As a researcher and consultant specializing in coercive control patterns, this week's exposure of Signal messages regarding Yemen bombing plans presents a textbook case of systemic coercive control tactics. Through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, we can clearly identify three distinct tactics being used in combination: Double Speak, Double Down, and Double Standards. Let's examine how these tactics mirror the same manipulative behaviors we observe in interpersonal coercive control situations.
Double Speak: The Art of Deceptive Communication
The White House's response to The Atlantic's exposure of sensitive military communications exemplifies classic Double Speak - language designed to obscure truth and avoid responsibility.
When confronted with evidence of detailed operational plans shared via Signal, including specific information about F-18 fighter jets, MQ-9 drones, and Tomahawk missiles, officials employed carefully crafted language to minimize and distort the reality of the situation.
The messages shared in the "Houthi PC Small Group" chat contained explicit details about warplane launches and bomb drops.
Yet, the administration's response demonstrated the hallmark manipulation tactic of Double Speak, weaponizing communication to reframe reality - a classic element of coercive control where perpetrators attempt to gaslight their targets by denying obvious truths.
Double Down: Amplifying Denial in the Face of Evidence
When confronted with evidence, both Pete Hegseth and Donald Trump exhibited another classic coercive control tactic: doubling down on denial. Pete Hegseth, Secretary of Defense, repeatedly insisted that "NO WAR PLANS" were shared, despite documented evidence to the contrary. President Trump similarly supported this narrative, maintaining that critics were exaggerating the situation.
This pattern of doubling down mirrors what we observe in The Quicksand Model® of coercive control, where perpetrators intensify their denials when confronted with evidence of their actions. The more evidence emerges, the more forcefully they deny, creating a psychological quicksand that pulls victims deeper into confusion, cognitive dissonance, and self-doubt.
Double Standards: The Hypocrisy of Selective Outrage
Perhaps the most striking parallel to coercive control dynamics is the blatant double standard displayed in this situation. The same Republican figures who led chants of "Lock her up" regarding Hillary Clinton's email server have suddenly adopted a remarkably different stance when their own handling of sensitive information comes under scrutiny.
During the Clinton email controversy, Republicans, including Donald Trump and Pete Hegseth, argued that any security professional would face severe consequences for similar conduct. Yet, when confronted with their own sharing of military operational details through a public messaging app, they've dismissed concerns and minimized the potential security implications.
The Quicksand Model® Connection
These three D's - Double Speak, Double Down, and Double Standards - form a powerful triumvirate of coercive control tactics that we've documented extensively in The Quicksand Model®. As outlined in our recent publication "Targeted & Entrapped: Understanding the Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control," these tactics are used to entrap and dominate not just individuals, but entire institutions and public discourse.
The Yemen Signal messages scandal demonstrates how systemic coercive control operates at the highest levels of government, using the same tactics we observe in interpersonal abuse. The administration's response employs Force (through aggressive denial), Fraud (through deceptive language), and Fear (through attempts to intimidate critics) - the three F's, or methods, of coercive control.
Conclusion
This incident serves as a powerful reminder that coercive control tactics don't just operate at in abusive "relationships" - they can be deployed by institutions and power structures to manipulate public perception and avoid accountability. By understanding and identifying these patterns through frameworks like The Quicksand Model®, we can better resist their impact and work toward creating systems of true accountability and transparency.
The parallels between individual coercive control and institutional manipulation are stark and concerning. As we continue our work at End Coercive Control USA, cases like this provide crucial evidence of how coercive control tactics can scale from personal relationships to national security issues, affecting millions of lives in the process.
___________________________________________
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.
In the intricate dance of power dynamics, whether in personal relationships or the political arena, the patterns of coercive control often lurk beneath the surface of the quicksand, invisible to the untrained eye. Today, we delve into a pressing issue that exemplifies how the tactics of coercive controllers can manifest in the highest echelons of government: the recent continuing resolution situation. By examining this through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, we aim to shed light on the parallels between coercive control within domestic abuse and political abuses of power, revealing the insidious nature of how coercive control functions in our society.
The Quicksand Model®: A Framework for Understanding
The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control is a comprehensive educational tool designed to make the often invisible patterns of coercive control visible. It synthesizes 70 years of research and theory across various fields, including domestic abuse, human trafficking, cults, and extremism, to educate professionals on detecting and preventing coercive control. This model is particularly effective in overcoming professional and societal biases that hinder the protection of victims and the accountability of coercive controllers.
In the context of political power dynamics, The Quicksand Model® can be applied to understand how coercive control tactics are used by political entities to deceive, manipulate, and maintain power. The model's focus on making invisible coercive control tactics and strategies visible is crucial in political settings where abuses of power are often exerted through subtle and manipulative means.
The Double Bind of the Continuing Resolution
The recent continuing resolution (CR) situation in U.S. politics provides a stark example of how coercive control tactics can be employed on a grand scale. The House Appropriations Committee released the Full-Year Continuing Appropriations and Extensions Act, 2025, on March 8, 2025, setting in motion a series of events that would culminate in a classic double bind scenario.
The Setup (aka The Double Cross): Creating a No-Win Situation (aka The Double Bind)
The Republican-led House pushed the continuing resolution as a straightforward solution to avoid a government shutdown, emphasizing defense spending increases and maintaining essential services without raising taxes. However, this framing created a double bind for Democrats and the public:
The impossible choice, or as Janja Lalich might call it, the "bounded choice," and what Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez called a "false choice", presented to democrats was:
- Support the bill and accept its provisions, potentially allowing for misuse of funds, continued constitutional violations, and cuts to non-defense spending.
- Oppose the bill and risk being blamed for a government shutdown, which could have severe consequences for millions of Americans.
This situation mirrors the tactics used by coercive controllers in relationships, where victims are often presented with choices that have negative outcomes regardless of their decision. The Quicksand Model® helps us recognize this pattern, showing how political entities can entrap people in the quicksand of coercive control similar to in abusive relationships.
Double Speak: The Language of Manipulation
Double speak, the weaponization of language and communication that deliberately obscures, disguises, distorts, or reverses the meaning of words, and is a common tool used by coercive controllers in relationships and politics.
In the context of the continuing resolution, we see this tactic employed through:
- Framing the CR as a "clean funding extension": This language obscures the potential consequences of the bill's provisions and the lack of input from opposition parties.
- Emphasizing "government functionality" over specific funding directives: This rhetoric masks the potential for misuse of funds and the sidelining of important social programs.
The use of double speak in this situation aligns with the patterns identified in The Quicksand Model®, where coercive controllers use language to confuse, disorient, and control their targeted victims. By recognizing these linguistic patterns and signs of coercive control, we can better understand and resist coercive control in both personal and political contexts.
DARVO: As a Political Strategy
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) is a manipulative strategy often used by coercive controllers to avoid taking responsibility for their actions. In the political arena, we see this strategy employed in the following ways:
- Deny: Republican leadership denied any wrongdoing in the process of crafting the CR, despite concerns about lack of bipartisan input.
- Attack: Critics of the bill were attacked and accused of being willing to shut down the government, shifting focus away from the bill's contents.
- Reverse Victim and Offender: By framing Democrats as obstructionists, the Republican leadership positioned themselves as victims of unreasonable opposition, rather than acknowledging the legitimate concerns raised.
This use of DARVO in political contexts mirrors its application in abusive relationships, where it serves to manipulate perceptions and maintain control. The Quicksand Model® helps us identify these strategies and tactics, empowering us to challenge such coercively controlling behaviors effectively.
Breaking Free from the Quicksand
Understanding the parallels between coercive control in relationships and political manipulation is crucial for fostering a healthier democracy. The Quicksand Model® provides a framework for recognizing these patterns and developing strategies to counter them. By educating ourselves and others about these tactics of coercive control, we can work towards systemic change that promotes transparency, accountability, and genuine collaboration in our political processes.
As we navigate the complex landscape of modern politics, let us remain vigilant against the subtle forms of coercive control that can erode our democratic institutions. By shining a light on these tactics, we take the first step towards breaking free from the quicksand of coercive control and building a more equitable and just society.
Remember, recognizing these patterns is not about partisan politics, but about understanding and challenging the abuse of power wherever it occurs. By applying the insights from The Quicksand Model® to our analysis of political events, we can foster a more informed and resilient citizenry, capable of holding our leaders accountable and promoting genuine democratic dialogue.
In the face of coercive control, whether in personal relationships or the political sphere, knowledge and awareness are our most powerful tools. Let us use them wisely to create a world where coercion and control have no place, and where true democracy can flourish.
As Founder & Chief Visionary Officer of End Coercive Control USA (ECCUSA), I am deeply concerned about the recent viral video depicting a woman being forcefully removed from a town hall meeting. This disturbing incident serves as a unique systemic example of the insidious tactic known as DARVO.
DARVO, one of the coercive controller's weapons in The Quicksand Model, stands for Deny, Attack, and Reverse Victim and Offender. It's a strategy we often see in cases of domestic violence and sexual assault, where individual perpetrators use it to avoid accountability for their actions. But increasingly, we're seeing DARVO used on a systemic level to silence and punish folks who dare to speak out against oppressive systems, resulting in institutional betrayal perpetrated against the targeted victim, and confusion and distress for bystanders observing the phenomenon.
DARVO in Action
In the video, we see a woman (later identified as Dr. Teresa Borrenpohl) attempting to voice her valid concerns about the devastating impact of anti-abortion policies on the health and lives of women. Rather than engaging with her point and respecting her right to freedom of speech, the men (the coercive controllers) who remove her deny both her valid point and her right to express it. They then go on to physically attack her, and position themselves - the people advocating for human rights violations - as the victims.
Instead of being listened to and engaged with respectfully, Teresa is met with a forceful response from a group of men who feel entitled to silence her. Led by a law enforcement officer, whose presence unfairly legitimizes this attack, she is violently silenced and punished for daring to voice her opinion. All the while the speaker on stage also uses DARVO to frame the men's violence against the woman as "consequences," and mocks her, calling her a "little girl." Using both the strategy of DARVO and the deceptive coercive control tactic of Double Speak, the speaker abuses his authority as a scheduled speaker, amplified via microphone, to justify the men's illegal actions.
This is a classic DARVO maneuver - the men, who are the true perpetrators in this situation, Deny the harm they are causing, Attack her physically and humiliate her socially, all while Reversing Victim and Offender, positioning themselves as the victims.
Exposing Unlawful DARVO Tactics in the Viral Town Hall Incident
Although initially the group of men appear to have legitimate authority, upon closer inspection, it appears the people who aggressively removed Dr. Teresa Borrenpohl from the town hall meeting were not official authorities, but rather private security acting without proper legal standing. The individuals who forcefully removed her were not visibly identified as official security officers or other legitimate authorities. When asked who they were, they refused to identify themselves. This makes their actions even more egregious - they are not only engaging in the classic DARVO tactic, but they are doing so while operating outside the law.
By denying the woman's point and her right to speak, attacking her physically, and then positioning themselves as the rightful enforcers, these individuals are perpetrating an unlawful abuse of power. They are not acting on behalf of the public good or in service of democratic principles, but rather are attempting to silence a dissenting voice through force and manipulation.
This is an extremely concerning development, as it suggests DARVO tactics are being deployed not just by individual perpetrators, but also in concert with those in positions of authority and by anyone seeking to exert control and avoid accountability. It's a disturbing escalation occurring with increasing regularity politically that we at ECCUSA find deeply troubling.
The Devastating Impact of DARVO
DARVO is a well-documented strategy used by abusers and manipulators to shift the narrative while simultaneously punishing their targeted victim. By denying the woman's right to speak, attacking her physically, and then reversing the roles of victim and offender, the men in this situation, not only silence the woman's voice but also send a chilling message to others who might seek to exercise their right to participate in the democratic process... ironic coming from the party who so fervently touts "free speech."
The Importance of Recognizing and Challenging DARVO
As an organization dedicated to ending coercive control, at ECCUSA we recognize the urgent need to expose and challenge DARVO whenever it occurs. This viral incident serves as a stark reminder of the insidious nature of this strategy and the devastating impact it can have on individuals and communities.
Call to Action
I call upon all citizens to be vigilant in recognizing and speaking out against DARVO whenever it occurs. By shining a light on this manipulative behavior and holding those who engage in it accountable, we can take a stand against the silencing of marginalized voices and the erosion of our democratic values.
Together, we can create a society where every individual is treated with dignity, heard, and empowered to participate fully in the democratic process.
ECCUSA encourages donations to Dr. Teresa Borrenpohl's Go Fund Me Page to defend her against charges filed following this coercively controlling abuse of power.
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.
Introduction to The Quicksand Model of Coercive Control
The Quicksand Model of Coercive Control, developed by (me) Kate Amber and utilized by End Coercive Control USA, is a survivor-centered, trauma-informed framework that explains the layered tactics and strategies coercive controllers use to entrap and dominate their targeted victims. This model categorizes coercive control tactics and strategies into the D's, E's, F's, and I's, offering a detailed understanding of how coercive control operates on psychological, biological, and social levels. It is a bio-psycho-social framework that takes a holistic and systems-based approach to explaining abuse, violence and oppression. By exploring these categories, we can better understand the mechanisms of coercive control and learn to dismantle the systems that enable coercive controllers and harm targeted victims.
The D's: The Weapons of Coercive Control: Double Standards, Double Binds, Double Speak, Double Down, Double Team, Double Cross, and DARVO
The "D's" in the Quicksand Model highlight the manipulative tactics and strategies abusers use to confuse, control, and dominate their targets.
Double Standards: Coercive controllers enforce one set of rules for themselves and another for their targets, creating an unfair and oppressive dynamic. For example, they may demand loyalty while being unfaithful themselves.
Double Binds: Targets are placed in no-win situations where any choice they make is wrong. This tactic creates confusion and helplessness, as the target feels they cannot succeed no matter what they do.
Double Speak: Coercive controllers use contradictory and deceptive language and communication to manipulate and gaslight their targeted victims. This tactic erodes trust in the target's own perceptions and reality.
Double Down: When confronted, coercive controllers intensify their controlling behavior rather than taking accountability. This escalation reinforces their dominance and silences the target of their abuse.
Double Team: Coercive controllers may enlist others to support their narrative or isolate the victim further, creating a sense of betrayal and amplifying the target's isolation.
Double Cross: Coercive controllers betray the trust of their targets, often by breaking promises or exploiting vulnerabilities. This tactic deepens the targeted victim's dependency and sense of betrayal.
DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender): While The Doubles represent tactics of coercive control, DARVO is the coercive controller's most common strategy. DARVO is used by coercive controllers to Deny their actions, Attack the target for speaking out, and position themselves as the true victim (Reverse Victim & Offender). This strategy shifts blame and silences the targeted victim.
The D's illustrate how coercive controllers entrap targets in quicksand using manipulation, deception, and tactics and strategies of coercion and control, leaving targets feeling trapped and powerless.
The E's: The Goals of Coercive Control: Ensnare, Entrap, Exploit, Erode, Prevent Escape Through Escalation, Erase, and Eradicate
The "E's" focus on the ways coercive controllers systematically dismantle a target's autonomy and sense of self. The E's are the coercive controllers goals which keep targets entrapped in quicksand, or return them to the quicksand, if they manage to temporarily escape.
Ensnare: Coercive controllers lure targets into the quicksand with love bombing (manipulative kindness), mirroring, and future faking (which make up the mirage), only to entrap them in the quicksand of coercion and control that is hidden behind the mirage in the background (see image above).
Entrap: Targets are systematically entrapped in quicksand through isolation, financial control, legal manipulation, and various other psychological, biological and social tactics, making it difficult for them to leave.
Exploit: Coercive controllers take advantage of the target's normal human vulnerabilities, such as by violating or ignoring their emotional needs, forcing financial instability, or triggering their past trauma, to maintain control. Some coercive controllers intentionally choose strong, creative and highly capable targets, specifically to exploit the target's strengths, and feed off of them like a parasite.
Erode: Coercive controllers erode the target's sense of self, identity, and autonomy through constant criticism, gaslighting, and manipulation. Over time, targets may lose confidence in their ability to make decisions or live independently.
Prevent Escape Through Escalation: When targets attempt to leave or assert independence, coercive controllers escalate their tactics and strategies. They do so by increasing the frequency and/or severity of their threats, violence, deception, or manipulation, to prevent their target's escape from the quicksand.
Erase: Coercive controllers attempt to erase the target's individuality, autonomy, and connections to others, leaving them entirely dependent on the abuser. Even after the target leaves the coercive controller, they often feel erased through the coercive controller's and/or system professional's silencing and invalidation of their experience.
Eradicate: In extreme cases, coercive controllers seek to completely eradicate their target. These are the cases that end in homicide, suicide, or homicide/suicide.
The E's demonstrate how coercive control systematically dismantles a target's autonomy and identity, leaving them feeling trapped and hopeless.
The F's: The Methods of Coercive Control: Force, Fraud, and Fear
The "F's" highlight the core mechanisms coercive controllers use to establish and maintain control over their targeted victims.
Force: Coercive controllers use physical, emotional, and/or psychological force to dominate their victims. This can include physical violence, threats, or coercion. Force can be blatant or subtle, and it often manifests as harsh punishments for non-compliance with the coercive controller's demands.
Fraud: Coercive controllers deceive their targets through lies, manipulation, or false promises, creating a false sense of security or trust. Once the target discovers that their coercive controller has been hiding things and lying to them, it can cause intense feelings of betrayal, known as betrayal trauma.
Fear: Fear is a central tool of coercive control. Coercive controllers use credible threats, intimidation, and overt and implied consequences to keep targets compliant. Even one single act of physical violence can be enough to instill a deep feeling of fear in the target, leading to increased compliance, and autonomy erosion, over time.
The F's reveal the fundamental tools of coercive control, which rely on deception, intimidation, and violence to maintain dominance.
The I's: Coercive Control in The Law: Indignity, Isolation, Intimidation, Inequality, and Indoctrination
The "I's" focus on the ways abusers strip targeted victims of their dignity, independence, and agency. Indignity, isolation, intimidation and inequality are aspects covered by statutes against coercive control, and although indoctrination is not included in legal statutes, it is often a primary strategy utilized within a pattern of coercive control, especially within groups.
Indignity: Coercive controllers degrade and dehumanize their targets, stripping them of their dignity and self-worth. This can include verbal abuse, humiliation, or treating the target as inferior.
Isolation: Coercive controllers cut targets off from friends, family, and other support systems, leaving them unsupported and socially and emotionally dependent on the abuser.
Intimidation: Coercive controllers use threats, controlling body language, or tone of voice to instill fear and reinforce their dominance.
Inequality: At the heart of coercive control is a profound imbalance of power. Coercive controllers create a dynamic where they hold all authority, while the target is rendered powerless.
Indoctrination: Indoctrination is the overall strategy used by coercive controllers to systematically instill their beliefs, expectations, and rules into the target's mind through repetition and manipulation. This strategy creates a sense of inevitability and compliance, making it even harder for targets to free themselves from the quicksand.
The I's underscore how coercive control operates on multiple levels to dismantle the target's independence and reinforce systemic power imbalances.
Conclusion
The Quicksand Model of Coercive Control provides a powerful framework for understanding the tactics, strategies, and impacts of coercive control. By examining the D's, E's, F's, and I's we can better recognize the tactics and strategies of coercive controllers and take steps to protect ourselves and our loved ones from this insidious pattern of oppression and domination.
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.
Double Speak - Coercive Controller's Weaponization of Language: An Analysis of JD Vance's Tweet Using The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control
In the complex landscape of political discourse, language often serves as a powerful tool for shaping perceptions and influencing public opinion. The recent tweet by J.D. Vance, U.S. Vice President, provides a compelling case study for examining the weaponization of language through the lens of The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control. This blog post will analyze Vance's statement using the concept of Double Speak, a key component of The Quicksand Model®, to uncover the subtle yet potent coercively controlling tactics employed in political rhetoric.
The Tweet in Question
J.D. Vance, a rising figure in conservative politics, posted the following statement on X (formerly Twitter) on February 9, 2025:
At first glance, this tweet might appear to be a straightforward commentary on the separation of powers in the U.S. government. However, a closer examination through the lens of The Quicksand Model® reveals a more nuanced and potentially manipulative use of language.
Understanding The Quicksand Model® and Double Speak
Before delving into the analysis, it's crucial to understand The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control and its concept of Double Speak. This model identifies several tactics used by coercive controllers to manipulate and dominate their targets, with Double Speak being a key component.
Double Speak involves the deliberate use of language to obscure, disguise, distort, or reverse the meaning of words. It's a powerful tool for creating confusion, dependency, and compliance in the target audience.
In the context of political discourse, Double Speak can be particularly effective in shaping public opinion and justifying certain actions or policies.
Analyzing Vance's Tweet Through the Lens of Double Speak
Let's break down Vance's tweet and examine how it employs various aspects of Double Speak:
1. Euphemistic and Ambiguous Language
Vance's use of the phrase "executive's legitimate power" is a prime example of euphemistic language. By framing executive actions as "legitimate," he subtly implies that any judicial intervention would be illegitimate, without explicitly stating so. This ambiguity allows for multiple interpretations while steering the audience towards a specific conclusion.
2. False Equivalence and Oversimplification
The tweet draws parallels between military operations, prosecutorial discretion, and broader executive powers. This comparison oversimplifies complex constitutional issues and creates a false equivalence between distinct areas of governance. Such oversimplification is a classic Double Speak tactic, designed to make complex issues seem straightforward and unambiguous.
By invoking scenarios of judges interfering with military operations or prosecutorial decisions, Vance taps into emotions of fear and indignation. This emotional manipulation is a key aspect of Double Speak, as it diverts attention from the nuanced reality of checks and balances in the U.S. government system.
4. Distortion of Constitutional Principles
While Vance's tweet appears to champion the separation of powers, it actually distorts this principle by suggesting an overly rigid division. In reality, the U.S. system of government involves complex interactions and checks between branches. This distortion is a form of Double Speak that presents a simplified, black-and-white view of a nuanced issue.
The tweet uses coded language that resonates with a specific political base. Terms like "executive's legitimate power" can be seen as a dog whistle to supporters of a strong executive branch, particularly in the context of recent political debates about executive authority.
6. Deception Through False Implication
J.D. Vance's recent tweet exemplifies the subtle art of lying through false implication, a deceptive technique where a technically true statement implies something false. In this case, Vance's tweet implies that recent executive orders by the Trump Administration constitute a legitimate use of presidential power, suggesting that judicial intervention is inappropriate. However, this implication is misleading, as it overlooks the constitutional separation of powers, particularly Congress's exclusive authority over federal funding as stipulated in the Appropriations Clause of the U.S. Constitution. Trump's executive orders, especially those related to federal funding, have faced significant legal challenges, including temporary restraining orders from federal judges, indicating that they may not be a legitimate exercise of executive authority.
This misleading narrative is particularly dangerous as it exploits the audience's tendency to fill in gaps with assumptions, requiring careful analysis to separate fact from implication. Recent executive orders, such as those targeting diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives and imposing temporary pauses on federal fund disbursement, have sparked immediate legal challenges from advocacy groups and state attorneys general. These legal interventions underscore the ongoing tension between executive authority and legislative control over federal spending, a fundamental aspect of the U.S. government's system of checks and balances.
The Impact of Double Speak in Political Discourse
The use of Double Speak in political communication, as exemplified by Vance's tweet, has far-reaching implications. It can shape public perception, influence policy debates, and even impact the interpretation of constitutional principles. By employing these linguistic tactics, politicians can create a narrative that supports their agenda while appearing to engage in objective discourse.
Moreover, the consistent use of such language can lead to a distorted understanding of complex political and legal issues among the public. It can create an environment where nuanced debate is replaced by simplistic, emotionally charged rhetoric (aka loaded language), potentially undermining the very democratic processes it claims to protect.
Conclusion
J.D. Vance's tweet serves as a prime example of how Double Speak, a key concept in The Quicksand Model® of Coercive Control, can be weaponized in political discourse. By employing euphemistic language, false equivalences, emotional manipulation, deception through false implication, and distortion of principles, Vance's statement goes beyond a simple commentary on separation of powers. It becomes a tool for shaping public opinion and potentially justifying certain political actions.
As consumers of political information, it is crucial to recognize these linguistic tactics and approach such statements with critical thinking. Understanding the mechanics of Double Speak empowers us to see beyond the surface of political rhetoric and engage more meaningfully with the complex realities of governance and constitutional principles.
In an era where information is abundant but clarity is often scarce, the ability to decode Double Speak is not just an academic exercise—it's an essential skill for maintaining a healthy democracy. By recognizing and calling out these tactics common in coercive control, we can strive for a political discourse that is more transparent, honest, and truly representative of the complex issues facing our society.
NOTE: Leaving a coercive controller can be dangerous, so it's important to seek help before doing so. Numerous resources are available on ECCUSA's resource page to assist you.
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.