorder" is more like an injury than a disorder, which is why there have been attempts to rename the condition post traumatic stress injury.
This survey reveals that renaming post traumatic stress disorder to ‘Injury’ would reduce stigma for 69% of those surveyed.
The reason why this is important is that there are major myths and misunderstandings that pervade societal attitudes and beliefs. One such myth is the idea that a relationship with a coercive controller should even be classified as a "relationship".
Coercive controllers most often target individuals using fraud to convince targets that they desire a "romantic relationship". However, coercive controllers lie about what they really want. They do not want a mutually beneficial "relationship". Coercive controllers wish to completely dominate the other person. They desire to rob that person of their autonomy, liberty and identity. Coercive controllers do not want an equitable partnership. They want a slave to serve their every desire and need, and they expect their "slave" to completely surrender their thoughts, feelings, values... their very identity, to the coercive controller's distorted version of reality.
Once the targeted victim discovers this underlying hidden agenda they will often try to escape the PsychoSocial Quicksand™ that the coercive controller has entrapped them in. This is when the situation can become very dangerous for the targeted victim, and if they have developed symptoms of something called post traumatic stress disorder, that can really work against them.
This is especially so in family court where a coercive controller can exploit the system's misunderstanding, and lack of education, about coercive control and the resulting trauma. The coercive controller can use the target's diagnosis of post traumatic stress disorder to paint the victim as the problem. It seems absurd that anyone could get away with blaming a victim for the very problem (PTSD) that the coercive controller caused... but it works. In family court, victims are very often blamed for the symptoms they are experiencing due to the coercive controller's coercive control, and in a majority of cases, when a coercive controller further complicates matters by claiming their targeted victim is "alienating" them from the children, the coercive controller often wins custody.
This is one place where a change in our language could be useful. By changing post traumatic stress disorder to post traumatic stress injury, much of the blame for the symptoms can be removed from the victim and appropriately placed upon the person who caused that injury... the coercive controller. A protective parent in family court who displays symptoms of post traumatic stress injury is (hopefully) less likely to lose their children to a coercive controller, due to the harms that coercive controller has caused, than one diagnosed with a "disorder".
So, I fully support changing "disorder" within post traumatic stress disorder and complex post traumatic stress disorder to "injury."
But there is another problem with the term post traumatic stress disorder and that is the word "post". This is especially problematic in family court. Judges often misunderstand the ongoing and escalating nature of coercive control and domestic abuse, and believe that once the targeted victim has left the "relationship" that there is no longer any danger. But nothing could be further from the truth. Because most court professionals are not trained in the dynamics of coercive control, and don't realize how targeted victims are trapped in PsychoSocial Quicksand™, that is nearly impossible to escape, they don't realize that leaving a coercive controller is one of the most dangerous things a person can ever do. Separating from a coercive controller has a high likelihood of making the coercive controller escalate to physical violence, or even potentially, to murder and/or suicide, because they are infuriated by their loss of control over their victim. Separation is the most dangerous time for a targeted victim of domestic abuse, especially when that domestic abuse includes coercive control.
The reality is that targeted victims of coercive control will most likely experience months, years or even decades of post-separation coercive control from the perpetrator, especially if they have children. When we consider that coercive control causes trauma, and that targeted victims are likely to be subjected to ongoing coercive control post-separation, it is unrealistic to call this trauma "post". Targeted victims of coercive control who have not yet insulated themselves from ongoing post-separation coercive control, often facilitated by family court, are dealing with ongoing, and often constant, trauma. There is nothing post about it!
So... if we are going to rename PTSD and/or CPTSD, my recommendation would be to call them TMI & CTMI. "Traumatic stress injury" and "complex traumatic stress injury" would remove the offending word "disorder" and the misnomer "post" and leave us with a diagnosis that is less likely to further stigmatize sufferers and facilitate coercive controller's continued coercive control.
Some people disagree that changing the name will make a difference. However, as someone who has experienced the horrors of coercive control and family court, I can see the benefit of re-framing PTSD to reduce the ability of coercive controllers to DARVO family court into blaming the victim.
What are your thoughts? Have you been diagnosed with PTSD or CPTSD? And, if so, how do you feel about the terms traumatic stress injury and complex traumatic stress injury?
As I have discussed before in previous blog posts, DARVO is perhaps the most effective and often used strategy of coercive controllers. And of the possible uses of DARVO, Parental Alienation Syndrome (PAS) or Parental Alienation (PA) is arguably the most commonly used DARVO strategy of coercive controllers in family court.
PAS is a theory created by Richard Gardner, a child psychiatrist, who developed the theory exclusively from his own work, and without any empirical evidence in 1985. He specifically created it for custody cases and used it often "on behalf of father's accused of molesting their children". This theory became widely touted by groups formed under the deceptive misnomer of "father's rights". What these groups are actually pushing are abuser's rights. They want to obscure the fact that they are abusive by using DARVO and PAS to paint the victim as the perpetrator.
How do DARVO and PAS work together in family court to protect abusers from accountability and demonize the protective parent?
When a protective parent accuses a partner or ex-partner of abuse, domestic violence, or coercive control, whether that's abuse of the adult survivor and/or the children, attorneys worldwide have learned that the most effective legal strategy to hide the fact that their client is a coercive controller is to DARVO the court.
DENY: "Your honor, my client would never abuse his ex-wife or children. My client is a loving father who just wishes to maintain contact with the children that he desperately loves. He works hard every day to provide for them, and he is insulted by these baseless accusations against him."
ATTACK: "It is sad to say, but Ms. ______, has mental health issues. She is an addict and regularly neglects and abuses the children. Because she was abused as a child, she thinks everyone is abusive. That is why she has falsely accused my client of abuse."
REVERSE VICTIM & OFFENDER: "Ms. _____ has alienated my client's children from him and has made him out to be a monster. She withholds the children from him, because she is vindictive, and she only wants full custody so that she can bleed my client dry through child support."
This strategy, unfortunately, is incredibly effective in family court, where most judges are untrained and hold implicit bias against mothers who allege abuse. It is so effective that many attorneys advise their clients NOT to raise abuse claims, no matter how egregious or provable, because the very presence of abuse allegations raise suspicion in the eyes of uneducated biased courts.
Joan Meier's research uncovered significant gender bias in US family courts when abuse is alleged, and she found that counter claims of parental alienation further reduced protective mothers' chances of obtaining custody. Here are some of her findings:
In cases where alienation is NOT cross-claimed:
- "Courts accept Mothers’ reports of Fathers’ abuse less than half the time (41%)"
- "Courts are far less likely to accept child abuse claims than partner violence. (DV)." For child abuse, courts only credit claims 29% of the time and for child sexual abuse only 15%.
When alienation IS cross-claimed:
"Alienation cross-claims dramatically reduce rate of acceptance of abuse - especially child abuse (average: 23%)". In these cases DV is credited only 37%, child abuse 18% and child sexual abuse is only credited (believed) 2% of the time.
Although previous research studies have revealed that 50-73% of cases of child sexual abuse are valid, Meier's research showed that only 1 out of 50 cases of child sexual abuse was believed in US family court between 2005-2014.
These figures are astonishing and outrageous! But they are not surprising to those of us who work in the field or to survivors of coercive control. Every day I receive phone calls from protective parents, mostly moms, desperate to protect their children from a coercive controller in family court.
Last year I lost primary custody of my child to a convicted family violence perpetrator whom a jury found guilty of family violence assault with bodily injury, and who repeatedly violated a family violence protective order. My coercive controller's deceit and manipulation were not only invisible to the court, his unsubstantiated lies were taken at face value, while my actual evidence of abuse was ignored.
Meier's research did not distinguish between alleged cases of family violence and proved cases. However, my own experience, and that of my clients, tells me that family court judges are regularly prioritizing father's rights over the well-being and safety of survivors and their children by placing children into the hands of known abusers.
Attorneys, judges, GALs, court evaluators, social workers, therapists, police, and all other professionals who come in contact with coercive controllers (often mislabeled "high conflict" cases) need to learn about the strategy of DARVO and how Parental Alienation Syndrome, and all it's permutations, are actually EVIDENCE of coercive control. That is what I testify to, when I am called as an expert witness in cases of coercive control. Persons who use DARVO and claim "alienation" are not victims, they are actually perpetrators exploiting the system to avoid accountability and continue their coercive control over the adult and child survivor.
THE GOOD NEWS!
On April 13, 2023 the United Nations released information, recommendations and warnings about the use of Parental Alienation pseudo-science within the family court systems worldwide. This is fantastic news! Hopefully, it will begin to undo some of the damage DARVO and PAS have done to protective parents and children across the globe.
So far I have covered the first three of the 5 Doubles in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model of #Coercive Control, #DoubleStandards, #DoubleBinds and #DoubleThink. The fourth Double is #DoubleSpeak.
#DoubleSpeak, thank goodness, is easier to grasp than #DoubleThink. I covered #DoubleThink first, because it is the driving force behind #DoubleSpeak. What the coercive controller thinks in their mind becomes apparent in their words and actions. We cannot see what the coercive controller is thinking, and so their #DoubleSpeak is confusing, but, if we can remember that they are operating from #DoubleThink, the things they say and do as a result, become less confusing.
What is #DoubleSpeak? #DoubleSpeak, in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model™, includes several tactics coercive controllers use to manipulate and deceive their targets. Perhaps you will recognize some of these from your own experiences. #DoubleSpeak includes the following:
1. Deliberately euphemistic, ambiguous, or obscure language: this is used to confuse and obscure the truth
2. Spin: "spin is a form of propaganda, achieved through knowingly providing a biased interpretation... to influence public opinion"
3. Gobbledygook: "language that is meaningless or is made unintelligible by excessive use of abstruse technical terms; nonsense"
4. Contradiction: "a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another"
5. Smoke-Screening: "something that hides the truth about someone's intentions"
6. Minimization: "the representation or estimation of something at less than its true value or importance"
#DoubleSpeak is used by coercive controllers to control conversations, outcomes and people. Being on the receiving end of #DoubleSpeak can, and often does, lead to cognitive dissonance (what I refer to in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model™ as #DoubleVision). Living with someone who uses #DoubleSpeak is like living 24/7 in a pharmaceutical commercial. The main theme of the ad includes beautiful images and music, with promises of "ending your depression" or "reducing your anxiety", but at the same time you hear (in a soothing, calm voice) that side effects include vomiting, migraine, and even death. Side effects are minimized and positive outcomes maximized.
Contradictory images, words and sounds create confusion, or cognitive dissonance, which our brains are compelled to resolve. Because these types of commercials put so much emphasis on making their drug appear to be the answer to all your problems (similar to love bombing or manipulative kindness), and they minimize the damaging effects, your brain is likely to resolve the conflict by choosing the positive messages and ignoring the negative ones. The reality is that there's no such thing as "side effects". There are only effects. And pharmaceutical companies want you to focus on their positive effects and forget or ignore their negative ones.
The same goes for coercive controllers. Confusion causes the target to perceive the coercive controller who is using #DoubleSpeak similarly. It is very painful to be in a constant state of confusion. So targets are often lulled into a false reality by #DoubleSpeak, a reality where the coercive controller is loving and helpful... a FALSE reality where their negative intentions (and coercive control tactics) are ignored, and the target convinces themselves that they are safe.
Again, the truth is that if a person is using #DoubleSpeak, they are hiding something. They are trying to control how you think and feel about them by leaving out critical information that would likely alter your opinion of them, potentially reducing your respect for them, and perhaps even causing you to avoid them altogether.
Warning signs of #DoubleSpeak:
1. Repetitive conversations with no resolution: If you are frustrated by trying to fix problems in your relationship where conversations go nowhere, it is likely that the other person is INTENTIONALLY using #DoubleSpeak to prevent resolution... probably because they don't want to own up to something they said or did.
2. Circular Logic: "A is true because B is true; B is true because A is true."
3. DARVO: DARVO can also be a type of #DoubleSpeak, where deception is used to shift the focus off the perpetrator and onto the target. "I did" such and such "because YOU made me".
4. Saying one thing and doing another: Also known as hypocrisy, this is a clear sign you are dealing with a coercive controller using #DoubleSpeak. Hypocrisy is also evident in #DoubleStandards, where the coercive controller demands things of the target that they themselves refuse to adhere to.
5. Gaslighting: Gaslighting can be very dangerous for the target. If someone is saying that things you know happened, didn't happen, or claiming things that were said weren't said, this is a particularly dangerous form of #DoubleSpeak that can literally drive you crazy if you aren't able to identify it and protect yourself.
As I alluded to earlier, the first 4 Doubles can cause severe damage to the target. The 5th Double of the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model™ is #DoubleVision. I will cover #DoubleVision in a future post.
Stay tuned...
So far I have covered the first four of the #5Doubles in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model of #Coercive Control, #DoubleStandards, #DoubleBinds, #DoubleThink and #DoubleSpeak. These four doubles, along with DARVO, improve ease of detection of coercive control tactics and strategies as well as help identify coercive controllers. The 5th Double of the PSQM™ is #DoubleVision. Double Vision is a sign that a person may be a victim/survivor of coercive control. While the other Ds in the PSQM™ reference the perpetrator, #DoubleVision is the catch-all for the signs of trauma a target/victim/survivor may display.
Webster defines Double Vision as a disorder of vision in which two images of a single object are seen. Whereas #DoubleVision usually refers to two identical images, however, in the #PsychoSocialQuicksandModel, Double Vision refers to any and all trauma responses caused by coercive control, including the tendency to see two opposites images of the coercive controller.
The easiest way to think about and remember Double Vision is to reference the story of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.
Coercive controllers often present with opposite personalities in private than in public. And, as we've seen in previous blogs, coercive controllers are oddly dichotomous.. demonstrating signs of Double Speak, Double Think, Double Standards and Double Binds. Coercive controllers with dark triad or dark tetrad traits are especially good at masking their true personalities in public, while they terrorize those closest to them where no one else can see what's happening.
Living with someone whose true personality is often being masked by manipulative kindness and other forms of deception, causes Double Vision for the targeted victim. Double Speak, Double Think, Double Standards and Double Binds wreak havoc on the victim/survivor and traumatize them into a state of Double Vision.
When a "relationship" with a coercive controller first begins, the target usually has no idea that the person they are with is not who they appear to be. Early on, most targets are enthralled by the coercive controller's love bombing (manipulative kindness) and believe the coercive controller to be a kind, loving, generous, caring and helpful person. But these traits are not genuine for the coercive controller. Their words and deeds during this phase are generated out of a desire to entrap the target by making them believe that they are loved and cared for, perhaps more than they have been in their entire life.
The target develops beliefs about the perpetrator in response to the false positive mask of the coercive controller, rather than their true (negative and abusive) self. The coercive controller utilizes three main tactics to accomplish this: narcissistic mirroring, manipulative kindness and future-faking.
Mirroring:
"They use the words you use, claim to like the things you like, and copy your mannerisms. Narcissistic mirroring isn’t about true closeness (narcissists, in general, tend to avoid true intimacy). It’s a trick to make you feel comfortable with them, to gain your trust – to get you to lower your guard."
Manipulative Kindness:
“I call it manipulative kindness, because it's not love, it is manipulation,” Julie Owens, certified domestic violence counselor, trauma professional, and expert in the field of violence against women, tells Elite Daily. The perpetrator may be trying to flatter you in an attempt to regain (or gain) the upper hand in the relationship."
Future-Faking:
"Future faking is when someone uses a detailed vision of the future to facilitate the bonding and connection in a romantic relationship." Often the target doesn't know the coercive controller used this tactic until they discover that the coercive controller has actually been working AGAINST the future they claimed to be supporting.
Mirroring, manipulative kindness and future-faking cause the target to develop a confirmation bias over time. The target comes to believe that they are supremely loved, lucky or blessed to have found such a wonderful partner... their "soul mate". They see this person in a distorted positive light because of the constant mirroring, manipulative kindness and future-faking they are subjected to.
Double Vision starts to develop when the coercive controller's mask begins to slip. Because the coercive controller's Dr. Jekyll side is false, they cannot maintain it forever (although some are very good at maintaining it for a long time). Once the coercive controller has entrapped their target in some way, they begin to let their guard down. This might happen gradually with minor incidents of abuse, or it may be shockingly fast and severe, taking the target completely by surprise and causing them to feel fear, or even terror.
Slow and gradual shifts toward abuse are often excused away by the target as inconsequential, due to their confirmation bias that this person is not only safe, but their one and only true "soul mate". Targets can excuse away abusive behavior for a long time if they have been sufficiently groomed by the coercive controller to believe they are Dr. Jekyll. But the more Mr. Hyde shows himself, the more Double Vision will increase.
So, Double Vision is the target's version of Double Think. The main two distinctions between the two are who uses them and why. Double Think is intentional contradictory thinking that the coercive controller uses to justify and/or conceal their misdeeds, whereas Double Vision is the traumatized state of confusion it creates for the target. Double Think (in the PSQM™) harms, and Double Vision is the harm Double Think (and the other doubles) cause.
Double Vision includes more than just cognitive dissonance. Double Vision, in the PSQM™, also includes the harmful aftermath of being targeted by coercive control. Double Vision includes the ways that victims think, act and behave due to their extended exposure to a coercive controller. These responses to coercion and control, which are completely normal responses to being intentionally harmed by another person, are often misinterpreted as character defects, and used to blame the victim for the negative impacts caused by the perpetrator.
Double Vision includes: (Essentially, Double Vision is the PSQM™'s term for the Signs of Trauma)
1. Cognitive Dissonance: "Cognitive Dissonance is often described as “reality switching,” “ping-ponging” or what George Orwell called “doublethink,” where conflicting thoughts and contradictory realities pop up but you’re plagued with such intense self-doubt, confusion, and fog from the abuse that you’re not able resolve anything."
2. PTSD/CPTSD Symptoms: Enduring coercive control is torture. Therefore, it is no surprise that targeted victims of coercion and control can, and often do, develop severe physical, mental, emotional and psychological symptoms from having been tortured by a coercive controller.
3. Substance Abuse: Targeted victims experiencing Double Vision may use substances as a way to cope with the chronic stress of the abuse, or they may have been coerced through substance use coercion. One study found survivors of intimate partner violence had higher rates of substance abuse than those who had not been victimized (26% vs 5%).
4. Trauma-Coerced Attachment: Sometimes referred to as trauma-bonding, (but not Stockholm Syndrome, which was created to protect police from criticism by blaming the victim), Trauma-Coerced Attachment can result when a coercive controller intentionally exploits a target's vulnerabilities and natural human desire for connection to forge a false bond through intermittent reinforcement. Some like to refer to this as "love addiction", but while it certainly mimics addiction, it has nothing to do with love.
Now that we've discussed the #5Doubles it's time to revisit DARVO, which I will do in my next post.
Stay tuned...
So far I have covered the first two of the 5 Doubles in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model of #Coercive Control, #DoubleStandards and #DoubleBinds. The third Double is #DoubleThink.
#DoubleThink is a bit harder to wrap your head around, probably because it is contradictory and confusing by its very nature. #DoubleThink is a type of conscious self-deception. The term #DoubleThink was coined by George Orwell in his novel Nineteen Eighty Four. Here's a quote from the book.
"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again, and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself—that was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word—doublethink—involved the use of doublethink."
Confusing... right? Well, guess what? Confusion is often the point!
I am going to say that again, because it is critical to understanding the use of coercive control tactics. Confusion IS the point!
Coercive controllers know that shock and confusion can dismantle their prey's ability to think critically, at least momentarily. If stress becomes chronic it can even damage the structures of the brain. Here is a quote from a journal article detailing the impact of stress on pre-frontal cortex functioning.
"Even quite mild acute uncontrollable stress can cause a rapid and dramatic loss of prefrontal cognitive abilities, and more prolonged stress exposure causes architectural changes in prefrontal dendrites (Amy Arnsten, 2020)."
Shock and confusion (which are stressful and even traumatic) reduce critical thinking by activating the fight, flight or freeze part of the brain (the amygdala). This gives coercive controllers the upper hand while their prey's pre-frontal cortex is offline. Coercive controllers often make up bizarre and outlandish lies to cover their tracks... the more unbelievable, the more shocking, the more their lies are often believed, because the person hearing the lies is unable to access their critical thinking. The coercive controller then uses the negative impact on their prey's fight/flight system as "evidence" that there is something wrong with the targeted victim, and therefore, the victim must be to blame.
Here is a video by Richard Grannon presenting the strategic manipulative thinking of narcissistic coercive controllers and how they use strategic #DoubleThink to control and punish their target while still believing and maintaining that they are a good person.
A fabulous book on fast and slow thinking systems, another way coercive control bypasses cognitive defenses, is called Thinking Fast & Slow by Daniel Kahneman.
Coercive controllers create confusion and chaos for those they wish to dominate, while #DoubleThink prevents them from feeling the guilt and shame that might arise if they were burdened by the awareness that they are doing so. #DoubleThink allows coercive controllers to remain innocent in their own minds (self-deception), by carefully forgetting that it was their actions that led to the destruction they are complaining about. #DoubleThink is a strategic combination of denial and lying.
It's difficult to present examples of #DoubleThink. Because #DoubleThink occurs in the mind of the coercive controller, it cannot be observed from the outside. However, there are narcissists and sociopaths online who discuss their thinking openly, including their #DoubleThink. Sam Vaknin and Ask A Psychopath's YouTube channels include some examples of their distorted thinking, including some which would qualify as #DoubleThink.
Psychopaths may not use #DoubleThink. Since they completely lack empathy, they probably don't feel the need to lie to themselves. Narcissists, on the other hand, rely heavily on #DoubleThink in order to survive in the world. Narcissists come in two basic varieties, the grandiose narcissist and the covert narcissist (also called the victim narcissist or the vulnerable narcissist). Both types use #DoubleThink. Grandiose narcissists use #DoubleThink when the world provides evidence that conflicts with their belief of being fabulous, gorgeous, brilliant etc. The covert narcissist uses #DoubleThink to "forget" that they create their own "victimization".
A grandiose narcissist is usually more direct with their coercive control, whereas a covert narcissist is typically more manipulative and deceptive. Both types of narcissists use coercive control to get their way and to paint themselves as innocent, and both use #DoubleThink to deceive themselves. However, they tend to rely on different tactics to "know and not know". Grandiose narcissists are often more aggressive, where covert narcissists are often more passive aggressive or covertly aggressive.
A grandiose narcissist focuses their energy on being successful, beautiful, brilliant etc. in the world, while a covert narcissist is more of a parasite, exploiting others and then claiming their victims are victimizing them. While a grandiose narcissist may use #DARVO to avoid accountability for something awful they have done to someone, a covert narcissist's entire focus in life is to collect evidence that they are the victim of a cruel world. Therefore, #DARVO rules the covert narcissist's entire life. He doesn't use #DARVO just to get out of trouble, he knowingly and strategically arranges complex scenarios to entrap his prey, and then when he has successfully convinced others that his victim is the perpetrator, he uses #DoubleThink to forget it was he who actually set the whole thing up.
Only through #DoubleThink, which carefully maintains the covert narcissists' false reality, is the victim narcissist able to protect his fragile underdeveloped ego from the reality that the only thing he has to show for his life is a trail of destruction in his wake. He may be a victim... but not a victim of another person, he is a victim of his own #DoubleThink.
Here's a great article showing that abusers know they receive benefits by being violent and abusive. They know, but they don't know (#DoubleThink), that they opt for these benefits over changing their negative behaviors. They use #DoubleThink to pretend the benefits don't exist, and they are so good at this strategic self-deception, and so convincing to outsiders, that they are often able to avoid accountability.
#DoubleThink is the engine that feeds the fourth Double of the PsychoSocial Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control, #DoubleSpeak. #DoubleSpeak is easier to understand and detect than #DoubleThink, because it occurs in communication, rather than inside the mind of the coercive controller. I will cover #DoubleSpeak in the next blog.
Stay tuned...
I interrupt our regularly scheduled blog post intended to cover the 5 Doubles & DARVO to make a book recommendation.
Although the book Nobody's Victim: Fighting Psychos, Stalkers, Pervs, and Trolls was published in 2019, I didn't hear about it until this week on Twitter. And, although it doesn't refer to coercive control or coercively controlling patterns of behavior by name (at least not in the 20% of the book I've read so far)... it sure does a great job of giving real life examples of coercive control.
Coercive control occurs most frequently in domestic abuse, domestic violence, human trafficking and extremist groups (cults), but the pattern of behavior can exist anywhere you can find coercive controllers... which is pretty much everywhere. This book does a fabulous job of revealing patterns of coercive control in contexts you might not expect to find it, as well as within gender-based violence, the most common context.
In my next post I will return to the 5 Doubles and DARVO of the PsychoSocial Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control.
Stay tuned...
I am honored to have been interviewed by the fabulous therapist and host of the Indoctrination Podcast, Rachel Bernstein! You can listen in HERE.
The second Double of the 5 Doubles & DARVO in the PsychoSocial Quicksand Model™ of Coercive Control is #DoubleBinds. #DoubleBinds are fundamental to the trap of coercive control. It is #DoubleBinds that make escape from #PsychoSocialQuicksand nearly impossible for a targeted victim to accomplish on their own. Coercive controllers, therefore, use #DoubleBinds as one of their primary strategies.
What is a #DoubleBind?
A #DoubleBind is a trap masquerading as a choice. On the surface, it appears as though the person has options, but because all options produce negative outcomes, and because the person is required to "choose", it creates a #DoubleBind. (similar to the concepts in Bounded Choice by Janja Lalich).
Coercive controllers are masters of using #DoubleBinds to entrap victims in PsychoSocial Quicksand™. #DoubleBinds increase the coercive controllers chances to win, and that's what matters to them most, WINNING. In order for the coercive controller to win, their targeted victim must lose and #DoubleBinds make that easy (win/win does not exist in the coercive controller's world).
Unfortunately, our systems are also rife with #DoubleBinds, so coercive controllers don't even need to work that hard to ensnare and entrap innocent people in #PsychoSocialQuicksand.
For example, many systems regularly blame victims when a perpetrator causes harm. Child Protective Services (CPS) is well known for this. CPS has policies that shift the blame from the coercive controller to the victim. Within CPS, the most predominant victim-blaming occurs during the day-to-day implementation of their "failure to protect" policy. (To be fair, in some areas, CPS is shifting away from this destructive model and replacing it with what the Safe & Together Institute recommends... #PivotToThePerpetrator).
Failure to protect means that "Parents or caretakers may be charged with a form of criminal or civil penalty called “failure to protect” when they do not prevent another person from abusing the children in their care." Yes, you read that correctly. Someone can be arrested, charged and convicted of a crime that they did not commit, but which they failed to prevent. Or they can have their children taken from them (the most basic of human rights) for failing to stop a coercive control perpetrator from committing a crime (against them) in front of their children.
This policy was put in place to protect children from abuse, a noble outcome objective. However, the policy is badly flawed, not only because it places the blame for the abuse on the wrong person, but also because it opens the door to continued exploitation by coercive controllers and sets up a domino effect of #DoubleBinds.
This is how it works. A coercive controller escalates to physical violence against their partner or ex-partner. The police are called and, hopefully, not the victim, but the coercive controller, is arrested. CPS, in an effort to protect the children, makes an appointment to speak with the adult victim of the assault, the mother of the children. CPS sees that the children have been negatively impacted by what the father has done. Then, in a bizarre shift of responsibility the CPS worker threatens the mother. CPS demands the mother obtain a protective order to keep the coercive controller away from her and the kids. The mother is told that if she does not file for a protective order, they will take her children away for "failing to protect" them from this obviously abusive and dangerous man.
The mother is now highly conflicted. She knows that the coercive controller will escalate his abuse if she does what CPS has demanded. (I call this #SystemicCoerciveControl, because CPS is using a credible threat to coerce and control). This is the first of many #DoubleBinds the mother will likely now face within the system. She will be continuously damned if she does and damned if she doesn't within an upside-down world of conflicting policies, laws and procedures.
Her initial choice between two bad options will result in a bad outcome either way. What should she do? Should she obtain a protective order, knowing her coercive controller may become angry enough to kill her, or should she risk losing custody of her children to the foster care system? What would you do?
Where are the consequences for the person who committed the crime, the coercive controller? CPS doesn't go after him. They focus on the targeted victim, the innocent party, and the criminal is emboldened. The coercive controller is INCENTIVIZED by the system to commit physical violence against his partner, which results in the perfect punishment, not against him, but against HER, one he doesn't even have to carry out himself. This type intimate partner violence has been named coercive violence by researchers, and it is defined as...
"Coercive violence is a form of intimate partner violence in which the abuser intentionally engages in acts that expose his partner to state surveillance and violence at the behest of institutions or the state, including the child welfare system and the criminal legal system."
Many of the #DoubleBinds created and/or exploited by coercive controllers within systems would be considered coercive violence, including the CPS example above.
Let's look further down the road for this victimized mom to see how the dominos of #DoubleBinds will likely fall.
So, she has to choose between a protective order and her children (#DoubleBind number one). Of course, most mothers would choose the children and risk the coercive controller escalating, even if it meant he might kill her. CPS and the county attorney's office have assured her that any protective order violations will be prosecuted, protecting mother and children from any escalation on the part of the coercive controller, so she "chooses" the protective order.
Unfortunately, the police, county and district attorneys and family court have policies that directly conflict with the concept of "failure to protect".
POLICE: "He violated the protective order? Do you have proof?" ME: "Proof? You mean, do I have proof that he tried to run my car off the road? How would you suggest I obtain said proof?"
Multiple police reports for violations of said protective order result in ZERO consequences for the coercive controller, who continues to harass and stalk the targeted victim. (#DoubleBind number 2). However, the targeted victim is still expected to report all violations and appear in court to testify against the coercive controller who continues to stalk her and whom the police refuse to arrest for violations (#DoubleBind number 3). Meanwhile, the coercive controller is playing the "good dad" in family court, and the judge rules that he has a "right" to unsupervised visitation with the very children CPS claimed he was too dangerous to be around.. and let's not forget, now that the mother has divorced the coercive controller (because society claimed it was easy to do) she won't be there to even attempt to "protect" them (#DoubleBind number 4).
In a cruel twist of #SystemicCoerciveControl, the family court judge admonishes the mother for filing almost 20 protective order violations, and claims she is not credible, because the police didn't arrest him (#DoubleBind number 5).
The final #DoubleBind domino falls when the coercive controller lies in family court and the mother's attorney tells her to stay silent about the abuse or it will be held against her in court. With her truth silenced, and attorney advice preventing her from revealing the #SystemicCoerciveControl she has endured for years, she is horrified when the coercive controller obtains full custody and decision-making for the very children she "failed to protect" from him (#DoubleBind number 6).
These are just a few of the #DoubleBinds I personally faced in the system. One day I will write out the whole story, but suffice it to say, there were many many more.
How are coercive controllers so easily able to manipulate and exploit systems to their advantage using #DoubleBinds?
People and systems are able to justify perpetrating these incredibly harmful #DoubleBinds against targeted victims because of the third Double in the #PsychoSocialQuicksand Model™, #DoubleThink. I will cover #DoubleThink in my next blog post.
Stay tuned...