When we look back at history, the term “witch” sends a chill down our collective spine—not just because of what it represented, but because of what it enabled. For centuries, being called a witch was all it took for society to turn against you: your credibility was destroyed, your voice was silenced, and your fate was sealed. In my work as the founder of The Quicksand Model® and End Coercive Control USA, I see a chilling parallel in how the label “parental alienator” is used in today’s family courts. The witch hunts may be history, but the mechanisms of scapegoating and silencing—especially against protective mothers—are alive and thriving under new terminology.
The Quicksand Model® was born from my research and lived experience in the coercive control and domestic abuse fields. It illustrates how survivors of coercive control, when trying to protect themselves and their children, are pulled deeper into danger by the very systems meant to help them. Family courts, tragically, have become a central part of this quicksand.
Here’s how it works:
Just as women were once branded “witches” for daring to speak out or resist control, today protective parents—especially mothers—are branded “parental alienators” for asserting boundaries or seeking safety. The result? The more you try to protect your children, the deeper you sink into the quicksand of counter-allegations and institutional disbelief.
Parental alienation refers to a situation where one parent is accused of turning a child against the other parent, often in the context of custody disputes. While research recognizes that some cases involve genuine alienation, critics highlight that the concept is sometimes misused in legal settings. Recently, there has been an uptick in cases where protective mothers have been jailed for trying to safeguard their children from alleged abuse, raising concerns about how these frameworks are applied—particularly when the courts dismiss mothers’ concerns as "alienation." This trend underscores the urgent need for nuanced, trauma-informed approaches in family law.
Coercive control is not just an interpersonal tactic wielded by abusers; it is also systemic. Family courts, whether knowingly or not, have adopted frameworks and practices that mirror the dynamics of coercive control on an institutional scale. By rebranding the “witch” as the “parental alienator,” the system:
This is systemic coercive control: a process where the very structures tasked with protection become mechanisms of further entrapment.
We must recognize that “parental alienation” is often used against those who are already most vulnerable. Just as the witch trials punished women for defying the status quo, today’s family courts often punish mothers for trying to keep their children safe. The “parental alienator” label has become a modern tool of social control, wielded with the same disregard for evidence and the same appetite for scapegoats.The Quicksand Model® shows us that, once this label is applied, escape becomes nearly impossible. Protective parents are pulled under by legal processes that are stacked against them, with devastating consequences for both them and their children.
We cannot allow our family courts to perpetuate these modern-day witch hunts.
If you or someone you know is sinking in the quicksand of the family court system, know that you are not alone. At End Coercive Control USA, we are working to expose these patterns and motivate stakeholders to transform systems. Our mission is to ensure that the “witch hunts” of the past do not continue under new names and new excuses.
Let’s name the quicksand, expose the systemic coercive control, and end the cycle of rebranding victims as villains. The safety of children and survivors of abuse depends on our willingness to see—and challenge—these modern parallels.
With hope and solidarity,
Kate Amber MSc
Founder, The Quicksand Model® & End Coercive Control USA
Find resources, support, and more information about The Quicksand Model® at End Coercive Control USA.
Together, we can end systemic coercive control in family courts and throughout social systems worldwide.
Kate Amber, MSc Posted on: September 17, 2025
The recent assassination of Charlie Kirk has sent shockwaves through the nation, not only for the tragic loss of life but also for the disturbing patterns of coercive control that have emerged in the aftermath. As the founder of The Quicksand Model® and a lifelong supporter of ending coercive control (even though I didn't always know what it was called), I am compelled to examine how the administration’s and media’s responses to this event have mirrored the very dynamics of abuse and manipulation that our movement seeks to expose and dismantle. The reactions—marked by double standards, double speak, and the classic DARVO (Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender) maneuver—offer a sobering case study in how coercive control operates far beyond the private sphere, infecting our public discourse and political institutions.
In the immediate aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s murder, the administration and prominent Republican figures, including President Trump, wasted no time in shaping the narrative. Before any facts about the perpetrator were known, the talking points were clear and coordinated: this was the act of a “leftist lunatic,” a symptom of a supposed epidemic of left-wing violence, and a direct attack on conservative values. The media, in lockstep, amplified these claims, stoking fear and division. This rush to judgment exemplifies a common weapon of coercive control: the imposition of a single, self-serving narrative that silences dissent and precludes critical inquiry, which, within The Quicksand Model® falls under fraud.
Although the investigation is ongoing, as it unfolds it is becoming clear that the motivation for the killing is more complex, and most likely the actions of a single individual who was raised by a Republican Mormon family—and one who was regularly photographed with guns. As this information surfaced, the narrative shifted abruptly. Suddenly, the administration and its media allies pivoted to downplay the political motivations, emphasizing mental health and “lone wolf” explanations. This is a textbook example of double standards and double speak, both central to The Quicksand Model®. When the facts fit the preferred narrative, they are weaponized; when they do not, they are minimized or reframed. The rules change depending on who is implicated, revealing a deep hypocrisy at the heart of the response.
This pattern is not merely rhetorical; it is a form of psychological manipulation that mirrors the tactics of coercive controllers in abusive relationships. Double standards—where one set of rules applies to the in-group and another to the out-group—serve to maintain power and control, while double speak—weaponizing language to obscure, distort, or reverse meaning—confuses and destabilizes the public, making it harder to hold anyone accountable. These are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of coercive control in political discourse, as research has shown.
The president’s assertion that leftists are the primary source of political violence is not only misleading but directly contradicted by a wealth of data from government agencies and independent researchers. In fact, right-wing extremist violence has been responsible for the overwhelming majority of domestic terrorism fatalities in the United States over the past decade, accounting for approximately 75% to 80% of such deaths, while left-wing extremist incidents comprise only about 10–15% of incidents and less than 5% of fatalities. Most left-wing violence has targeted property rather than people, whereas right-wing attacks have resulted in far more casualties, including high-profile mass shootings. The FBI, DHS, and multiple academic studies have consistently identified racially or ethnically motivated violent extremists—particularly those on the far right—and anti-government extremists as the most persistent and lethal domestic terrorism threats in recent years. By perpetuating the false narrative that left-wing violence is the greater threat, political leaders and media outlets not only distort the facts but also engage in the very coercive control tactics—double standards and double speak—that The Quicksand Model® warns against.
Perhaps most insidious is the use of DARVO, a tactic I have long identified in my work. In the days following the assassination, we saw the administration and its supporters Deny any responsibility for the toxic political climate, Attack those who called for accountability or gun reform, and Reverse Victim and Offender by portraying themselves as the true victims of “media bias” and “leftist attacks.” This maneuver not only deflects blame but also serves to silence and intimidate critics, reinforcing the coercive controller’s grip on the narrative.
The Quicksand Model® teaches us that coercive control is not just about overt violence; it is about the subtle, persistent erosion of truth, trust, and agency. When those in power manipulate narratives, shift blame, and apply double standards, they are engaging in the same dynamics that trap targeted victims in abusive relationships. The public, in this sense, becomes collectively gaslit—unable to trust what they see and hear, and increasingly powerless to demand accountability.
As proponents of ending coercive control, we must call out these patterns wherever they appear. The assassination of Charlie Kirk is a tragedy, but the administration’s coercively controlling response is a warning. If we allow double standards, double speak, and DARVO to define our public discourse, we risk sinking ever deeper into the quicksand of coercive control. Our mission at End Coercive Control USA is to shine a light on these dynamics, demand transparency, and empower all people—survivors, citizens, and communities—to resist the pull of coercive control in every sphere of life.
While it is undeniable that Charlie Kirk’s views and actions were often provocative and incendiary—frequently sparking intense debate and controversy—he, like every American, was entitled to the fundamental right of free speech enshrined in the First Amendment. As we honor that right, it is imperative that we also remain vigilant in demanding that political figures, media organizations, and social media platforms do not misrepresent facts or manipulate narratives for partisan gain. Only by upholding both the freedom to speak and the responsibility to tell the truth can we foster a society that is both open and just not by succumbing to the politics of fear and control, but by recommitting ourselves to truth, accountability, and the relentless pursuit of justice for all.
As a survivor, researcher, and consultant in the field of coercive control, I've dedicated my career to understanding and combating the insidious tactics used by coercive controllers to manipulate and dominate others.
Today, we find ourselves facing a stark reality: the strategies of coercive control, as outlined in The Quicksand Model®, transcend personal relationships and infiltrate the very institutions meant to uphold our democratic values. The recent capitulation of Paul Weiss law firm and Columbia University to presidential threats serve as chilling case studies of how the F's of Force, Fraud, and Fear can erode the integrity of even our most respected institutions.
Let's examine these events through the lens of The Quicksand Model®, which provides a framework for understanding the dynamics of coercive control:
FORCE: In the case of Paul Weiss, we witnessed the raw power of executive authority being wielded as a weapon. The firm was faced with an executive order that threatened their very ability to operate, and made the firm vulnerable to predatory competitors.
Coercive controllers in the family use similar means of exposing targeted victims to predators within family courts, when they coerce and control unwitting (or predatory) professionals, like custody evaluators and guardians ad litem, to side with them and against their targeted victims.
This use of force manifested not through physical violence, but through the threat of legal and financial repercussions. The firm's agreement to dedicate $40 million in pro bono services and allegedly abandon their diversity, equity, and inclusion policies is a clear example of how force can be used to break down resistance and enforce submission.
FRAUD: The element of fraud in these cases is more subtle but equally pernicious. It manifests in the manipulation of facts and the creation of false narratives. For instance, the justification for these actions against Paul Weiss and Columbia University may have been presented under the guise of promoting fairness or protecting national interests. However, this framing obscures the true nature of these actions as attempts to control and suppress dissenting voices. This deception creates a sense of betrayal and confusion, further entrenching the coercive control.
FEAR: Perhaps the most potent tool in the arsenal of coercive controllers is fear. In the case of Columbia University, the threat of losing billions in federal funding created an environment of intense fear and uncertainty.
This fear led to sweeping changes in policies and practices, including "banning face masks on campus, empowering security officers to remove or arrest individuals, and taking control of the department that offers courses on the Middle East from its faculty."
The power of fear lies in its ability to create compliance even in the absence of direct threats. Other institutions, witnessing these consequences, may preemptively alter their behaviors to avoid similar repercussions, what is creating a "profound chilling effect," not just on universities, but any institution concerned with being placed in Trump's crosshairs.
A similar situation occurs with victims of sexual assault and domestic violence. Victims often hesitate to report their experiences due to a pervasive fear rooted in observing the public shaming and humiliation of those who have come forward before them. This fear of negative consequences, stemming from witnessing others' traumatic experiences with reporting, significantly contributes to the underreporting of sexual assaults and domestic violence.
The Quicksand Model® helps us understand how these elements of Force, Fraud, and Fear interact to create a coercive environment that can entrap even powerful institutions. Just as an individual might find themselves sinking deeper into coercive control quicksand in a "relationship," these institutions found themselves caught in the quicksand of coercive control, where every attempt to resist seemed to pull them in deeper.
What makes these situations particularly alarming is the scale at which they operate. When institutions of such stature capitulate to coercive control tactics and strategies, it sets a dangerous precedent that ripples throughout society. The coercive control strategies used against Paul Weiss and Columbia University are not isolated incidents but part of a broader pattern of coercive control that threatens the integrity of our institutions and, by extension, our democracy.
As advocates for ending coercive control, we must adapt our strategies to address these institutional-level threats. We need to:
- Empower institutions to recognize and resist coercive control tactics by providing them with training based on The Quicksand Model®, helping them identify and counter the F's of Force, Fraud, and Fear.
- Educate the public about the dangers of institutional betrayal through systemic coercive control, using The Quicksand Model® to illustrate how these dynamics affect their lives and society at large.
- Advocate for systemic changes and encourage institutional courage which can protect institutional independence and integrity, including legal safeguards against the weaponization of federal funding and executive power.
- Center the voices of those most affected by these power dynamics, ensuring that marginalized communities and perspectives are not further silenced by institutional capitulation.
The cases of Paul Weiss and Columbia University serve as stark reminders that coercive control is not just a personal issue but a societal one that threatens the very fabric of our democracy. By applying The Quicksand Model® to these institutional contexts, we can better understand the mechanisms of control and develop more effective strategies to combat them.
The path forward is challenging, but it's one we must walk together. By standing firm in our values, supporting one another, and tirelessly advocating for change, we can create a world where neither individuals nor institutions are trapped in the quicksand of coercive control. The health of our democracy depends on our ability to recognize, resist, and overcome these tactics of Force, Fraud, and Fear at every level of society.
#ActsOfResistance
___________________________________________
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.
____________________________________________
About the Author
Kate Amber, MSc, is dedicated to ending coercive control and promoting healthy relationships. Her work with End Coercive Control USA focuses on providing insights and support for those striving to create compassionate and respectful connections.
____________________________________________
The Quicksand Model™ Training Programs are available for schools, groups, religious organizations, non-profits, businesses, government etc.
---------------------------------------------------
Free Consultations: coercive control expert witness & coercive control consulting for survivors
Free Consultations: coercive control speaker, trainer, consultant or expert witness for organizations, companies & systems
Nothing in this blog is intended to diagnose or treat. It is for informational purposes only.
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 Coercive Control
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.
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.
