Dr. Lenore E Walker, an American psychologist and founder of the Domestic Violence Institute established in the 1970s, published “The Battered Woman Syndrome” in 2009. However, she had previously popularized her battered woman syndrome model as well as her tension-reduction theory in the late 1980s; which were ultimately used in court for domestic violence-related trials. In “The Battered Women Syndrome” Walker proposes that “women,” or rather people, spiral into a syndrome-like state when experiencing domestic violence. And this is supported by the idea of the tension-reduction theory; which exemplifies the cyclical matter in which domestic abuse commonly presents itself. This theory is composed of three distinct stages associated with recurring domestic abuse; the tension-building phase, the acute battering incident, and the honeymoon phase. Referring to her study in psychology, Walker suggests and often argues that recurring domestic violence, rather than being seen as a random occurrence of episodes, should be psychoanalyzed as the cyclical pattern that immobilizes a victim both psychologically and physiologically, placing them in a syndrome like state unable to free themselves from the consequential amount of power and control held over them. So, theoretically, we have a legitimate psychiatric diagnosis in support of domestic violence victims, yet society continues to ignorantly follow the culture of victim-blaming. *Will go into depth about Walker’s theories*
Walker, Lenore. “The Battered Women Syndrome” Springer Publishing Company, 2016
Sherry Hamby, a professor of psychology at the University of the South and the founding editor of the APA’s Psychology of Violence journal, speculates that the biggest factor that promotes victim-blaming is something called the just-world hypothesis; The idea that people deserve what happens to them, and thus people feeling the strong need to believe that we all deserve our outcomes and consequences. This idea is upheld by pretty much anyone involved or not in any situation presented. And this is a dangerous mindset to have. Blindly believing that human beings are simply innately responsible for their circumstances is ignorant, yet we experience this type of response so often. Why is this? Hambly explains that maybe holding victims responsible for their misfortune is partially a way to avoid admitting that something just as unthinkable could happen to you—even if you do everything “right.” In other words, people are quick to blame the person in front of them, often enough the victim, so that they can feel safe themselves. It’s a surface-level response coming from a subconscious fear. Barbara Gilin, a professor of social work at Widener University supports this notion having dealt with criminal cases. She states that whatever the crime, people tend to default to victim-blaming thoughts and behaviors as a defense mechanism in the face of bad news. Gilin notes that, while people tend to be able to accept natural disasters as unavoidable, many feel that they have a little more control over whether they become victims of crimes, that they can take precautions that will protect them. Therefore, some people have a harder time accepting that the victims of these crimes didn’t contribute to (and bear some responsibility for) their own victimization. Suppose that a neighbor’s child was assaulted. Surely, that will never happen to their child because that other parent must have been doing something “wrong.” It’s such an easy mindset to keep, especially when looking in from an outside perspective, completely free to opinionate on a matter that only incites fear.
* One more to post, I have the source, but have to fix up the writing. *
