More shame and domestic violence

• Lost my post. Advice please. by Rich Kuyper, 12/26/96
  • Safe posting by Don Nathanson, 12/26/96
    
    

One “difference that makes a difference” (to use Gregory Bateson’s phrase) between Lansky’s family interactional approach to intimate violence and the overwhelming majority of programs (including the one with which I am associated) in existence today, is the format itself. Family therapy treatment in court-ordered cases has, with few exceptions, been essentially legislated out of existence. Treating dv offenders in groups has been the default standard for many years, and one cannot generally discharge his treatment obligation to the court via family or couple therapy. The rationale for this is twofold - first, couple therapy, it is claimed, could lead to further violence by putting the victim at risk for repercussions should she be “too” honest in therapy; second, permitting family or couple therapy would be to implicitly recognize that (as Lansky’s work suggests) “much of domestic violence is interactional”. This latter has been politically INcorrect anathema for over a decade--blaming the victim. Those who have suggested that it might be useful to, as you put it, “look for causality at a level deeper than the good/bad dichotomy” have effectively been shamed into silence, at least at the legislative level. I know of no state approved program in my state (Colorado),--or any other--utilizing conjoint therapy with mandated clients.

This is not all bad. For many offenders the group format would be my choice as well, and in fact , in addition to my private practice with individuals and couples, I have done three to four groups (of dv offenders) per week for the past five years. My criticisms of the treatment constraint discussed above, however are that it homoginizes discrete events (incidents of domestic violence) that are not homogenous, it eliminates therapeutic discretion, and it essentially closes its eyes to the reality that many victims are indeed “trapped in interactions they know how to approach only with techniques that guarantee further abuse”. These particular, often shame-bound, interactions might reasonably suggest a treatment approach that includes both parties and addresses itself to BOTH the shame AND the interaction. Meanwhile, I believe it is possible to do useful work with offenders in groups, and I am increasingly convinced that identifying, uncovering and releasing shame is central to that work. If there is interest, I would be happy to explore that futher in subsequent posts.

Thank you Dr. Nathanson for your insightful initial response and for your subsequent technical advice regarding post-saving. If you are reading this, it worked!

• Violent couples by Don Nathanson, 12/29/96
  • Reponse to Violent Couples by Rich Kuyper, 1/1/97
• And another thing. . . by Don Nathanson, 12/29/96
  • And another thing...Careful Dr. N. by Rich Kuyper, 1/1/97
    • being real by Don Nathanson, 1/2/97
      • Response to being real by Rich Kuyper, 1/2/97