intimate terrorism
Recently Published Documents


TOTAL DOCUMENTS

49
(FIVE YEARS 6)

H-INDEX

16
(FIVE YEARS 1)

2021 ◽  
pp. 153270862110377
Author(s):  
Michael Lechuga

Today’s academy is a dystopia. Many scholars of color and international scholars face the daunting challenge of navigating neoliberal state institutions that are often built on legacies of racism, colonialism, and classism. This essay brings attention to the feelings of despair, anxiety, and paranoia felt by many scholars of color in the fields of humanities and social sciences, but whose narratives too often become ones of abrupt exit from the Ministry of Knowledge (and) Entrepreneurship (MKE). The essay relies on a discussion of Anzaldúa’s intimate terrorism, the composition of today’s academy, and the sense of never-quite-being. These themes emerge out of a dialogue with Anzaldúa, Deleuze, and Harney and Moten, who each have something to say about navigating institutions of power from a position of in-betweenness. Then, I assemble themes from contemporary popular dystopia films to develop a performative fiction—a narrative of never-quite-being that embodies the critical theory and dystopic themes woven through the experiences of a border-body in the academy. The essay ends with a discussion of what being intimate looks like for someone that never-quite-is, informed by Anzaldúa’s concept of mestizaje and Deleuze’s nomad thought.


2021 ◽  
pp. jech-2020-214987
Author(s):  
Zuzana Podaná

BackgroundIntimate partner violence (IPV) is a complex phenomenon and some research suggests that there are qualitatively distinct IPV types. However, little is known about the risk factors associated with different IPV types.MethodsData from Violence against women: an European Union (EU)-wide survey, conducted by the EU Agency for Fundamental Rights was used. Latent class analysis (LCA) was employed to identify distinct IPV patterns based on the intensity of eight forms of violence by current partners (n=30 675). Multilevel multinomial logistic regression was used to examine individual and country-level risk factors associated with the outcome IPV patterns.ResultsA five-class solution was selected based on the LCA results. Two classes encompassed severe coercive IPV: the intimate terrorism class (1.5%) also comprised extensive physical violence whereas the high coercive control class (2.0%) did not. The partner’s alcohol abuse, violent behaviour outside the relationship and the woman’s abuse in childhood were the main individual factors positively associated with IPV. The country’s gender equality levels were negatively associated with the odds of experiencing intimate terrorism (adjusted OR, aOR 0.35, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.56) and high coercive control (aOR 0.63, 95% CI 0.47 to 0.85) versus no IPV. Although the effects of most individual risk factors were found universally for all IPV patterns, the strongest associations were typically revealed for the intimate terrorism pattern.ConclusionThe results support the importance of coercive control as a factor differentiating between IPV types and also highlight the need to consider IPV typologies in research. Policy implications of the findings are discussed.


Partner Abuse ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 180-198
Author(s):  
Denise A. Hines ◽  
Emily M. Douglas

Johnson's typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) postulates four types: intimate terrorism (IT), situational couple violence (SCV), violent resistance (VR), and mutual violent control (MVC). Johnson asserts that IT (i.e., severe violence is part of the perpetrator's use of coercive control and power) is primarily perpetrated by men and can be solely explained by patriarchal theory and MVC is rare. These assertions are based on results from samples that included data only on women and victimization. This study tests Johnson's typology using a population-based sample of men and a sample of male IPV victims. Results showed that women were the primary perpetrators of IT, while men primarily used VR. SCV was more common in the population-based sample than in the male victims sample. MVC was just as common as IT in the population-based sample, while IT was more common than MVC in the male victims sample. We compare our results with Johnson's and discuss issues of sampling biases and the need for more complex underlying theories.


Author(s):  
Clifton Emery ◽  
Hyerin Yang ◽  
Oksoo Kim ◽  
Yoonjeong Ko

Drawing on a new typology of intimate partner violence (IPV), this paper tests the relationship between indicators of totalitarian and anarchic IPV and child polyvictimization incidence and severity. The paper argues for and utilizes a quantitative approach to study polyvictimization severity. Polyvictimization is operationalized as a multiplicative relationship between physical abuse and neglect in a random sample of 204 children from Kyunggi province, South Korea. The indicator of totalitarian IPV significantly predicted polyvictimization severity and incidence even when a traditional measure of intimate terrorism was held constant. The indicator of anarchic IPV significantly predicted polyvictimization severity but not incidence when a traditional measure of intimate terrorism was held constant. Implications are discussed.


2018 ◽  
Vol 21 (5) ◽  
pp. 922-931 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heather A. Love ◽  
Chelsea M. Spencer ◽  
Scott A. May ◽  
Marcos Mendez ◽  
Sandra M. Stith

Johnson developed a typology of intimate partner violence (IPV) which includes two different categories of violence: situational couple violence (SCV) and intimate terrorism (IT). Johnson proposed that IT is more likely to be found in clinical samples (e.g., batterer intervention programs or domestic violence shelters) compared to nonclinical (general population) samples. This meta-analysis ( n = 149 studies; k = 216 effect sizes) examines differences in the strengths of IPV risk markers in clinical and nonclinical samples of male perpetrators and female victims. All variables (communication and conflict resolution, demand–withdraw patterns, relationship dissatisfaction, controlling behaviors, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power in the relationship, and stalking) were expected to be significantly related to IPV for both clinical and nonclinical populations. However, specific variables indicative of IT (control, jealousy, patriarchal beliefs, power, and stalking) were expected to be more strongly associated with clinical samples compared to nonclinical samples. As expected, most variables were significant for clinical and nonclinical populations, and IT risk markers (control, power, jealousy, and patriarchal beliefs) were significantly stronger risk markers for IPV in clinical samples. These results indicate that Johnson’s typology may be conceptualized as representing a continuum of violence, with IT being more severe due to the controlling nature of the violence. Sample type needs to be considered when research about IPV is disseminated, as different degrees of IPV (IT vs. SCV) may be present depending on sample type. Implications from this study include the need to differentiate the level of violence and to tailor intervention for IPV appropriately.


2018 ◽  
Vol 18 (1) ◽  
pp. 7-28 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia Walby ◽  
Jude Towers

The article assesses three approaches to domestic violence: two that use the concept of ‘coercive control’ and one that uses ‘domestic violent crime’. These are: Stark’s concept of coercive control; Johnson’s distinction between situational couple violence and intimate terrorism, in which coercive control is confined to the latter; and that of domestic violent crime, in which all physical violence is conceptualized as coercive and controlling. The article assesses these three approaches on seven issues. It offers original analysis of data from the Crime Survey for England and Wales concerning variations in repetition and seriousness in domestic violent crime. It links escalation in domestic violent crime to variations in the economic resources of the victim. It concludes that the concept of domestic violent crime is preferable to that of coercive control when seeking to explain variations in domestic violence.


2017 ◽  
Vol 29 (4) ◽  
pp. 171-188 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sylvia A. Vella ◽  
Marianne M. Miller ◽  
Jessica E. Lambert ◽  
Martha L. Morgan

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document