Intimate partner violence (IPV) is any form of harm experienced within a romantic relationship, including physical, sexual, and psychological abuse. While either gender can perpetrate IPV, women are largely the victims. IPV is impartial to culture, socio-economic status, religion, popularity, etc. What can be seen, such as the scars and unexplained injuries, reflects the physical manifestations of IPV, and are often the first indicators of the occurring abuse.

Those who are aware or suspect that IPV is occurring often question the “decision” of the victim to remain in the relationship. Fairly so, their concern is understandable because, under normal circumstances, when situations are unfavourable, the logical thing to do is withdraw oneself. However, IPV cases are abnormal, and ending the relationship is often a complicated decision for the victim. The impact of IPV is much deeper than what meets the eye, and what lies beyond the bruises is what gives us a clearer understanding of why victims remain in these circumstances.

Let us examine some of these factors:

Psychological restraint

IPV often places the victim under psychological restraint that prevents them from making a conscious decision to leave the relationship. IPV victims are often caught between trying to understand the simultaneous occurrence of love and violence, and this places the victim at an emotional junction with no clear sense of direction.

The inability to choose which direction to take is further compounded if children and shared assets are involved. The cycle of love and violence may also give rise to a false sense of hope, in that the victim believes the good in the perpetrator will prevail and hence continue to remain in the relationship.

The repeated cycle of love and violence may also lead to trauma bonding. Trauma bonding occurs when the IPV victim develops a deep emotional connection with the abuser resulting from the recurring cycle of abuse. Trauma bonding may cause the victim to accept blame for the occurring violence, justify the abuser’s actions, and isolate themselves from friends and family, especially if they speak out about the abuser’s actions.

Manipulation is another psychological tactic employed by perpetrators of IPV. The cycle of abuse and reconciliation is an example of manipulation at work. Abusing one’s partner and initiating reconciliation, whether by verbal communication, being more present in the shared space, or bombarding the victim with gifts, may seem like sweet efforts toward improved behaviour. However, this is psychological control in progress. What the abuser is doing is far from being genuine; it is controlling the victim’s thoughts and feelings. It should also be noted that manipulation is not always presented as pretentious gestures of affection. Manipulation may also be blatant gaslighting, blaming the victim for the abuse that occurred, or brazenly waving the wand of power, which, in the perpetrator’s view, grants authority to inflict abuse.

Power imbalance

The power imbalance in the relationship is a more comprehensible reason for IPV victims remaining in abusive situations. One party has the resources, be it financial or otherwise, and the other needs those resources to survive and hence remains in the abusive situation. Preying on the vulnerabilities of the victim, the holder of the power may use tactics such as withholding of resources, manipulation, cohesion, and terrorisation to demand the victim’s compliance, which further binds the victim to the abusive relationship. Conversely, in some cases of IPV the victim is the one with more resources but still experiences violence because the perpetrator is intimidating and aggressive, and drives fear into the victim through physical assaults and the use of threats.

Loss of agency is a product of power imbalance in abusive relationships. Agency within the parameters of a relationship refers to an individual’s ability to control and influence their own life. Agency gives an individual self-governance through the power of choice; when agency is lost the individual is externally governed.

Case in point, an IPV victim, who may not have any alternative dwelling or financial resources to advance plans to leave the relationship, may resort to helpless resignation, which translates into being stuck with the abuser. It must also be noted that loss of agency not only results from the inability to access material resources to advance self-governance. Loss of agency within an abusive romantic relationship is also manifested in the victim’s mental and psychological incapacity resulting from the endured abuse. The mental and psychological battering that the victim experiences often subtract from their sense of control over their own life. Similarly, their mental fortitude and capacity to make informed decisions, such as the decision to leave the abusive relationship, are compromised.

Shame

Perpetrators of IPV often use shame as a tactic to keep the victim under duress as well as to minimize the possibility of them reporting the abuse. Shaming tactics include undermining the victim’s capacities, name-calling, and humiliation. The use of shame is a form of emotional abuse that further erodes the victim’s sense of self, self-worth, self-esteem, and self-confidence. Shame can evoke feelings of worthlessness, unattractiveness, and undesirability and may force the victim to isolate. Shame deteriorates the victim’s emotional defence, which makes it more difficult for them to develop the courage needed to leave the relationship. The stigma that society places on victims of IPV is also a source of shame that these victims try to avoid by not telling anyone about the violence they are experiencing. Victims are often afraid that their disclosure may receive a negative reception and lead to further hurt and humiliation; as a result, they remain in abusive relationships under the perception that the less people know, the better it is for them.

What can be done?

The aggregate of the aforementioned unseen sides of IPV pierces deeper than the bruises we see. These factors form the hidden section of the iceberg that fuels our disappointment at the victim for not leaving the relationship. However, the reality is that the single occurrence, or the combination of any of these invisible factors, often makes it difficult for IPV victims to up and go as onlookers would expect.

An understanding of how IPV impacts the victim is an indication that an individual’s disclosure about experiencing IPV must never be met with scant regard, blame, or ridicule, because it takes great courage and psychological fortitude for a victim to say, “I am being abused by my partner; I need help.”

IPV victims need love, patience, support, and access to information and resources that can help them survive their abusive situation and regain their agency. Public discourse and education campaigns on IPV are needed to provide continuous education on IPV prevention and encourage action for social change. Relevant government and private sector agencies must take a stronger collaborative and action-orientated approach to the development and execution of policies geared toward the prevention of IPV. These collaborative efforts must also include community-level initiatives to stem IPV. Additionally, greater pooling of resources is needed to establish more safe houses across the island, which will encourage more victims to leave abusive environments in favour of the safety and support provided by these shelters. The prevention of IPV is the responsibility of all. The more informed we are, the more equipped we are to protect ourselves and assist those affected.

Onnica Morris, PhD, is head of the Guidance & Counselling Department at Sam Sharpe Teachers’ College. Send comments to the Jamaica Observer or onnica.morris@samsharpe.edu.jm.