UK victim-survivor experiences of intimate partner spiritual abuse and religious coercive control and implications for practice
| Published date | 01 November 2023 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221112057 |
| Author | Natasha Mulvihill,Nadia Aghtaie,Andrea Matolcsi,Marianne Hester |
| Date | 01 November 2023 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
https://doi.org/10.1177/17488958221112057
Criminology & Criminal Justice
2023, Vol. 23(5) 773 –790
© The Author(s) 2022
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/17488958221112057
journals.sagepub.com/home/crj
UK victim-survivor experiences
of intimate partner spiritual
abuse and religious coercive
control and implications for
practice
Natasha Mulvihill , Nadia Aghtaie,
Andrea Matolcsi and Marianne Hester
University of Bristol, UK
Abstract
This study extends existing scholarship on coercive control within an intimate relationship by
exploring how some perpetrators use spiritual abuse as part of their control repertoire and how
others harness belief and doctrine to exercise a totalising ‘religious coercive control’ over their
victims. The analysis in this article draws on two multi-faith datasets: secondary data analysis of
27 semi-structured interviews and primary data collected through an online anonymous survey
eliciting 24 qualitative responses, supplemented by 4 follow-up interviews with victim-survivors.
Thematic analysis demonstrates the experience and longer-term impact of coercive control on
victim-survivors and the barriers to help-seeking, including complicity at familial, community and
leadership levels. We articulate their recommendations for change within places of worship and
the implications for criminal justice practitioners.
Keywords
Coercive control, domestic abuse, faith, religion, spiritual abuse
Introduction
This study extends existing scholarship on coercive control within an intimate relation-
ship by exploring how some perpetrators use spiritual abuse as part of their control rep-
ertoire and how others harness belief and doctrine to exercise a totalising religious
coercive control (Sharp, 2014) over their victims. While there is a well-established
Corresponding author:
Natasha Mulvihill, University of Bristol, Bristol BS8 1TH, UK.
Email: natasha.mulvihill@bristol.ac.uk
1112057CRJ0010.1177/17488958221112057Criminology & Criminal JusticeMulvihill et al.
research-article2022
Article
774 Criminology & Criminal Justice 23(5)
literature in the United States on domestic abuse and faith, particularly within Christian
communities, UK-based research is still emerging (Barnes and Aune, 2021; Oakley and
Kinmond, 2013). The analysis in this article draws on two multi-faith datasets: second-
ary data analysis of 27 semi-structured interviews conducted over 2016–2017 and pri-
mary data collected through an online anonymous survey in 2021 eliciting 24 qualitative
responses, supplemented by 4 follow-up interviews with victim-survivors. Thematic
analysis demonstrates the experience and longer-term impact of coercive control on vic-
tim-survivors in a faith context and the barriers to help-seeking, including complicity at
familial, community and leadership levels. We articulate their recommendations for
change within places of worship and the implications for criminal justice practitioners.
Coercive control
In the context of an intimate partner relationship, coercive control describes a pattern of
behaviours by the perpetrator, which cumulatively undermines the personhood and
restricts the freedom of their victim (Stark, 2007; Tadros, 2004). These behaviours may
include physical, sexual, emotional, psychological and/or financial abuse and threats as
well as monitoring through stalking, harassment and tracking the victim’s movements
online. To consolidate their control, perpetrators may seek to isolate their victims from
family, friendship and work colleague networks and leverage children, companion ani-
mals, cherished objects or activities, to intimidate and punish their victims. Daily life
with perpetrators is characterised commonly by fear, unpredictability and intermittent
positive episodes, which can in turn lead the victim to self-doubt and confusion about
their experience overall. Williamson (2010: 1415) describes how over time victims
‘internalize the controls placed on them such that they seek to anticipate and avoid’ their
perpetrator’s abuse. Stark (2007: 205) identifies how coercive control leads to a ‘condi-
tion of unfreedom’, which he terms ‘entrapment’.
Stark describes coercive control as a tool perpetrated by men against women. In this
way, his work sits in a tradition of feminist scholarship which identifies the subordina-
tion of women within patriarchal societies as the primary facilitator for gendered vio-
lence and abuse (Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Hanmer and Saunders, 1984; Hester, 1992;
Kelly, 1988). His work draws directly and indirectly on studies of trauma (Herman,
1997) and on collective and individual coercive persuasion within totalitarian (Arendt,
1973) and cult contexts (Hassan, 2015; Stein, 2016; Thaler Singer, 2003). Further
research has explored the operation of coercive control in same-sex relationships
(Donovan and Hester, 2014; Frankland and Brown, 2014), its impact on children
(Callaghan et al., 2018) and its use by groups, such as street gangs (Harvard et al., 2021).
The work of Stark and others explicitly informed the development of Section 76 of
the Serious Crime Act 2015 in England and Wales. This legislation makes controlling or
coercive behaviour within an intimate or familial relationship a criminal offence. The
law requires that the behaviour should occur on at least two occasions between con-
nected individuals and have a serious effect on the victim. In a review of media reports
in the 3 years following the introduction of the offence, McGorrery and McMahon (2019)
found that police and Crown prosecutors were successfully identifying, connecting and
pursuing relevant cases, although they queried whether the high guilty plea rate (73% in
To continue reading
Request your trial