This article was downloaded by:[Göteborg University Library]On: 14 May 2008Access Details: [subscription number 781071017]Publisher: Taylor & FrancisInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Health Care for Women InternationalPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t713723020

Why Does She Leave? The Leaving Process(es) ofBattered WomenViveka Enander a; Carin Holmberg b

a University of Gothenburg, G teborg, Swedenb Stockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

Online Publication Date: 01 March 2008

To cite this Article: Enander, Viveka and Holmberg, Carin (2008) 'Why Does SheLeave? The Leaving Process(es) of Battered Women', Health Care for WomenInternational, 29:3, 200 — 226

To link to this article: DOI: 10.1080/07399330801913802URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/07399330801913802

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article maybe used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial or systematic reproduction,re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contents will becomplete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug doses should beindependently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with orarising out of the use of this material.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Health Care for Women International, 29:200–226, 2008Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLCISSN: 0739-9332 print / 1096-4665 onlineDOI: 10.1080/07399330801913802

Why Does She Leave? The Leaving Process(es)of Battered Women

VIVEKA ENANDERUniversity of Gothenburg, Goteborg, Sweden

CARIN HOLMBERGStockholm University, Stockholm, Sweden

In this article, the authors present the main findings from aqualitative study of processes undergone by women who haveleft abusive male partners. Three overlapping leaving processesare described: Breaking Up, Becoming Free, and Understanding.Breaking Up covers action (i.e., the physical breakup), and theturning point by which it is preceded or with which it coincides isanalyzed. Becoming Free covers emotion and involves release fromthe strong emotional bond to the batterer, a process that entails fourstages. Understanding covers cognition, and is a process in whichthe woman perceives and interprets what she has been subjected toas violence and herself as a battered woman.

Violence against women is a pervasive social problem, and themagnitude and devastating consequences of male-to-female violence inintimate relationships are being increasingly revealed. Living with violenceis painful and leaving a violent relationship is difficult. Why leaving is sodifficult, and which processes are involved, are explored in this interviewstudy of processes undergone by women who have left abusive relationships.By understanding the complexities involved in leaving, various lay andprofessional “helpers” may increase their empathy with abusive women whotry, successfully or unsuccessfully, to leave. Furthermore, recognising theprocesses at hand and discerning their earlier and later stages, may improvethe ability of “helpers” to provide proper support.

Received 28 December 2006; accepted 23 October 2007.Address correspondence to Viveka Enander, Department of Social Work, P.O. Box 720,

SE 405 30, Goteborg, Sweden. E-mail: viveka.enander@socwork.gu.se

200

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 201

LITERATURE REVIEW

Within the field of domestic violence, considerable research has beenconducted on the dynamics of the violent relationship and much effort hasbeen devoted to explorations and explanations of the abused woman’s failingto immediately leave her abuser (e.g. Anderson et. al., 2003; Barnett, 2000,2001; Bochorowitz & Eisikovits, 2002; Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Dutton &Painter, 1981; Ferraro, 1983; Graham, Rawling & Rigsby, 1994; Griffin et. al.,2002; Herman, 1992; Hyden, 1994, 1995a; La Violette & Barnett, 2000; Liu& Chan, 1999; Lundgren, 1991; Rhodes & McKenzie, 1998; Romero, 1985;Walker, 1979, 1984; Zink, Regan, Jacobson & Pabst, 2003).

Less, but some, work has been done on studying what finally motivatesa battered woman to leave the relationship. In their overview, Andersonand Saunders (2003) present two different branches of this body ofresearch: quantitative research predicting women’s stay/leave decisions, andqualitative research conceptualising leaving as a process. Because our studyclearly qualifies as an example of the latter, we will highlight some earlierfindings within this branch.

Early researchers suggested that leaving an abusive partner is not a singleevent but a process that extends over time, involving temporary breakupsand preparatory stages or strategies (Kirkwood, 1993; Landenburger, 1989;Ulrich, 1991). Because women’s staying in abusive relationships has beendescribed in terms of entrapment and entanglement, this process hasbeen conceptualised as a process of disentanglement (Kirkwood, 1993;Landenburger, 1989; Rosen & Stith, 1997). Kirkwood (1993), who used themetaphor of a web of emotional abuse, connected leaving to an outwardmovement in a spiral of power and control that upholds this web.

Several researchers have described leaving as a process occurring indifferent stages or phases. However, the beginning and endpoint of thisprocess and the number of defined stages vary considerably. Two studies(Merrit-Gray & Wuest, 1995; Wuest and Merrit-Gray, 1999) described leavingas a process of reclaiming the self in four stages: counteracting abuse,breaking free, not going back, and moving on. Their description of thefirst part of “leaving”–counteracting abuse–is, however, partly concordantwith descriptions of what makes battered women stay. Landenburger(1989) likewise identified four stages in the process of entrapment in andrecovery from an abusive relationship: binding, enduring, disengaging, andrecovering, while Moss, Pitula, Campbell, and Halstead (1997) observed athree-phase process: being in, getting out, and going on. Burke, Gielen,McDonnel, OCampo, and Maman (2001) proposed five stages concordantwith the transtheoretical model of behavior change.

The main described predecessors of, or factors leading to, the finalbreakup are:

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

202 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

1. A deterioration in the relationship and/or an increase in level of violence(Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Goetting, 1999; Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001;Kurz, 1996; Patzel, 2001).

2. Fear for the safety of children, others or self (Davis, 2002; Goetting, 1999;Kurz, 1996; Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Moss et. al., 1997; NiCarthy,1987; Patzel, 2001; Ulrich, 1991).

3. Increased personal strength and agency in the victimized woman (Goet-ting, 1999; Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Merrit-Gray & Wuest, 1995;Patzel, 2001; Ulrich, 1991).

4. A cognitive shift in which the woman starts to view the relationship asabusive (Burke et al., 2001; Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Goetting, 1999;Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Kearney, 2001; Landenburger, 1989; Mosset al., 1997; Patzel, 2001; Rosen & Stith, 1997; Ulrich, 1991).

A turning point in the process of leaving has also been repeatedly men-tioned (Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Kearney, 2001; Landenburger, 1989;Patzel, 2001; Rosen & Stith, 1997), albeit with different conceptualisationsof this turning point: a shift in perceptions, a decision to leave/divorce, oractually leaving.

Some researchers have stressed a change in emotions, such as losinghope of change (Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Hyden, 1994, 1995a; Landen-burger, 1989; NiCarthy, 1987), mobilizing anger (Ferraro & Johnson, 1983;Kirkwood, 1993; Landenburger, 1989), and/or resistance (Hyden, 2001), asan impetus for leaving.

Although the “leaving as a process” studies mainly focus on intra- andinterpersonal aspects, many have stressed the importance of external supportand access to resources from the personal network and general community(Davis, 2002; Eldar-Avidan & Haj-Yahia, 2000; Ferraro & Johnson, 1983; Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Merrit-Gray & Wuest, 1995; NiCarthy, 1987;Wuest & Merrit-Gray, 1999).

Based on this short review, it should be obvious that descriptions differand that no consensus exists on the nature of the leaving process. This studyaims at creating a detailed outline of the processes, sub-processes, turningpoints, and (severed) emotional bonds involved in leaving, as well as oftheir respective interconnections, thereby drawing a new map of the leavingphenomenon.

AIM OF THE STUDY

The aim of the study was to improve understanding of what compels anabused woman to finally leave her abuser. Our intention was not to uncoveran all-encompassing process, but rather, to examine many different factors,mechanisms, and processes involved in the breakup.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 203

In this context, however, it is important to note that one cannot reallydiscuss “an abused woman” as a unequivocal concept. Although there aregeneral mechanisms in abusive relationships and general ways in whichabuse affects a woman subjected to it, individual features must also beexplored and presented. In other words, one must regard the similar as wellas that which differs. Class, ethnicity, sexual orientation, able-bodiedness,mental health, alcohol/substance abuse, age, etc.–i.e., that which differs–areimportant, while gender and gender power–i.e., the similar–must, in ouropinion, constitute the basis of understanding. The term “an abused/batteredwoman” will nonetheless be used for the sake of simplicity. In other words,our interest is in the similar.

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Our research question touches on two different theoretical fields: men’sviolence against women and exit processes. One researcher, Eva Lundgren,is especially prominent in Nordic research on violence against women. Lund-gren’s normalization process of violence model (Lundgren, 1991) (henceforthcalled the normalization process) has been especially widely acknowledgedand very influential, but has also been debated. Margareta Hyden, who haspresented a somewhat different framework for understanding men’s violenceagainst women in intimate relationships, is a critic of Lundgren. WhileLundgren’s analysis is more clearly feminist, connecting dominance andsubordination in close relationships to gender relations on the macro level,Hyden focuses on interaction between the partners within the institution ofmarriage.

Adaptation and internalization are key concepts in Lundgren’s descrip-tion of the normalization process. When subjected to control strategies bythe abuser, the victimized woman responds by adapting to the abuser’sdemands in an effort to escape violence. This adaptation, however, leads toher gradually changing her conceptions of the situation and internalising “theman’s violence, his motive(s) for the violence and thus his demands on thewoman” and “the man’s conceptions of how a woman should be,” followingwhich the woman “starts to regard herself with his eyes” (Lundgren, 1991,p. 20, our translation). The normalization process, according to Lundgren,leads to the battered woman eventually regarding violence as a normal part ofher life. Hyden (1995b), however, strongly rejects such conceptualisations:“In Lundgren’s world,” she writes “women show no resistance, no forcedirected outwards. Women adapt. Women do not create any projects of theirown, women do not change anything, they never revolt. They unresistinglylet themselves be killed mentally or physically” (p. 70, our translation). Incontrast to Lundgren, Hyden believes that battered women put up activeresistance. Moreover, she stipulates that this resistance is what enables and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

204 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

leads to the woman leaving. Leaving, in itself, is conceptualised as an act ofresistance by Hyden (2001). The discussion between these two theorists hasbeen lively and it forms part of the framework for our study.

In the theoretical field of exit processes, Helen Rose Fuchs Ebaugh(1988) has introduced the concept of role exit to cover the process a persongoes through when breaking up from one important life role to find a newone. Based on interviews with, among others, mothers without custody,divorced individuals, ex-nuns, ex-convicts, ex-doctors, ex-women, and ex-men, Fuchs Ebaugh has pictured the role exit process as consisting of fourphases: First Doubts, Seeking Alternatives, The Turning Point, and Creatingthe Ex-Role. As mentioned above, previous studies on abused women’sleaving processes have referred to a turning point. Fuchs Ebaugh describesfive kinds of turning points:

1. Specific events, i.e., catalysts of some kind;2. “The straw that broke the camel’s back,” referring to minor events that

nonetheless tip the scale in a process that has escalated over time;3. Time-related factors, such as realising that the remaining time for changing

career/partner/gender is becoming more and more limited;4. Excuses, through which the person can place the responsibility of role

exit on someone else, for example, a doctor or other authority figure whoinsist that a role exit is necessary; and

5. Either/or alternatives, in which the person perceives that a choice betweentwo alternatives is imminent, and that the non-chosen will be lost.

Our analysis of the turning point, by which we mean the factual leaving,is influenced by Fuchs Ebaugh’s conceptualisations but moves in directionsof its own.

METHOD

The method was individual in-depth interviews with 10 women who had leftviolent heterosexual relationships and two group interviews with volunteersand staff at women’s shelters. All informants were granted anonymity andconfidential treatment of data. Data collection and analysis were conductedin two stages, interview and analysis; each author was responsible for onestage.

Interview

The second author created the semi-structured questionnaire and conductedthe interviews.1 The informants were recruited from women’s shelters in

1 The group interviews were conducted in collaboration with research assistant Christine Bender.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 205

different parts of Sweden. The extent of the participants’ shelter contactvaried substantially. The informants ranged in age from 24 to 57 years andtheir education levels varied, with the 9-year compulsory education as theminimum. All informants lived in cities and towns, the latter located in moreor less rural areas. Some informants could be described as working class,others as lower middle class, and some as upper middle class. Eight of the10 informants were ethnic Swedes. All informants had been cohabiting withthe abusive partner and eight had children with him.2 The abuse sufferedvaried in kind–psychological, physical, and sexual–and severity. The durationof the relationship varied from 3 to 25 years, and the time elapsed fromthe breakup to the first interview varied from quite recently–with the firstinterview conducted while the woman was living at the women’s shelter–toas long as 20 years ago.

The limitations of our study are common to many “leaving as aprocess” studies: a selected (i.e., women’s shelters) and predominantlywhite (i.e., ethnically Swedish) sample and the retrospective nature ofthe recorded descriptions. These limitations must, of course, be borne inmind when assessing our results. However, we hope that we neverthelesshave succeeded in pinpointing some of the “similar” (see discussionabove).

The women were interviewed three times, at intervals of approximately1 year, during a 3-year period. The interviews consisted of two in-depth,in-person interviews, conducted in a place of the informant’s choosing,and a third follow-up telephone interview. The in-person interviews lasted1 to 2 hours while the follow-up interview was somewhat shorter, rarelyexceeding 1 hour. Three participants declined further participation after thefirst interview and one of the informants was impossible to locate for thefinal telephone interview.

All in-person interviews but one were tape-recorded and transcribedverbatim. In the (one) case of the informant declining tape-recording,extensive notes were taken during the interview. The follow-up telephoneinterviews were also documented in the latter manner.

In addition to the individual interviews, two group interviews withshelter staff and volunteers were conducted, focusing on the leavingprocess as they perceived it. These interviews were tape-recorded andtranscribed.

The total material consists of 25 interviews. The 23 individual interviewswere, however, the primary material for analysis.

2 Marital status was not regarded as an important feature in this Swedish context. Cohabiting issuch a widespread and accepted phenomenon in Sweden that the issue of whether or not to getmarried—although entailing some legal consequences—is primarily regarded as a matter of taste andpersonal choice.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

206 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

Analysis

The first author was responsible for the analysis, with the second authoras collaborator and supervisor. Several analytic modes were applied in anintuitive ad hoc manner, as described by Kvale (1996). While listening to thetape recordings and reading the transcribed interviews, an effort was madeat critical reflection on pre-existing notions, as described by Malterud (1998).A set of critical questions was reflected on, and pre-understandings werewritten down with the aim of “putting them in the desk drawer.”

A modified thematic analysis (Aronson, 1994) was subsequently per-formed in the search for recurrent themes. This search was conducted inthree steps, starting with discerning (sub-)themes, which were incorporatedinto more comprehensive themes in the next step. In the third step, wesearched for factors that seemed to inhibit or facilitate breaking up. At thisstage of the analysis, we found it interesting that some of the identifiedfactors could be both inhibiting and facilitating. However, a multitude ofthemes and factors3 on many different levels emerged, obscuring ratherthan elucidating the original question of why the woman leaves. Theanalytical course was therefore changed in an attempt to discern the processesconnected to leaving. This turned out to be rewarding, yielding three separatebut deeply connected leaving processes, Breaking Up, Becoming Free, andUnderstanding.

We will return to and describe these main processes in detail later. First,we will present some findings that may enable a better understanding ofthe complexity of the breakup: the impact of the traumatic bond and thesignificance of battered women’s resistance.

THE TRAUMATIC BOND

Socioeconomic factors have been found to be of vital importance forabused women’s stay/leave decisions, as shown in two reviews (Anderson& Saunders, 2003; Barnett, 2000). Barnett (2000) concluded that economicfactors and (insufficient) response from the criminal justice system wereof primary importance for women’s decision not to leave. Similarly, theAnderson and Saunders (2003) review showed that access to externalresources outweighed subjective factors as explanations for women leavingan abusive relationship in a number of studies; income variables were foundto be “possibly the most powerful predictors of the stay/leave decisionoverall” (p. 171). It is important to emphasize these observations to avoid

3 The difference between themes and factors, as defined by us, can be illustrated by the followingexample: one or several women saying that “you should try to stick together for the children’s sake”could be a theme, which in turn touches on two factors, i.e. nuclear family ideology (inhibiting) andchildren (inhibiting and facilitating).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 207

reducing the question of women’s remaining in abusive relationships to amatter of individual will/psychology. The point of departure for our studywas, however, that emotional, rather than material, obstacles to leaving areoften most incomprehensible to an outsider, and thus the focus of ourresearch.

At this point, we introduce the concept of a traumatic bond,4 consistingof entwined ties. Some of these are purely emotional ties, i.e., love, fear,hate, compassion, guilt, and hope, while others are more composite ties, i.e.,the desire to understand, dependency, and internalization. Below, we willbriefly describe these ties and the traumatic bond that they create.

Love, fear, and hate are three strong emotions that are often regardedas being in opposition to each other. All three were vividly described by ourinformants and seemed to be deeply intertwined:

It was so intense emotionally, it was both fear–I was afraid of him thefirst time I met him and the whole time really, wasn’t I? He just had todo this (gestures) (. . .) for me to cower, because I thought he would (hitme), that feeling stayed in my body. (. . .) It was exactly that fear and thatintensity that came from both love and hate. (. . .) I don’t know how toexplain. It was so intense that I got completely consumed. (Anneli, 2ndinterview)

That love may be binding is self-evident. But the same is valid for hate;hate is directed at someone and thus requires someone to be its object. Andfear of the abuser may be a very palpable imperative for staying.

A feeling of compassion can also be binding and the strong sense ofpity that our informants felt for their abusive partners was a recurrent themein our material. Furthermore, an abused woman may perceive that she hasparticipated in and is accountable for the abuser’s violence in some sense,i.e., the tie of guilt. This is partly synonymous with the reactions of victimsof other types of crimes and can also be connected to victim- (or woman-)blaming on the part of society.

In the classical myth, hope is at the bottom of Pandora’s Box, underall the misery. This can be interpreted as hope as compensation for allbad things, which is exactly how it seems to function within a violentrelationship. Ingrid, for example, stated that the abuser “always gave herhope of something else,” and that for a long time, that hope was enoughfor her to go on living with him. Hope has a binding effect as long as it isdirected toward the man and the relationship rather than beyond them.

The same can be said about the desire to understand, in which thearrow of understanding points toward the abuser. A very strong desireto understand the abuser and his actions was another recurrent theme in

4 With reference to the concept of traumatic bonding (Dutton & Painter, 1981).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

208 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

our material. From a psychological perspective, this urge to understand canbe comprehended as an attempt to create meaning as well as a sense ofcoherence and control in a traumatic situation. However, it also has a bindingeffect. Anneli, for example, who had been out of the relationship for manyyears, explained her return to the abuser by her strong desire to understandwhat happened the first time they were together.

The tie of dependency is complex, being a type of interdependency. Theabusive partners were described as utterly dependent by our informants, whoseemed to have been made acutely aware of this “fact” (which might in itselfbe interpreted as abusive). An emotional dependency on the part of theabused was also vividly pictured in metaphors, e.g., the abuser was likenedto “narcotics in my blood”; another described a suffering of “abstinence”from the batterer.

Finally, internalization is a strong and devastating tie. As mentionedpreviously, Lundgren (1991) claims that a victimized woman may internalisethe abuser’s motives for his violence and his demands on her, eventuallyregarding herself with his eyes. However, as we use the concept, internal-ization means that a victimized woman may internalise the abuser’s conceptof reality in a much broader sense. She may come to regard not only herself,but the whole world, with his eyes, resulting in her questioning herself andher own concept of reality. Anneli describes the devastating consequencesof such internalization:

None of your own opinions, your own values, there’s nothing left. Youcan’t even decide what to have for dinner, because it’s like “That’s upto you.” It’s like you have no opinion of your own and you’re (. . .)strapped into the other person who is a person instead of you. (Rebecka,1st interview).

Lundgren connects internalization to adaptation in a process perspective;we, however, regard internalization as a tie that binds the woman to theman.

Together, these ties weave a traumatic bond, a bond that can serve as(part of) an explanation for the immense power an abusive man can wieldover the woman he abuses. Two main consequences of the traumatic bonddeserve mention: (a) becoming “bewitched,” i.e., simultaneously fascinatedby, scared by and (reluctantly/temporarily) obedient to the abuser, a statedescribed in retrospect as incomprehensible by our informants; and (b)betraying or violating oneself . The latter was described by our informants asthe utmost in painful experiences and negative consequences of living withviolence, which has led us to conclude that it is the pivot of the traumaticbond.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 209

ADAPTATION AND RESISTANCE

Because adaptation and resistance are two strategies adopted by batteredwomen that have been vigorously discussed in Nordic feminist researchon violence against women, we were interested to see if and how thesestrategies were represented in our material. Furthermore, while Hyden, asdescribed earlier, has proposed that leaving is to be explained by resistance,we found necessary to examine this proposition.

When it came to adaptation as a primary strategy, as described byLundgren (1991), this was well represented among some informants, forexample Ingrid, who stated that she adapted from the very beginning:

I felt like I was a flea. That he might just take his finger and snap it andI’d be gone. This was early on. I obeyed him, somehow. I guess I wasscared to lose him as he was the love of my life. (Ingrid, 2nd interview)

Rebecka also described an adaptation that started early, for instance, whenher partner got upset over not being able to open the plastic bags she hadtied:

I didn’t understand that the mental abuse started at that point, did I? I justthought he wanted to save the plastic bag so I’d better start tying them likehe does. And then life became more and more like that everything he didwas right. In order to avoid the rows, you had to try to change yourself.I had to become who he wanted me to be. (Rebecka, 1st interview)

Interestingly enough, however, Rebecka also described active resistance:

Well, I did question everything he did. Lots of people have asked me,“How could you do that? You were in a lot of danger already” (. . .)But that’s the kind of person I am, I can’t live in a relationship (. . .)where someone just criticises you and says that you should do this orthat without getting an explanation of why I should do it. (Rebecka, 1stinterview)

Rebecka had both adaptation and resistance as her predominant strategies,which indicates that these strategies are not mutually exclusive. In fact,all our informants (including Ingrid) described resistance, and some of theinformants described only resistance. This means that the kind of adaptationdescribed by Lundgren as women’s primary strategy for coping with violencewas not reported at all by some informants. This in turn suggests thatadaptation may be understood differently, a discussion to which we willreturn.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

210 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

Resistance: The Way Out?

Adaptation (and normalisation) has been proposed to lead to the abusedwoman becoming emotionally “broken down,” by Lundgren (1991) andothers (e.g., Eliasson, 1997), while Hyden (2001) stipulates that resistanceleads to leaving. One might thus assume that the active resistance put up byour informants would protect them from being broken down and facilitatea breakup. Unfortunately, we did not find this to be the case. While severalinformants resisted by refusing to yield to the abusers’ demands, screamingand hitting them back, this did not protect them from being broken down,not did it seem to lead to leaving. Sara, for example, described how sheended up powerless and resigned, despite her active resistance:

And yet I still feel him breaking me down. No matter how much I fightand feel that I don’t deserve this. I deserve better. I think I got back upagain, in my mind. But my arms were still so weak that I can’t describe it.This sense of powerlessness I felt. It makes no difference what I think orfeel or do. I’ll still be shattered. You get ground down somehow. (Sara,2nd interview)

Despite the fact that the informants all described some kind of resistance,they also described being broken down. This means that an abused womanmay resist, but still stay in the relationship and be broken down by it.Resistance, we conclude, does not simply seem to be a “force directedoutwards” as proposed by Hyden (see quote above).

What purposes, then, does this resistance serve? Our analysis showedthat resistance as a strategy had three main functions:

1. Resistance may demonstrate to the woman that she is not subordinated. By(occasionally) talking back, refusing to obey, etc., the informants coulddisconnect themselves from the over-simplified and reductionist picture ofabused women as passive victims. However, this also meant that they didnot perceive themselves as victimized at all, and therefore saw no reasonto leave the relationship.

2. Resistance may give a sense of control over the situation. This is exemplifiedby Sara, who recounted that she used to hide a clothes hanger in her bedto defend herself against her husband’s sexual violence, whenever shefelt that “something was going to happen.” She told this as a story ofsuccessful resistance. However, she contradicted the reports of her ownsuccess by recounting that her husband’s rape attacks could occur “whenleast expected.” This means that while the clothes hanger in the bedapparently gave Sara a sense of control over the situation, it did not leadto her actually being able to escape the violence.

3. Resistance may fuel a hope that the abuser will “understand” and change.Informants described hope that the man would “wake up,” realize that

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 211

what he was doing was extremely negative, and change for the better.Resisting was one way to try to make him “wake up.”

These three main functions of resistance as a strategy may all have an“inhibiting” rather than “facilitating” effect: If one does not consider oneselfto be victimized, thinks one can control the situation, and hopes that it willchange to the better, then why leave? Our findings regarding the purposesof resistance strengthen our conclusion, in contrast to Hyden’s proposition,that resistance keeps the woman in the relationship rather than motivatingher to leave it.

Resistance = Meta-Adaptation

What contribution may the findings described above make to the understand-ing of violent relationships? Our interpretation is that space is given, withinthe violent relationship, for the woman’s resistance. An abused woman putsup the resistance she can, within the framework of the relationship, butdoes not manage to break the framework itself. It has been proposed (bySkjorten, 1988 and Lundgren, 1991) that (some) abusers sense just howfar they can go in their violence without risking the woman’s life, or therelationship. Likewise, the abused woman may sense just how far she maytake her resistance. Resisting thus becomes a normal part of life in the violentrelationship.

This requires a new understanding of resistance within the frameworkof the violent relationship. We propose that adaptation and resistance arenot opposing strategies, but that resistance is in fact a kind of adaptation.In this context, we return to one of the more powerful images of resistancepresented in our material, the clothes hanger in the bed. Apart from beingan, unfortunately, failed attempt at control, how is the hanger in the bedto be understood? At first glance, it looks like a strong and dynamic actof resistance. But from a meta-perspective, it might instead be regarded asan adaptation. When Sara hides the hanger in the bed it is an adaptationto an absurd life situation created by the abusive man and shaped by hisviolence. This means that resistance can, on the meta-level, be regardedas part of an overall adaptation to violence. We therefore suggest thatadaptation–resistance is a false dichotomy and that adaptation should insteadbe regarded on two levels: as direct adaptation and as meta-adaptation(resistance). Meta-adaptation thus means that the woman adapts to an absurdlife situation created by the man and the violence to which he exposes her.

I: BREAKING UP

We have thus far then proposed that a complex traumatic bond bindsan abused woman to her abuser and that resistance exists but does not

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

212 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

lead to leaving. Next, we suggest that leaving entails three different, albeitoverlapping, processes: Breaking Up covers action, Becoming Free coversemotion, and Understanding covers cognition.

Breaking Up concerns the act of leaving and what precedes and initiatesit. The factual leaving was often preceded by a feeling of having hit rockbottom and of being totally “done in.” Descriptions of this were manifoldand painful in our material:

I was so deep down at the bottom that I couldn’t cope with being thereanymore. I told him, “Now I’m like a bottle that’s been turned upsidedown and wrung out. There isn’t a drop left. I’ve got nothing, nothingmoves me, nothing.” (Ingrid, 2nd interview)

However, it was apparently often here, “at rock bottom,” that the course ofevents turned, and this was echoed as an almost organic experience:

You have to wait for that break inside your body, in your heart. . . (It)has to come on its own, the idea that you have to give up, that there’snothing to keep fighting for. (Liljana, 2nd interview)

The breakup was initiated at a turning point which made leaving imminent.The turning points found were compared with Fuchs Ebaugh’s conceptual-izations, and some similarities were found. However we are of the opinionthat battered women’s turning points are of two distinct and specific kinds:(a) when it’s a matter of life or death and (b) when someone else is at risk.

When It’s a Matter of Life or Death

When a battered woman has hit rock bottom, it seems to be a matter oflife or death, a permeating feeling of “if I don’t leave now, I will die.” Inour material, this feeling was sometimes associated with the woman beingat literal risk of being beaten to death. More often, however, it was relatedto a sense of being on the verge of dying mentally:

No, I just felt that this can’t go on. I just felt it in my whole body, like.It was like I could feel it all the way out to my skin somehow, “I’mgoing to die now.” I don’t know what I’m doing. (. . ..) Something cameover me. It’s desperation in more desperation. You know they say youhave something that stops you, inside you. Either I’ll get twisted and turninto some kind of monster or I’ll hurt myself and something will sort ofhappen to me so that I’ll get locked up somewhere, or else I’ll have a goat him. (Tove, 1st interview)

You reach a certain limit. At that point, it’s not just about himabusing me, but about the whole thing. You get exhausted, I don’t give

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 213

damn now, either you’re done for or else it’ll happen, something’s got tohappen. (Stina, 2nd interview)

Tove’s description, above, summarizes an experience shared by otherinformants at this turning point: that the alternatives are to die, to go mad, tokill the man, or to leave him. If a woman leaves to avoid killing the man, thefirst turning point might be said to blend into the other.

When Someone Else is at Risk

The basis for leaving can also be the realization that staying in the relationshipwould mean that someone else might be harmed, as exemplified by Sara’sstory. She seemed to be beyond the “matter of life or death” point, sayingthat she had “accepted” that the man would eventually kill her. But the dayshe came home and saw her husband strangling her daughter, she decidedto leave:

Then I saw what was going on. My God, I thought, is he messing herabout as well? Wasn’t it enough with me? I had accepted that he wasgoing to kill me. He will kill me. Whether I wither away or he beats meto death doesn’t matter, but he will kill me. (Sara, 2nd interview)

It is clear from Sara’s account of her experiences within the marriage that shecould have had strong reasons and motives to leave at many other times. Butthroughout all three interviews, Sara insisted that the event described abovewas decisive. According to Fuchs Ebaugh’s categorization, Sara’s turningpoint could be defined as a special event, but it has the special characteristicof someone else being in danger.

The analysis of Rebecka’s turning point showed that it was manifold, andentailed almost Fuchs Ebaugh’s whole “catalog” of turning points. Rebecka’slife and that of her newborn child were threatened by the husband/father,i.e., a special event. Rebecka then turned to a psychologist at the antenatalclinic for help. This psychologist perceived the situation as serious and toldRebecka that she would recommend that social services take the child intocare if Rebecka did not leave her husband. Rebecka was thus confrontedwith an either/or alternative: the man or the child. Furthermore, it gave hera kind of excuse. Most central in all of this was, however, the fact that herchild was at risk.

The well-being of children has been reported by many authors asincentive to leave (Davis, 2002; Haj-Yahia & Eldar-Avidan, 2001; Hoff, 1990;Kurz, 1996; Moss et al., 1997; Patzel, 2001; Ulrich, 1991). However, in the

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

214 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

case of Anneli, the animal lover, an animal was at risk. When her partnerabused her dog, she left him.5

We can conclude that several of the turning points described by FuchsEbaugh have been found in our material. But they were of the specialcharacter of being a matter of the woman’s life or death or of someoneelse’s safety. Tragically enough, an abused woman must apparently be onher way to perishing or someone close to her must be in harm’s way forher to be able to break up from the man, probably due to the strength andvitality of the traumatic bond.

Giving up. We have described the “hitting of rock bottom” as somethingthat precedes or coincides with the turning point. The relevant question thenis whether it is a necessary prerequisite for leaving. Does a battered womanhave to hit rock bottom to be able to break up?

Several of our informants stated that they had hit rock bottom. Others,however, had not. The first kind of turning point, a matter of life or death,is very closely connected to the experience of hitting rock bottom. Whatapparently happened at rock bottom was that the woman gave up, whichLiljana mentioned (see quote above). On the other hand, the second kind ofturning point, when someone else is at risk, does not seem to be as closelyconnected to hitting rock bottom. In these cases the breakup had often beenbrought about by a dramatic special event that made continuing appearimpossible. This also entailed giving up certain things, such as hope for afuture within the relationship or conceptions of the man that had definitivelyturned out to be unrealistic.

We therefore conclude that the giving up is central. It may consist ofgiving up hopes of different kinds or of giving up resistance and resigning.Apparently, a battered woman must not necessarily hit rock bottom to beable to leave, but she must give up. However, she will often not give upuntil she does indeed hit rock bottom.

II: BECOMING FREE

Above, we analyze the breakup and the turning point to which it isconnected. That an abused woman has left the abusive man does not,however, automatically mean that she has broken the strong emotional bond.This is a separate process, Becoming Free.

We will present this second leaving process in the form of a model,exemplified by findings from our study, (but) originally emanating fromclinical work. The first author has worked with battered women for manyyears at women’s shelters and as a counselor. Based on her clinicalexperiences, she has developed a model consisting of four emotional

5 See also Faver and Strand (2003).

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 215

stages through which battered women seemed to progress. Part of theprocess of undertaking research was, as described earlier, the attempt toleave pre-existing notions behind and look at the material with “a freshview.” However, the previously defined emotional stages were so clearlyrepresented in the material that we have chosen to include and presentthem.

The stages represent the respective honest replies to the question, “Whatdo you feel for him today?,” i.e., “I love him,” “I hate him,” “I feel sorryfor him,” or “I don’t feel anything.” Note that an abused woman passesthrough all stages, according to this model, irrespective of in which stagethe breakup occurs. This means that a woman can hypothetically remainin the relationship throughout all four phases or leave during the first one.However, we suggest that breakup during the later stages is more probable.

“I Love Him”

The first stage is dominated by infatuation and love. The experience of“falling in love” does not vary much between women in non-violentand violent relationships in societies in which relationships are based onromantic love. Possibly the feeling of love is somewhat stronger in violentrelationships, or can be experienced as such in contrast to the “bad parts.”Ingrid, one of our informants, thus described her conviction that she wouldnever again feel anything as strong as her love for the abusive man. None ofour informants had left during this stage, in which love seemed to be strongerthan fear. Leaving at this stage of the relationship seemed inconceivablein the retrospective depictions. In the analysis of our material, it was alsoevident that love, apart from being binding in itself, is connected to (the tieof) hope. Therefore, it could be said that this is a stage in which the traumaticbond is woven rather than broken.

“I Hate Him”

The second stage is dominated by hate and a wish to repudiate the man andhis actions. The outsider may easily interpret this to mean that the womanis really on the way to liberating herself from him. But as stated earlier,hate binds an abused woman to her abuser since he must be present–insome sense of the word–to be the object of it. Moreover, hate is closelyconnected to resistance: reacting and talking back in anger. And as we haveseen previously, a battered woman resists primarily in the hope that the manwill change.

The cliche of hate being close to love is quite relevant here, in that thisis the emotional stage immediately following the love stage. An observationfrom clinical practice, reflected in one of the shelter interviews, is that awoman who comes to the shelter at this emotional stage often quickly returns

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

216 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

to the man. After expressing her anger and hate to the shelter staff (oftengiving the impression that she is very intent on leaving) and sometimes tothe abusive man himself, she seems to slide back into the love stage, whichmay be interpreted in the light of the emotional ties still being essentiallyintact.

Battered women have been estimated to leave 3–5 times temporarily, i.e.before the final relationship termination (Dobash & Dobash, 1979; Eliasson,1997; Barnett, 2000). It is reasonable to assume that some of these temporarybreakups occur during this phase, prompted by anger and resistance.According to our model, however, it is not as probable that the definitivebreakup will occur during this stage, due to strength of the traumatic bond.Even in the latter part of this stage, it is only the tie of love that has beenbroken or just somewhat strained.

Erika was the only one of our informants that had left during thisstage; her breakup thus merits a deeper analysis. Erika left when she foundindications that her husband might have sexually abused their daughter, i.e.,she reached a turning point of the “when some else is at risk” kind. In theanalysis of the first, second, and to some extent also the third, interview, wehad the pervasive impression that Erika had actively distanced herself fromthe reality of what had happened. This can possibly be related to her leavingso early in the process of becoming free, long before she was “finished” withher feelings for the abusive man. When asked what she felt for him at the timeof the third interview, conducted 2.5 years after the breakup, she replied:

It grieves me to see his inner child. At the same time, I’m furious becausehe doesn’t care about his own children or take any responsibility. I havemixed, double feelings. I feel sorry for him. It’s hard to see a person youhave loved killing himself. [The ex-husband had an alcohol problem.](Erika, 3rd interview)

It was only at this point that Erika seemed to be approaching the thirdemotional stage, “I feel sorry for him.” She was still far from not feelinganything for him, or in other words, being “free.”

“I Feel Sorry for Him”

The third stage is dominated by compassion; i.e., the woman feels sorry forthe man. This is the emotional stage that is most extended in terms of time,while the preceding stage, hate, was shown to be shorter in our analysis.

Pity for the man was a recurrent theme in our material, and wasreported by several informants to be the main reason for staying in therelationship. But pity and compassion can also be the dominating feelingsduring and long after breaking up. This leads to several conclusions. Thefirst and simplest is that the phenomena of staying, leaving temporarily, and

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 217

leaving permanently can all be seen during this stage. The second is thatalthough compassion was reported to be a strong incentive for staying, itdoes not seem to be strong enough if the woman hits rock bottom; whichis more likely to occur during this stage than during the two previous onessimply because more time has elapsed. The third conclusion is connectedto the second; we propose that this is the stage in which a breakup mostoften occurs (which was also the case with our informants). And finally, weconclude that this breakup, due to the predominant feeling of pity for theman, is often difficult and surrounded by ambivalence and guilt. However,with the onset of pity, the tie of hate breaks.

“I Don’t Feel Anything”

The fourth stage is dominated by indifference for the man, and if the womanhas not left him before, she will now, according to our model, unless sheis too dejected and broken down. This is the end. Reaching this end may,however, take time; it was not until 15 years after her divorce that one ofour informants stopped feeling sorry for the man and became indifferent tohim or, in our words, “became free.”

With the end of feelings, something seems to change. But first, adescription of what two of our informants felt for the abusive man at thefollow-up interview:

I’m indifferent. He is completely gone. I have no feelings at all, I’m justa blank. (Sara, 3rd interview)

I don’t feel anything. He’s touchy, naıve, and stupid. I’m not sofurious and I don’t feel the urge to get back at him. I think he’s childish.(Stina, 3rd interview)

Two of our informants gave very similar illustrations of what “the end”could entail. Sara described an encounter with the man in which she “onlystared him in the eye.” She did not lower her gaze and stated that the man“understood that something had changed.” Ingrid recounted what could bedescribed as a twin episode to Sara’s, which she summarized thus: “Hispower was broken.” When an abused woman no longer feels anything forthe abusive man, his emotional power over her is also broken. That a batteredwoman has broken the abuser’s internal power over her does not, however,mean that his external oppression of her has ceased. She may have to copecontinuously with threats and harassment.6

6 Fleury et al. (2000) found that more than a third (36%) of 278 women who were studied during atwo-year period after shelter stay/breakup were subjected to violence by their ex-partners. Furthermore,Mechanic et al. (2000) found that as many as 94% (n = 115) of women interviewed approximately sixmonths after shelter stay/breakup were threatened by ex-partners.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

218 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

The attentive reader has no doubt noted that the feelings describedas dominant in the first stages merge with three of the earlier describedemotional ties, i.e., love, hate, and compassion. How, then, are ties andstages related to each other? If we return to the picture of the conflatedbond, the interrelationship could be described as follows: love is the tie thatbreaks–or at least weakens–first. But the other emotional ties still remain:hate, compassion, fear, guilt, and hope. Hate is the tie that breaks next,followed by compassion, one of the stronger ties. The fourth stage is called“I don’t feel anything” (for the man), meaning that the woman has alsostopped hoping. But even if she is mainly indifferent to the man she can stillfeel guilt and above all fear; fear seems to be a persistent companion.7 Guiltand fear are thus the emotional ties that break last.

For a summary of our model of Becoming Free as a four-stage process,we finally turn to Rebecka. In the last interview, conducted four yearsafter Rebecka left the abusive man, she described her feelings for him, inretrospect:

I loved him at first and then I started to feel sorry for him instead. Thatwas what made me stay so long. (Rebecka, 3rd interview)

and at the time of the interview:

I feel nothing for him. There’s only fear left. I used to hate him but nowit doesn’t matter to me if he lives or dies. (Rebecka, 3rd interview)

Rebecka described all four of the outlined stages above, unknowinglyproviding an illustration of our whole model.

III: UNDERSTANDING

The third defined process connected to leaving is Understanding. In thisprocess, a woman defines the relationship she lives/has lived in as abusiveand herself as a battered woman. We propose that this is a process primarilyoccurring after (the actual) leaving. In other words, women do not leavebecause they realise they are abused; rather, they realise they are abusedbecause they have left.

This is suggested by the fact that although all our informants had soughthelp from women’s shelters and several had reported abuse to the police, 9out of 10 did not identify themselves as abused at the point of breaking up.On the contrary, informants were reluctant to define themselves as abusedboth before and after leaving. Here is a typical description:

7 This fear may, of course, be related to continuing threats and harassment from the abuser. Howevera woman’s fear may apparently be just as strong and pervasive long after they have ceased. Hyden (1999,2000) also found that post-separation fear was pervasive and long-lasting.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 219

I know that (. . .) I thought like, what do you mean abuse, I’ve only beenpunched in the nose or had my face slapped or been pushed. And evenwhen he was choking me the night I left home, I didn’t even think thatwas abuse really but rather, what the hell, he’s just grabbed me roundthe neck. I was scared to death, mind you. That was more like emotionalabuse. But the odd punch isn’t abuse. No, abuse is when someone iscompletely knocked out somewhere. So I guess I didn’t see it that way,as an “abusive relationship”. (Anneli, 2nd interview)

The informants expressed notions of not “qualifying” as abused in tworespects. One was that the violence they had experienced was not “severeenough.” But the definition of “enough” seemed to be relative; there wasan observable shift in meaning–or a normalization (Lundgren, 1991)–here.While one informant did not define what she had been subjected to as abusebecause it had “merely” been psychological, others that had been the victimsof physical violence still did not define themselves as abused as they hadnot been–in Anneli’s words–”completely knocked out.” In summary, it couldbe said that our informants defined abuse as “something worse than whatI have been put through.” The second respect in which one could fail toqualify as abused was simply in (not) being a “battered woman.” Elisabeth,for example, saw no reason to call the women’s shelter because she wasnot, in her own opinion, a typical battered woman. In this context, wewould like to repeat that all our informants had put up resistance in differentways, something which is often missing in descriptions of “typical” batteredwomen.

In the light of our informants’ notions of not qualifying as battered, wethink that two points should be stressed, the first being the importanceof describing abuse as something primarily emotional (as opposed tophysical) and of focusing on what women themselves perceive as themost devastating; i.e., the psychological abuse, the brainwashing, and theconsequential betrayal of oneself. The second is that the simplified andredundant description of “the battered woman” that focuses on (direct)adaptation must be changed. As long as women who are subjected to abusefail to recognize themselves in it, this image may directly stop them fromseeking help.

Rebecka—An illustration

Defining oneself as abused is thus far from self-evident. Rather, it stands outas a process in its own right.8 Albeit a primarily cognitive process, it is not

8 Parallels can be drawn here to what Kelly (1988) calls “the naming process,” and our findings, mademore than ten years later and in another country, can therefore be said to confirm hers.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

220 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

without emotional consequences, and seems to be difficult and distressing.We have chosen to illustrate this process by presenting Rebecka’s case.

Rebecka’s process of understanding was rendered more difficult by twocircumstances: that she had “only” been subjected to psychological violenceand that the abusive man suffered from a clinical depression. Rebecka’sprevious understanding of what she had been subjected to was characterisedby her interpreting her experiences in the light of her partner’s depression,and the depression and abuse seem to have merged in her mind.

In connection with the breakup, Rebecka suddenly found herself at awomen’s shelter and both the shelter staff and the psychologists she sawtold her, independently of one another, that she was the victim of abuse.Initially, Rebecka firmly resisted this description, but a process seems tohave been started by these conversations. Rebecka subsequently engagedin what can be described as an intense negotiation of understanding:depression or abuse? Eventually–following a neither simple nor straightcognitive process–she started to accept the idea of abuse, resulting in akind of mental paradigmatic shift that entailed considerable pain:

That was when the crisis hit me. Then I felt like: “I give up, I don’t givea damn if they take my son away from me, I haven’t got the strength,I just want to disappear.” It was a cruel truth when I finally realized it.Because they (the staff at the woman’s shelter and her therapist) sortof. . . they wanted it to come out so that I would understand what I hadbeen through. Because otherwise I’ll still go around feeling bad withoutknowing why. And when I heard them say that. . . I didn’t want to acceptit because you know it affected me. I felt bad. Then when I couldn’t fightit off anymore, I managed for about a month I think, but then I realizedthat they were right. It was the most difficult thing I’ve experienced,actually. (Rebecka, 1st interview)

Once Rebecka had embraced the notion of abuse, a mental subprocess,replay, began. In this subprocess, an abused woman “replays” part of herlife like a video film to look at it again, but in a new light:

It was like starting the abuse that I realized that I had been through allover again. As if I was living through all three years of it again, but insuch a short time (. . .) I went through it all in my head, right from thefirst day I met him, (. . .) everything that had happened and all. And itwas just like I was living through it again. Like I was living. . . I was ina three-year relationship twice and was put through the same things thewhole time. (. . .) So I started seeing it differently. And I realized that itwas psychological abuse. But since I had repressed, well not repressedbut compressed everything into his depression, I hadn’t realized howterrible I was feeling in the whole situation. How he was hurting me.That he was doing it on purpose. But then when I took a new look at

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 221

it I was living, I suppose that was the only difference, I was living withpsychological abuse for three years instead. Before that, I had been livingwith a depressed man for three years. The same things had happenedbut I looked at them differently. (Rebecka, 1st interview)

Replay entails re-experiencing the relationship, in the light of thedefinition abuse/violence. The phenomenon of replay can be suggestedto have two functions. Through re-experiencing, a battered woman canpsychologically work through her painful memories. Furthermore, the re-experiencing of these memories seems to strengthen the woman in definingwhat she has been subjected to as abuse. Thus, replay is both a part of andstrengthens the process of understanding.

The difficulty of the Understanding process is also indicated by Ingrid’sdescription of a semi-conscious nightmare:

Interviewer: What was it like to start looking at it that way, that it was anabusive relationship?

Ingrid: It was bloody horrible. I got woke up by having a dagger inmy hand and stabbing my husband over and over without being able tostop. I sat up in bed, almost awake. (Ingrid, 2nd interview)

The process of understanding and re-experiencing the violent relation-ship was sometimes described by our informants as even more painfulthan actually living in the relationship. Therefore the following discussion isrelevant.

Is It Necessary to Understand?

Some of our informants had not gone through the Understanding processand one might indeed ask whether it is necessary that a woman defineher experiences as violence and herself as a battered woman? CatherineAshcraft (2000) claims that women disclaim these definitions for many goodreasons, one being the strong connotations with powerlessness, and theother that the women’s movement–that has named and put the problem onthe agenda–has failed to abolish the connection between woman abuseand deviance/pathology. These are thought-provoking ideas that meritmore discussion. We will, however, limit ourselves to describing whatUnderstanding seems to imply.

Being subjected to domestic violence has profound and sometimesdevastating consequences. To describe them, several informants–and someresearchers (e.g., Mega, Mega & Harris, 2000, Romero, 1985)–turn to theconcept of brainwashing, a concept implying that something has been doneto one, one’s brain has been “washed.” The process of understanding canbe described as a comprehension of what has been done, of how this

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

222 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

brainwashing has been carried out and of its consequences. A word, adefinition–abuse–seems to be required to reach this comprehension.9

Finally, the process of understanding is clearly important for breakingpart of the traumatic bond. When a woman defines herself as abused, oneof the last emotional ties can be broken: guilt. Rebecka, whose process ofunderstanding was depicted above, no longer felt any guilt toward the man.However she was still afraid; during the second interview she stated that shewas considerably more frightened than she had been before and at the thirdinterview this fear seemed to have become part of her life. After the womanhas broken up, become free and understood, fear thus remains.

CONCLUSIONS

Two common features of the “leaving as a process” literature are theemphasis on women’s resistance and the depiction of the leaving processas complex and multifaceted (Anderson & Saunders, 2003). Our study is noexception in this respect; however, we offer some new interpretations andmodels. Regarding the first feature, resistance, the discussion among Nordicfeminist researchers has been animated. On the basis of our findings, weconclude that battered women’s resistance should be included in descriptionsof violent relationship dynamics, but does not lead to leaving. In this context,we propose a new theoretical concept, meta-adaptation, to cover resistancewithin the violent relationship.

Regarding the second feature, the complex nature of the leaving process,our study provides a more detailed illustration of these complexities, withthe traumatic bond as a starting point for analysis. Leaving–in its widestsense–can be seen as a disentanglement from this bond. We have shownhow the majority of the emotional ties are broken during the describedprocesses. Love, hate, compassion, and hope break during the BecomingFree process, whereas guilt breaks during the Understanding process. Fear,however, seems to remain. When and where the so-called composite ties, thedesire to understand, dependency, and internalization, break is, however, aquestion open to further study.

According to Anderson and Saunders (2003), many process studiesfound that when “women began to redefine the relationship as abusiveand label themselves as victims” (pp. 175–176), it led to a termination of theabusive relationship. Our study differs from others in this respect, in that we

9 A comment on language is required here. Where English has a larger selection of terms, Swedishspeakers mainly use the word “misshandel,” which means assault and battery. The word has beenused to translate the English term “abuse,” which, however, has a broader meaning and is not as stronglyconnected to physical violence as the Swedish expression. One might ponder on the different possibilitiesthis offers; while an English-speaking woman could claim that she is abused but not battered (or viceversa) a Swedish-speaking woman is either “misshandlad” or not.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 223

see this as separate process predominantly taking place after the womanhas left the abuser. Our informants did, in concurrence with other studies,describe an increased awareness of violence. But the pattern we observedwas reluctance to label it as such until after the breakup. We thereforepropose that women do not leave because they realise they are abused, buton the contrary realise they are abused because they have left.

Within this framework, we have also identified two turning points whichcover leaving in a narrower sense, i.e. the physical breakup: when it’s amatter of life and death and when someone else is at risk. Central to andconnecting both of these turning points is that they result in the womangiving up in some sense. We furthermore propose that the turning point ismore likely to occur during the later stages of the Becoming Free process.

We hope that we have fulfilled our promise to present a new map ofthe leaving phenomenon.

REFERENCES

Anderson, D., & Saunders, D. (2003). Leaving an abusive partner: An empiricalreview of predictors, the process of leaving, and psychological well-being.Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 4, 163–191.

Anderson, M. A., Gillig, P. M., Sitaker, M., McCloskey, K., Malloy, K., & Grigsby,N. (2003). “Why doesn’t she just leave”: A descriptive study of victim reportedimpediments to her safety. Journal of Family Violence, 18, 151–155.

Aronson, J. (1994). A pragmatic view of thematic Analysis. The Qualitative Report, 2.Retrieved January 5, 2003 from http://www.nova.edu/ssss/QR/BackIssues/QR2-1/aronson.html.

Ashcraft, C. (2000). Naming knowledge: A language for reconstructing domesticviolence and systemic gender inequity. Women and Language, 23, 3–10.

Barnett, O. W. (2000). Why battered women do not leave, part 1. External inhibitingfactors within society. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 1, 343–372.

Barnett, O. W. (2001). Why battered women do not leave, part 2. External inhibitingfactors—social support and internal inhibiting factors. Trauma, Violence &Abuse, 2, 3–35.

Bochorowitz, D. Y., & Eisikovits, Z. (2002). To love violently: Strategies forreconciling love and violence. Violence Against Women, 8, 476–494.

Burke, J. G., Gielen, A. C., McDonnell, K. A., OCampo, P., & Maman, S. (2001). Theprocess of ending abuse in intimate relationships: A qualitative exploration ofthe transtheoretical model. Violence Against Women, 7, 1144–1163.

Davis, R. E. (2002). Leave-taking experiences in the lives of abused women. ClinicalNursing Research, 11, 285–305.

Dobash, R. E., & Dobash, R. P. (1979). Violence against wives: A case against thepatriarchy. New York: Free Press.

Dutton, D., & Painter, S. (1981). Traumatic bonding: The development of emotionalattachments in battered women and other relationships of intermittent abuse.Victimology, 6, 139–155.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

224 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

Eldar-Avidan, D., & Haj-Yahia, M. M. (2000). The experience of formerly batteredwomen with divorce: A qualitative descriptive study. Journal of Divorce &Remarriage, 32, 19–40.

Eliasson, M. (1997). Mans vald mot kvinnor: En kunskapsoversikt om kvinnomisshan-del och valdtakt, dominans och kontroll. [Men’s violence against women: Anoverview of woman abuse, rape, dominance and control.] Stockholm: NaturochKultur.

Faver, C. A., & Strand, E. B. (2003). To leave or to stay? Journal of InterpersonalViolence, 18, 1367–1377.

Ferraro, K. J. (1983). Rationalising violence: how battered women stay. Victimology,8, 203–212.

Ferraro, K. J., & Johnson, J. M. (1983). How women experience battering: Theprocess of victimization. Social Problems, 30, 325–339.

Fleury, R. E., Sullivan, C. M., & Bybee, D. I. (2000). When ending the relationshipdoes not end the violence: Women’s experiences of violence by former partners.Violence Against Women, 6, 1363–1383.

Fuchs Ebaugh, H. R. (1988). Becoming an ex: The process of role exit. Chicago: TheUniversity of Chicago Press.

Goetting, A. (1999). Getting out: Live stories of women who left abusive men. NewYork: Columbia University Press.

Graham, D. L., Rawling, E. I., & Rigsby, R. K. (1994). Loving to survive: Sexual terror,men’s violence and women’s lives. New York and London: New York UniversityPress.

Griffin, S., Ragin, D. F., Sage, R. E., Madry, L., Bingham, L. E., & Primm, B. J. (2002).Domestic violence survivors’ self-identified reasons for returning to abusiverelationships. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 306–319.

Haj-Yahia, M. M., & Eldar-Avidan, D. (2001). Formerly battered women: A qualitativestudy of their experiences in making a decision to divorce and carrying it out.Journal of Divorce and Remarriage, 36, 37–65.

Herman, J. L. (1992). Trauma and recovery. The aftermath of violence: From domesticabuse to political terror. New York: Basic Books.

Hoff, L. (1990). Battered women as survivors. London: Routledge.Holmberg, C. & Enander, V. (2004). Varfor gar hon? Om misshandlade kvinnors

uppbrottsprocesser. [Why does she leave? On the leaving processes of batteredwomen.] Ystad: Kabusa bocker

Hyden, M. (1994). Woman battering as marital act: The construction of a violentmarriage. Oslo: Scandinavian University Press.

Hyden, M. (1995a). Kvinnomisshandel inom aktenskapet: Mellan det omojliga ochdet mojliga. [Woman abuse within marriage: Between the impossible and thepossible.] Stockholm: Liber.

Hyden, M. (1995b). Mot en forstaelse av kvinnomisshandel som en social process[Toward an understanding of woman abuse as a social process]. Kvinnoveten-skaplig Tidskrift, 4, 67–74.

Hyden, M. (1999). The world of the fearful: Battered women’s narratives of leavingabusive husbands. Feminism & Psychology, 9, 449–469.

Hyden, M. (2000). Att lamna den man som slar: Om misshandlade kvinnors radslaefter uppbrottet [To leave the man that batters: Battered women’s fear afterthe breakup]. In I. Sahlin & M. Akerstrom (Eds.), Det lokala valdet: Om radsla,rasism och social kontroll (pp. 210–235). Stockholm: Liber.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

Why Does She Leave? 225

Hyden, M. (2001). Misshandlade kvinnors uppbrott: en motstandsprocess [Batteredwomen’s breakups: A process of resistance]. In M. Akerstrom & I. Sahlin (Eds.),Det motspanstiga offret (pp. 92–118). Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Kirkwood, C. (1993). Leaving abusive partners: From the scars of survival to thewisdom for change. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kearney, M. H. (2001). Enduring love: A grounded formal theory of women’sexperiences of domestic violence. Research in Nursing & Health, 24, 270–282.

Kelly, L. (1988). Surviving sexual violence. Cambridge, England: Polity.Kurz, D. (1996). Separation, divorce and woman abuse. Violence Against Women,

2, 63–81.Kvale, S. (1996). Interviews: an introduction to qualitative research interviewing.

Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Landenburger, K. (1989). A process of entrapment in and recovery from an abusive

relationship. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 10, 209–227.La Violette, A. D., & Barnett, O. W. (2000). It could happen to anyone: Why battered

women stay (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.Liu, M., & Chan, C. (1999). Enduring violence and staying in marriage: Stories of

battered women in rural China. Violence Against Women, 5, 1469–1492.Lundgren, E. (1991). Valdets normaliseringsprocess: Tva parter—tva strategier

[The process of normalising violence: Two actors—two strategies]. Stockholm:Riksorganisationen for kvinnojourer i Sverige.

Malterud, K. (1998). Kvalitativa metoder i medicinsk forskning [Qualitative methodsin medical research]. Lund, Sweden: Studentlitteratur.

Mechanic, M. B., Weaver, T. L., & Resick, P. A. (2000). Intimate partner violence andstalking behavior: Explorations of patterns and correlates in a sample of acutelybattered women. Violence and Victims, 15, 55–72.

Mega, L. T., Mega, B. T., & Harris, B. M. (2000). Brainwashing and battering fatigue:Psychological abuse in domestic violence. North Carolina Medical Journal, 61,260–265.

Merrit-Gray, M., & Wuest, J. (1995). Counteracting abuse and breaking free: Theprocess of leaving revealed through women’s voices. Health Care for WomenInternational, 16, 399–412.

Moss, V. A., Pitula, C. R., Campbell, J. C., & Halstead, L. (1997). The experienceof terminating an abusive relationship from an Anglo and African Americanperspective: A qualitative descriptive study. Issues in Mental Health Nursing,18, 433–454.

NiCarthy, G. (1987). The ones who got away: Women who left abusive partners.Seattle, WA: Seal.

Patzel, B. (2001). Women’s use of resources in leaving abusive relationships: Anaturalistic inquiry. Issues in Mental Health Nursing, 22, 729–747.

Rhodes, N. R., & McKenzie, E. B. (1998). Why do battered women stay: Threedecades of research. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 391–406.

Romero, M. (1985). A comparison between strategies used on prisoners of war andbattered wives. Sex Roles, 13, 537–547.

Rosen, K. H., & Smith, S. M. (1997). Surviving abusive dating relationships: Processesof leaving, healing and moving on. In G. K. Kantor & J. L. Jasinski (Eds.), Outof the darkness: Contemporary perspectives on family violence (pp. 170–182).Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Dow

nloa

ded

By:

[Göt

ebor

g U

nive

rsity

Lib

rary

] At:

16:3

7 14

May

200

8

226 V. Enander and C. Holmberg

Ulrich, Y. C. (1991). Women’s reasons for leaving abusive spouses. Health Care forWomen International, 12, 465–473.

Walker, L. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper and Row.Walker, L. (1984). The battered woman syndrome. New York: Springer Publishing

Co.Wuest, J., & Merrit-Gray, M. (1999). Not going back: Sustaining the separation process

of leaving abusive relationships. Violence Against Women, 2, 110–133.Zink, T., Regan, S., Jacobson, C. J., & Pabst, S. (2003). Cohort, period and aging

effects. A qualitative study of women’s reasons for remaining in abusiverelationships. Violence Against Women, 9, 1429–1441.