Violence in the sphere of the couple: interview with Santiago Luque

Violence in the marital sphere is a reality that has been lived normally for centuries and has only come to be questioned in recent decades. This means that psychology in general and psychotherapy in particular have included this type of problem in one of their priority areas of intervention.

For an expert perspective on intimate partner violence we spoke with the psychologist Santiago Luque Dalmau, from the Barnapsico psychology center, located in Barcelona.

• Related article: "The 11 types of violence (and the different kinds of aggression)"

Interview with Santiago Luque: violence in the marital sphere

Santiago Luque is Director of the center barnapsico, psychologist at the Fundació Assistència i Gestió Integral and specialist in reintegration of men who use aggression in their family or partner relationships. In this interview he talks about the way in which intimate partner violence develops, and about how social and cultural aspects affect this phenomenon.

What can psychologists do in the face of intimate partner violence?

The first thing is to consider what causes this phenomenon. One of the key elements to consider is that when using violent strategies ranging from physical to psychological, all of them pursue a common goal: to control, change, annul the will or ideology of the other part.

This is due to several factors, but the most important is the inability to accept the disagreement of the other party, the fact that the other has other ways of doing, and/or thinking, and that on many occasions these divergences are experienced as a provocation (without necessarily being). Whoever attacks usually justifies his actions from the reasoning of "I am forced to correct or punish the other party for his mistake".

To this can be added other factors of personal skills, such as the lack of communication strategies and negotiators, distorted ideas about the affective world and the couple, or learned gender roles, among the most common.

There are many resources that psychology offers to people who suffer from these problems, but in each individual case, the professional involved must direct their Efforts to explore what values ​​or beliefs move the subject and from what learning is activated the frustration that the discrepancy or the difference in performance supposes or opinion.

Victims of intimate partner violence often talk about the dependence on the aggressor as if it only consisted of a kind of “brainwashing”. Do you agree with this vision of the problem? Isn't there often a material dependence caused by the lack of resources of a large part of the women who are mistreated?

Many relationships try to stay at all costs. When the expectations and illusions collide with the reality that it shows to have, it is when it comes to usually to change the other or try to influence the other to transform it into what the "I" I expected it to be.

When this is extended over time and there are no concessions, since both parties may think that their optics are the only possible ones, it is when creates a conflictive relationship, either by both parties (mutual reproaches, discussions), or through a power relationship, if it is more unilateral. If decisions are not made in any aspect and the relationship is persevered, that is when a dependency relationship can be generated.

In the case of the aggressor, generally their inability to make their positions more flexible maintains their dissatisfaction, and this in turn increases more. From there, violence against the partner arises, since he feels legitimized when he considers her guilty of his discomfort and suffering, because he understands that he does not meet her expectations. The irrational fantasy is, in this case, holding out until the other changes according to his ideal.

What are the ways in which aggressors downplay their attacks and show that everything is normal?

In the human being it is common that when a behavior is exercised that is socially unaccepted or goes against the values ​​of the person exerts them, tends to develop the so-called defense mechanisms, introduced and developed by different referents of the psychology. In this way you avoid being the target of criticism or creating a disagreement with your own values,

The usual mechanisms are as follows. On the one hand there is denial: it is directly denied that something bad has happened. "But how am I going to do that", "I have not done anything", "They accuse me of something that is not true", "Someone else has done that"...

Secondly, we have the alibi, which consists of seeking coverage that shows that the action could not be carried out by the subject. "I was working all day", "I was sick and I couldn't even move", "If she had really hit him, he would have killed her", etc.

Then there is the blame. With this mechanism, responsibility is shifted to the other, who is considered truly guilty of what happened. "That they ask her, that she is to blame for her." "She is constantly provoking me." “She asks for it”, etc.

There is also minimization: it is intended to downplay the importance, significance or seriousness of the facts. "It's not that bad, they exaggerate", "I only insulted her, I've never put my hand on her", "They are fights like any marriage".

On the other hand we have the justification. The fact is recognized, but it is believed to have a reasonable explanation for it. "It was unintentional", "It was happening", "It's the only way for him to listen to me".

Through contempt, the victim is discredited, the subject believes himself more justified in his negative action. "Without me, she would be nobody", "she is careless and she does not attend to the house", "she gets crazy".

Dehumanization is something similar to the above. Contempt reaches the extreme of forgetting human qualities. "They are like animals", "They live like dogs", "They endure what they throw at them", "She is crazy as a goat".

We also found the "Yes, but I had no choice." It refers to the impossibility of the subject to act otherwise, to the conditioning to which he was subjected and to the lack of freedom in the choice. "He couldn't do anything else", "He had put himself in a plan... that it was impossible”, “Words are not enough for him”.

Finally there is the "Yes, but I didn't want to do it." The subject disassociates himself from her action in terms of her will "I had an outburst", "I didn't mean to hurt her", "I just wanted to scare her so that she would be punished".

In domestic violence, how could it be otherwise, the same thing happens. The individual who exerts violence on his partner uses most of these mechanisms, motivated mainly by to avoid guilt and avoid having to face a reality that the subject, in most cases, does not know how manage.

From what is known, is it true that there are differences between women and men when they adopt the role of aggressor or aggressor in intimate partner violence?

This topic has always generated a wide debate and controversy. Aggression, whether we like it or not, is common to the human species, as a model for managing conflicts, to defend or impose in extreme cases, and when other resources fail. What the statistics make clear is that the most serious, extreme, and frequent violence is mainly exercised by men. Scholars on the subject demonstrate this in their research.

A simple fact, who occupies most of the prisons? There are more and more studies that attribute this data, and other similar ones, to the so-called machismo. Machismo itself also affects women, because from this model they are told how to behave. Both men and women who do not assume traditional roles will be criminalized by the macho system itself. Machismo, on the other hand, is not a static concept, it is also prey to fashion and social moments for what happens, but in essence it reserves the same basic roles for each sex and what changes are only the shapes.

The ostentation of masculinity is often perceived as something admirable from the masculine world, which does not need to be reviewed. But if a deep analysis is made of what it really implies, we can find real surprises, and discover that it is a dogma that enslaves the subject in an unattainable and unrealistic ideal for the majority of men and that does not connect with the real essence of this.

It is from this phenomenon and from these roles that violence is admitted as its own and natural in the masculine role. And until not so long ago, it was legitimized by society (which has traditionally had a masculinized vision in its as a whole), as an ultimately acceptable method of resolving conflicts (wars themselves are an example of it).

From this social reality it is reasonable that a context such as the home would be managed in a similar way, and with the power that was granted to man, he used the resource that since she was little she has seen that it reproduced too naturally and that few dared to question it, as a model of resolution to maintain order and peace. authority.

In this sense, there has been a change in perspective in recent decades, although in the masculine world some historical inertia drags on. How can I maintain “order” without using force? What do I use then, how do I act?

There are also those who have internalized violence as a conflict management style, having not learned other more prosocial resources in their experiential background. Who has internalized and legitimized this violence as justifiable is man. As children, men absorb the patriarchal model as their own, which legitimizes violence as the ultimate strategy to achieve objectives. In women it has traditionally been frowned upon. Even so, there are women who can use other strategies with a more psychological nuance. Less frequently than women use physical violence.

Is it common for a person who has been the victim of intimate partner violence to recover quickly and with little help once the offender is no longer a part of her life?

Normally this factor depends both on the degree of violence experienced, and on the time to which he has been subjected, even on what experiences have been had prior to the episodes of violence. Many times it is not so much physical violence (although it also weighs obviously), but psychological violence exerted on the victim, or the psychological consequences that the violence itself has on the victim physical.

On many occasions, in the most extreme cases within these variables, the person can be affected for life at an emotional and self-esteem level. Let's not forget that the main consequence on the victim is the alteration of their state of mind and their self-concept (self-esteem), coming to feel annulled as a person.

The victim is blurred in relation to the aggressor. So to speak, he loses "the north", he does not know how to defend his criteria because he comes to believe that they are wrong, to the point of annulling his own will or ability to react, as well as his ability to differentiate what is correct or adequate, or that his criteria may be as valid as those of another person. Often this state of mind is used by the aggressor himself to legitimize his actions, without being aware that he has probably generated it himself over the years. Of course, or to a greater extent, those extremes are not reached, but the truth is that if this process is not stopped, he can reach them.

In general, and luckily, in most cases that are treated with adequate psychotherapeutic treatment, the victim usually recovers. Although yes, it can be a slow process and requires perseverance and involvement on the part of the victim, as in most psychological affectations.

Do you think that making intimate partner violence visible as a serious problem has helped combat this phenomenon?

Undoubtedly, any aspect that becomes visible allows for debate and possible solutions. What is not evident is simply experienced as something that does not exist. Society tends to ignore what is not evident that exists, that is important, that is understood and that really have some repercussion on the victims, and myths and urban legends tend to be created due to a lack of sufficient information. Another issue is that, even if there is information, the solution is fast or sufficiently effective.

Regarding the programs for the reintegration of abusers and abusers, is there anything special about the operation of the prison system that you think is acting as an obstacle, making it difficult for these people to stop attacking their partners?

It is difficult to affect the human mind, and even more so when aspects of personality depend on so many factors, personal, social, conjunctural and above all by the set of beliefs that move the individual and that are interrelated to determine their Actions. The true change (or rather, "evolution") of the person depends on her commitment to herself. Throughout my professional career, I have seen very interesting changes in people, but mainly because they have realized who suffered themselves and made others suffer, and from that reality they have had the courage and perseverance to rediscover themselves themselves.

Rehabilitation programs will always be conditioned by the involvement of the subjects that participate. What is certain is that the more time and dedication, the greater the achievement.

And what are the most powerful tools that we can give victims to see that getting out of that situation is a realistic option?

There are many, although one of the ones that occurs to me at this moment is to see similar testimonies with which the victim can be identified, and see that these people were at some point in their lives going through a process similar. Also seeing that other people feel similar things helps them not to feel so “unskilled”, since the victim is even a victim of their blaming of the problem, even though they are not. The fact of verifying that these people came out "of the hole" allows us to harbor hope.