A Refugee in Your Own Home

How the Term Coercive Control Came out of the Fear of Persecution

The term “coercive control” is relatively new. Social Worker Susan Schecter (as one of CCF’s readers noted) coined the term coercive control in 1982, in describing the relationship between child abuse and domestic abuse. Evan Stark brought the term into the public consciouness in his 2006 book, Coercive Control: How Men Entrap Women in Everyday Life, and compared it to being taken hostage, “the victim becomes captive in an unreal world created by the abuser, entrapped in a world of confusion, contradiction and fear.” (Stark, 2007).

The fear of persecution, the element of perceived control, is the basis for coercive control. It is the subordination and intimidation of another. It is not seen from the outside, it does not require third-party witnesses — it is felt acutely from lived experience.

That concept of perceived control emerged from the United Nations 1951 Refugee Convention and the 1967 Protocols relating to the Status of Refugees, to which the United States became a party in 1968. It is the fear that comes from the perception of control, which can form the basis for an application for refugee or asylum status.

The concept of seeking refuge based on persecution in another country is enshrined in U.S. asylum law and, indeed, international refugee law. Refugees can seek asylum based on perceived control and fear of both objective and subjective persecution.

While this article does not address the significant refugee experience of war, plague, famine, sexual assault, or human rights violations, there is substantial crossover in domestic violence and IPV. It’s useful to understand that this is where the legal precedent of coercive control originates, not in Family Court, so we can stop wondering why Family Court often doesn’t spot coercive control and take action.

Coercive control is only starting to be recognized in many Family Court jurisdictions across the globe. Because there’s little legal precedent in a domestic scenario, and because it is a hidden form of violence, victims generally cannot rely on trying to prove coercive control. Furthermore, Family Court, mirroring society, was initially designed to support patriarchal values, into which coercive control and viewing women as property are deeply entrenched.

From Hostage to Refugee

Coercive control, as defined by the Australian government, is when someone uses patterns of abusive behaviour against another person. Over time, this creates fear and takes away the person’s freedom and independence. This dynamic almost always underpins family and domestic violence.”

The experience of coercive control in a relationship is like being a refugee in your own home, and if you manage to leave, you are a refugee who must rebuild a life in alien territory. You are made to feel displaced, made to feel terror, made to feel less than. Your reality gets challenged by gaslighting and manipulation. You no longer feel safe in your home, in your body, or in relationships. The effects are devastating, lasting, and difficult to unravel and heal from.

We know coercive control is a gendered, discrete form of intimate partner abuse, which may or may not include physical and sexual abuse.

There are other parallels and similarities to be made to feeling like a displaced person in one’s own home, and still not leaving, staying in the hell of that environment.

We know that it often takes victims of IPV about seven attempts before leaving.

There is evidence that for victims of civil war and international conflict, there may be some expected direct relationship between mobility and violence, but a more nuanced look shows that “perceiving insecurity, fearing, or having experienced violence does not result in people considering moving.” So too for victims of IPV. There is something else at work here.

In fact, data suggests that specific fears about migration inform mobility or migration in conflict settings and that the specificity of those fears, based on the threat of violence, often affects decisions to stay or leave. There are profound implications for humanitarian responses and policy formation here.

So what can be done? Policy vs Practicality

There are also significant implications in IPV concerning how to identify coercive control, treat victims, help children, and create laws around coercive control in domestic violence. This opens up an entirely new aspect of research, looking at the differentiated effects of coercive control as a form of family violence.