Coercive Control
The Subtle Red Flag Holding Everything in Place
The film The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly comes to a climax with a Mexican standoff near the end. Three characters, one of them played by Clint Eastwood, all are after one thing: the grave where a fortune is purported to be buried. Good, Bad, and Ugly are pointing guns at one another in a showdown that will determine who wins the loot.
One weapon, however is empty, and it is down to Eastwood and his nemesis, the Bad. Turns out that the Good, otherwise known as Blondie, is faster than his opponent and shoots him dead.
But for that moment until someone makes a move, each is locked in a standstill, not daring even to blink. If you shoot, he may shoot you, or if you move, you might end up dead. You can’t run or walk away. You cannot move a muscle. The tension is pulled taut with all people on edge and waiting until it’s safe to do something.
In addition, you also have to watch for signs someone else is acting, as you have milliseconds to respond or die. All your energy is consumed by watching. To bystanders, it may look like nothing is happening.
In an abusive situation, victims are locked in a Mexican standoff called coercive control. Outsiders can’t see it, but it is nonetheless real. Lose this game, and you may just lose your life. The question why does she stay hinges on this conundrum.
And so, in a coercively controlling situation, it is as if one is holding the gun to your head, but no one can see it. In addition, you don’t know if it’s loaded or if they are bluffing. There may be innocent bystanders as well, like family or small children who could also get hurt.
You’re playing a game of cat and mouse, but most people do not see your paralysis for what it is. It may be invisible but is, nonetheless, explosive. People are familiar with the abuse victim who remains locked in place, barely daring to breathe. She is frozen, because there is, in effect, a deadly weapon pointed directly at her. Should she flinch or jump out of the way to safety, she could be shot down.
We have written intimidating behavior out of the vernacular regarding domestic violence and have easier-to-digest caricatures floating around that help explain the phenomenon. Except, they don’t. They offer a stylized formula for what happens around the house.
In a scripted plot or movie, someone makes peas, and they’re a little bit burnt. Fists are raised, shadows on the wall engage in a defensive stance before giving way to a cacophony of screams before ending the scene and fading to black.
We’re not even sure what abuse even really is. And so, we’ve relegated a large portion of the common perception down to physical violence, and while this is true, it is more like an arm growing off the monster than the monster itself.
Because abuse also happens right in front of us all the time, as people are public and around their communities, abusers and their victims have to fit in. They are going to display a subtle language of communication that is easily missed if you aren’t paying attention.
It is a way of saying you will pay for this should you step out of line. Abusers often enjoy being sociable, presenting themselves as the perfect partner. They are often helpful to their friends and come across as charming and glib. They may be the life of the party. They are, however, playing a role. The woman is as well, but it is one she is forced into.
The abuser dictates what she may do and say, pulling the strings in front of everyone. Theirs is a public charade, and he is the puppet master. She is reacting to the tiny clues he gives. She is aware of him in a state of hyperfocus that is both draining and filters everything through the lens of will this make him upset?
The other party goers may have a marvelous time and be none the wiser of what they were a witness to. Granted, there are abusers who are more vocal and whose problems can more keenly be felt by those around them. Coercive control, however, is designed to benefit the abuser and be nearly almost hidden. The degree of skill in accomplishing this will largely depend on the perpetrator and their experience, motives, drive, and desires.
In countries like England, Wales, and Australia, coercive control has been codified as a criminal offense. I have heard outcry regarding this in the U.S., claiming that the offending behavior could literally be anything and would be too hard to enforce. As usual, our country values protecting abusers over their victims and the enormous financial toll this takes on our economy.
Coercive control, however, is the hinge on which domestic violence hangs. It is present long before the first punch is ever thrown and is the glue holding disparate actions together into one cohesive theme.
It is a pattern of behavior that make a victim feel threatened and includes cutting off modes of social support. When normal actions feel risky, a victim is much more likely to act in the way that the abuser wants. This can take a plethora of forms, depending on the abusive dynamic and surrounding culture.
For some, it may be limiting outings and associations, for others it may be against wearing make-up, doing your hair, or wearing certain types of clothes. It can include one’s family not being welcome to your home and being spied on.
A woman may be directly threatened with words that say or imply don’t do this or else. This can also be conveyed with gestures or facial expressions or silently implied through the presence of weapons or by slamming doors or punching holes in walls.
Coercive control can absolutely involve name-calling and hitting, abuse of pets, and of children. It is a form of intimidation that aims to keep another person in check at all times while giving the appearance that nothing is wrong. It helps abusers blend in and obfuscates why a survivor may respond in the way she does.
Coercive control may be difficult to explain to others. It may appear as if your distress is without cause. People may struggle to see what the problem is. It basically forces another person to do things they don’t want to do or stops them from doing that which they would wish.
Nevertheless, it is the playbook by which many abusers operate, and it is the undergirding structure onto which an abusive framework sits. It is the trap set with consequences if a person moves the wrong way. It keeps everything in place in a way the survivor instinctively understands.
It can be a reason why severe violence can erupt in a couple in which there was no previous hitting. It is like a spring with its tension ratcheted up but still remaining tightly coiled until the potential energy stored and the applied pressure explode, severely injuring someone.
The Netflix documentary American Murder: Gabby Petito shows extended body cam footage from the police who pulled Gabby Petito and Brian Laundrie over. It is distressing to watch as she is labeled the aggressor and takes the blame, as we all know that she was murdered just 8 days later.
I have heard it said that she suffered from internalized misogyny or low self-esteem or some other malady, but she appears to be acting primarily out of the coercive control Brian is exerting. The implication to her would have been that if she did not protect Brian, she would have been in risk of harm by him after their encounter with authorities.
When the police leave, she knows she will have no one to protect her, and she is a long way from home. Brian had already been physically violent, and Gabby needed to deflect the blame and take the heat off him. He instinctively also pushes this same narrative, and the two are in lock step. It is disturbing, but what you are seeing is abject fear of her perpetrator due to coercive control.
And even after knowing the ending, most people are baffled at what they are seeing. This is precisely because it is supposed to be effective. People are not supposed to catch on but are to think there is simply a histrionic woman on the roadside along with her long-suffering boyfriend.
Brian’s reversing of victim and offender is also remarkably common. It is part of the DARVO strategy many abusers employ that stands for deny, attack, reverse victim and offender. In this setting, he convincingly became the victim, and Gabby became the aggressor. Even the police struggled with how to treat this, as it was obvious she could not do much damage to him physically.
Later, after he had strangled her and staged her body by positing her in an unnatural position, he used Gabby’s credit cards, as he drove her Ford Transit back to his parents’ home in Florida. He wrote a false account of her death that claimed she was injured and in pain after a fall and that she had begged to be put out of her misery. He claims he killed her to ease her suffering.
Later, he would kill himself in the swamp lands of a Florida park.
In some ways, the criminalization and enacting of coercive control reminds me of stalking. This is because actions intended to be threatening will often be coded so that just the recipient understands the message. The offender will often not come out and make a statement directly intending harm but will use symbols to convey their intentions.
This creates fear on the part of the victim but may leave others in the dark until something happens.
The target is robbed of their freedom through subtle acts by the abuser. It is a form of communication, a dialect one needs to be very quiet to hear. Tiny gestures register loud messages understood clearly by the victim. There are checklists used by law enforcement and DV agencies used to determine the potential lethality of a situation, and these often ask the woman how safe she feels.
It is determined that a woman’s intuitive grasp of the situation’s potential for deadly violence is the best predictor available. She has more information than anyone and is continually gauging the day-to-day levels of tension.
In the coercive abuser’s mind, very often reality is distorted, and he believes he is the one being treated wrongly and will feel justified in his cruel stance toward his partner. He is never accountable, not sorry, and does not repent or change direction. He feels completely entitled to the efforts, labor, and possession of his partner’s person as a whole. There is no conflict here for him.
We need to understand this leveled threat at victims of coercive control, because until we do, as a society, we cannot help abusive victims. We continue to lob the stupid question why does she stay instead of asking why can’t she leave.
We think she is missing a part of the equation when it is us who is lacking the full view. Unless we are willing to put forth the full support a person needs and to observe the necessary discretion, we endanger a victim’s life further.
That isn’t to say you should do nothing but that it should be done with diligence, caution, and an informed approach.
You may also have to pay attention in a heightened way to the clues given off by the abuser and be patient in steadfast solidarity with the victim. Leaving is the most dangerous time, and 75% of women who are killed were murdered after they left.
Coercive control is not any less hazardous due to its seemingly placid exterior. It is the slow building of a spider web to trap its prey until the moment comes to strike. It is time we learned to identify the signs before it is too late.
Never miss an update on conversations that go deeper into matters of Christian faith at Gutsy Christianity: The Afterparty.
Join today as a paid supporter and gain access to all the archives and over 50 long-form articles for paid subscribers, many with voiceovers about the hottest topics too risky for social media.
Share this post with your peeps!
About the Author
Rosa A. Hopkins has hosted radio shows on 11 Christian stations, is a writer of gospel songs, has promoted Heartbeat legislation, and is a singer and songwriter. Her writings can also be found on her Facebook page. Join over 29,000 other readers here.
Obsession
The Red Flag Hiding in Plain Sight
What Was She Wearing?
Could We Ask a Stupider Question?
