Re-tangling the concept of coercive control: A view from the margins and a response to Walby and Towers (2018)
| Author | Catherine Donovan,Rebecca Barnes |
| Date | 01 April 2021 |
| Published date | 01 April 2021 |
| DOI | 10.1177/1748895819864622 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895819864622
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2021, Vol. 21(2) 242 –257
© The Author(s) 2019
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/1748895819864622
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
Re-tangling the concept of
coercive control: A view from
the margins and a response to
Walby and Towers (2018)
Catherine Donovan
Durham University, UK
Rebecca Barnes
University of Leicester, UK
Abstract
This article responds to Walby and Towers’ article, in which they propose a quantitative
methodology that evidences gender asymmetry in ‘domestic violence crime’. Through examining
core issues including harm, severity and repetition of domestic violence crime victimisation,
they argue that Stark’s concept of ‘coercive control’ is obsolete and refute Johnson’s typology
of intimate partner violence. However, their conclusions are based on problematic assumptions
about, for example, the relative impacts of physical and non-physical violence; the usefulness of
incident- rather than relationship-based understandings of domestic violence and abuse and a
focus on victim/survivors’ ‘resilience’ and ‘vulnerability’ over perpetrators’ motives. Moreover,
their cisnormative operationalisation of sex and gender and neglect of sexuality overlooks
important evidence about lesbian, gay, bisexual and/or transgender people’s victimisation.
This reinforces a limited ‘public story’ of domestic violence and abuse and arguably creates
weaknesses in feminist analyses of domestic violence that could further fuel anti-feminist,
gender-neutral approaches.
Keywords
Coercive control, domestic violence crime, gender asymmetry, gender symmetry, sexuality
Corresponding author:
Catherine Donovan, Department of Sociology, Durham University, 30 Old Elvet, Durham DH1 3HN, UK.
Email: catherine.donovan@durham.ac.uk
864622CRJ0010.1177/1748895819864622Criminology & Criminal JusticeDonovan and Barnes
research-article2019
Article
Donovan and Barnes 243
Introduction
Recently, Sylvia Walby and colleagues outlined a radical new methodology for survey-
ing interpersonal violence (Walby et al., 2016, 2017; Walby and Towers, 2017). Their
aims are twofold: to facilitate the production of more valid and robust empirical evidence
about experiences and perpetration of what they call interpersonal violence; and to
address the ongoing debate about the extent to which gender is implicated within it. They
argue that ‘the way forward is to include gender within mainstream statistics and indica-
tors’ (Walby et al., 2017: 3). Most recently, Walby and Towers (2018) propose the con-
cept of domestic violence crime (DVC) as both definition and measure of the behaviours
that are, in their view, both the most problematic type of interpersonal violence and the
most emblematic of gender asymmetry.
We refer to intimate partner violence (IPV) in this article when we are discussing any
acts of violence and/or abuse in intimate adult relationships and from ex-partners. This is
because we agree with Myhill (2017) and others that there exist different kinds of IPV
that require careful identification in order to best respond to each; and that in order to
identify them, motives, impact and the relationship context for the IPV need to be exam-
ined. Consequently, we concur with Johnson (2008) and Stark (2007) that coercively
controlling behaviours constitute a substantively different kind of violence and abuse
than a one-off incident situationally motivated to win an argument or indicate frustration.
However, we adopt the term domestic violence and abuse (DVA) to describe the most
serious kind of IPV – coercively controlling violence, as Johnson would call it – because
this is the term most widely used, including by the Home Office in England and Wales.
In addition, while we are aware that in England and Wales, the Home Office definition
of DVA includes familial relationships, for brevity – and in line with existing IPV theo-
risation – we focus only on adult intimate relationships.
In reading Walby and Towers (2018), we have found ourselves in disagreement with
much – though not by any means, all – of what they say. We found this surprising because
we identify ourselves as feminists and have drawn from the feminist conceptual toolkit
during our years of researching IPV in the relationships of lesbians, gay men, bisexual
women and men, trans women and men, and gender non-binary people (LGB and/or
T+). Our conceptual journey began with agreeing that the feminist focus on power and
control as defining characteristics of DVA is crucial in being able to identify those most
at risk of escalation, fear, a closing down of ‘space for action’ (Kelly, 2007) and signifi-
cant physical and mental health impacts. We have understood gender as a core lens
through which IPV should be researched in order to make sense of the different experi-
ences, enactments and impacts of IPV, as well as to explore different help-seeking prac-
tices (see, for example, Barnes, 2008; Donovan and Hester, 2014). The work of Johnson
(2008) and Stark (2012) has underpinned our arguments that identifying the different
motives for, and meanings and impacts of, IPV are crucial for the development of best
practice in relation to those who are LGB and/or T+.
That the societal context within which IPV takes place is patriarchal is also axiomic.
From this follows our agreement that patriarchal influences shape and construct expec-
tations and beliefs about how families, intimacy, gender roles and norms might be
enacted and/or experienced in intimate relationships, regardless of identities of gender
To continue reading
Request your trial