Chauncey and Don, your recent posts have been thought provoking. Chauncey’s point about the recurrent failure of therapists [and others] to think ‘big’, i.e. in terms of systems, and Don’s point about the need to change language in order to change systems come together for me in the following line of thought:
As I have suggested previously, open discussion of the [shame-driven] interactional nature of domestic violence(DV) has, among DV professionals long been shamed or, not infrequently, shouted away as ‘victim blaming’ by the politically influential ‘victim advocacy’ wing of the DV movement. Any exploration of the psychological issues that might contribute to increased victim vulnerability risks the accusation of ‘pathologising the victim”. I find the power of this language to smother open discussion ominous, in the way that I suspect “Communist sympathizer” or “fellow traveler” were once successfully used to shame people into silence.
My own view, shaped by my work with offenders and victims, is that as long as there is systemic shaming of people in families, schools and workplaces there will be individuals in couple relationships who will resort to ‘attack other’ shame defenses. This is by no means an agument for a ‘permissive’ approach to batterers but merely an observation that we ought not delude ourselves that ‘blaming the perpetrator’ is an adequate conceptualization of the complex problem of domestic violence (any more than blaming drug dealers is an adequate conceptualization of America’s drug problem).
Don once said something like “Imagine every 15 year-old in the country being exposed to [my] whiteboard talk on the compass of shame....” . ( no comment on Don’s and my narcissistic, shame-reducing grandiosity :-). In fact, that type of 'big' thinking IS, IMO, the beginning of an adequate conceptualization of any approach to family, school or workplace abuse that has any hope of widespread effectiveness. A systems approach to shame and abuse....hmmm.