Theoretic Assumptions of the Duluth Power and Control Model
Lucille Pope and Kathleen Ferraro
Theoretical explanations for battering are not mere exercises; by pinpointing
the conditions that create violence against women, they suggest the directions
in which a movement should proceed to stop it. (Schechter, 1982, p. 209)
Violence Against Women in Individual Relationships
The current domestic violence discourse can be viewed through two dominant
perspectives: one which understands violence in intimate relationships as family violence and
one as violence against women (Anderson, 1997; Breines & Gordon, 1983; Dobash & Dobash,
1992; Kurtz, 1989; Okun, 1986). The differences between these two perspectives rest in their
theoretical underpinnings, approach to practice, and recommendations for change. The Duluth
Power and Control Model rests firmly in the history and traditions of the violence against
women perspective.
From this perspective, physical violence exists within a context of psychological abuse
and together they create an atmosphere of terror. This concept of battering encompasses a range
of behaviors which may also include sexual abuse, isolation, coercion, intimidation, and threats
(Boulette & Andersen, 1985; Follingstad, Rutledge, Berg, Hause & Polek, 1990; Okun, 1986;
Russell, 1990; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996; Walker, 1979; Yllo, 1993). Violence against women
advocates link domestic violence to rape, incest, trafficking, prostitution, or femicide more than
to child abuse, elder abuse, or sibling violence (Okun, 1986). From this perspective one would
argue that the common denominator is not the family but a misogynist culture in which violence
against women is “a pivotal but often obscured factor in the continued maintenance of a male
dominated social structure” (Hart, 1991, p. 108).
The violence against women perspective is an openly political perspective woven
throughout the grass-roots battered women’s movement.1 Bograd (1988) identifies four
dimensions of this perspective: gender and power as explanatory constructs; the family as an
institution which is historically situated; expertise that derives from women’s experience; and
praxis (p. 13). To understand women’s experience with violence in relationships, and their
response to that violence, one must consider complex behavioral interactions. Ingrained in this
perspective is the belief that women’s stories and interpretations of their experience with
battering are a source of knowledge and expertise critical to the development of theory and
practice.
Domestic violence, then, is understood as one form of male violence against women that
is legitimized and supported by a socially constructed patriarchy. Feminists adopting this
perspective look to how gendered relations and societal institutions have been systematically
constructed to maintain male privilege (Breines & Gordon, 1983; Yllo, 1993) and how violence
against women has served as a necessary “mechanism of social control over women” (Stanko,
1988, p. 84).2 From the violence against women perspective, social patriarchy relies on familial
patriarchy for reinforcing gender and age power differentials and to support the power and
dominant position of men through adoption of a particular family form (Bersani & Huey-Tsyh,
1988; Bogard, 1988). The family form as currently organized is supported by cultural ideologies
that are embedded in institutional systems (Dobash & Dobash, 1979).
In the violence against women perspective, emphasis is placed on how the response of
patriarchal institutions external to the family serve to isolate women, limit their options, and
reinforce the control of the batterer (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Ferraro, 1979; Martin, 1976;
Okun, 1986; Schechter, 1982; Stark & Flitcraft, 1996). Economic, mental health, legislative,
criminal justice, and medical structures shape the context of battering and women’s position in
violent intimate relationships (Dobash & Dobash, 1992; Martin, 1976). The violence against
women approach emphasizes the creation of resources for safety and societal change (Dobash &
Dobash, 1992; Kurtz, 1989; Schechter, 1982).
Theoretical Assumptions of the DAIP
In Duluth, Minnesota, the Domestic Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP)3 offers a model
of the violence against women perspective that is widely used in practice. Using their particular
vantage point, they bridge the politics of the personal with explanations of the social conditions
they believe create and sustain battering.4 The Duluth analysis is rooted in an understanding of
culture as a social construction. A primary theme throughout their writings is an emphatic belief
that the organization of our culture “is not granted by nature, God or chromosomal differences; it
is something that men have built into the structure of society and that they fight to maintain”
(Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 121; 1993, p. 148). In the writings of the DAIP, there are several
keys to their understanding of how society is organized in ways that support and reinforce
violence in individual relationships.
Hierarchy.
Pence and Paymar (1986, 1990, 1993) present hierarchy as a key mechanism by which
power and dominance are structured. “The framework or theory used by the DAIP is based on
the premise that individual men who batter are using tactics to exert control over their partners in
a culture that is structured hierarchically” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 22). Hierarchical
structures are linked to belief systems, establish entitlements to privilege, separate by difference,
set role expectations, and ultimately “dehumanize both those with too much power and those
without enough power” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 187; 1993, p. 180).
Each of us is located within a variety of hierarchies that organize, categorize, bound, and
define social relations of dominance. The vertical positioning of individuals, groups, or
individuals within groups, determines degrees of privilege and power that are assigned,
legitimized, and culturally reinforced as the natural order of social relations. Those individuals
or groups located below others on a hierarchy are understood to be deficient and expected to be
subservient. Those located below others “are obligated to give up their identity and exist on
some level for another person on the top” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 155; 1993, p. 49). Even
though it may be accepted as the natural order, “it is also an unnatural state for the person at the
bottom” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 23). Fear of relocation within hierarchies, with attendant
loss of privileges, status, and power, influences a need to control.
Oppression.
Oppression appears in multiple constructions of gender, economic class, sexuality,
ethnicity, and race. The concept of a series of behavioral tactics through which power flows and
is simultaneously created is not limited to violence against women, but “these tactics have
become part of our culture. These tactics are not merely used by others but permeate all of
society” (Pence, 1987, p. 58) as rights of enforcement due to those in positions of power and
privilege.
Page 2 of 13
The Duluth analysis of women’s oppression begins with a discussion of cultural factors
that shape the institutions and belief systems which support violence against women. To clarify
how oppression functions in society, the DAIP presents training exercises in frames
demystifying hierarchy, male privilege, socialization, gender roles, and belief systems (Pence,
1987; Pence & Paymar, 1986, 1990, 1993). Using the Relationships of Sexism to Other Forms of
Oppression Chart (Attachment), groups discuss how oppression works; connections between
individual, group, and cultural intersections of oppressions; and “how their own oppression and
their participation in the oppression of others strengthens men’s power over women” (Pence,
1987, p. 56).
Social Control and Dominance.
To sustain hierarchical structures, social control is required at individual, group, and
institutional levels. “Those in control use societal institutions to justify, support, and enforce the
relationship of dominance and make extensive efforts to obtain general acceptance of the
premise that hierarchy is natural” (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. 4). In hierarchically structured
relationships,
differences among people are not celebrated and treasured but used as a reason
to dominate. When relationships of dominance become the norm in a culture,
then all individuals within it are socialized to internalize those values or exist
on the fringe of society. Individuals mirror global and national relationships
in their own interpersonal relationships. (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. 4)
The DAIP understands western society as a culture of dominance. “This cultural
acceptance of dominance is rooted in the assumption that, based on differences, some people
have the legitimate right to master others” (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. 3). Patriarchy, as one
form of oppression, is ingrained in the assumptions, structure, institutions, and belief systems of
our society. Pence (1987) connects control tactics used in individual relationships to tactics used
in a culture of dominance.5
These are the tactics of dominance used against many groups of people based
on race, gender, age, sexual preference or class. One of the most important
goals of [the women’s] group is to show that the use of these tactics is not
limited to a few psychologically deranged people or to persons who are somehow outside the mainstream of society. Our society legitimizes the abuse of
people for the gain of others. As a result individual men come to see using
violence as perfectly natural and normal behavior. Men use tactics to gain
submission of their partners because it is natural and normal in this culture
for some people to dominate others, for some people to exist for others, and
therefore for some tactics to be used to insure that relationship. (p. 55)
Socialization.
The writings of the DAIP propose that each person is socialized to accept hierarchy and
male privilege as the natural order of the world. Through socialization people learn about roles,
expectations of appropriate behaviors, sanctions for defying role boundaries, and assumptions of
entitlements granted by our position in a hierarchy. “The socialization of men and women in this
society teaches us to adhere to rigidly defined roles that in the end separate us from each other”
(Pence & Paymar, 1986, p. 242; 1993, p. 3). Socialization ensures agreement with “how these
institutions shape our lives, our self perceptions, our children’s views of men and women, fathers
and mothers” (Pence, 1987, p. 62).
Page 3 of 13
The tactics an abuser employs are part of his socialization and existence in a culture in
which it is necessary to maintain a privileged position within the family and thwart acts of
resistance. “All men learn to dominate women, but only some men batter them. Violence is
only one of the many ways in which men express their socially structured right to control and
chastise” (Schechter, 1982, p. 219). Men are taught these tactics in both their families of origin
and through their experiences in a culture that teaches men to dominate.
Dichotomous Thought.
One characteristic of hierarchical social orders is dichotomizing categories of difference.
In a patriarchy, women will, by definition, be placed lower than males on a gendered hierarchy.
Pence (1987) discusses a reading for group facilitators that
deals with the socialization of males to be masculine and females to be
feminine, and the resulting purging by men of anything female within them
and vice versa. It concludes by discussing how this purging may seem
symmetrical, but the world belongs to what men have become and not to
what women have become. The symmetry is lost because the culture gives
men power by not recognizing the value of what [women] have become.
(p. 77)
Hierarchically structured dichotomous thought permeates the belief system of batterers:
For a man to be strong, a woman must be weak. For him to be masculine,
she must be feminine. For him to be right, she must be wrong. For him to
be in control, she must be controlled. For him to be valued, she must be
devalued. (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 61; 1993, p. 111)
In the writings of the DAIP, the use of violence against women is understood to be socially
sanctioned, grounded in misogyny, objectification, and fear of the other in “men’s need to reject
the value of women and womanliness” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 61; 1993, p. 111).
Male Privilege.
In a patriarchy, men are granted privilege, status, power and the right to enforce or defend
their position(s). Male privilege as a “belief system has its roots deep in history. The historic
oppression and continued subjugation of women occurs because men have defined almost every
facet of society, thereby perpetuating a sexist belief system and institutionalizing male privilege”
(Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 120; 1993, p. 147). Cultural constructions of hierarchical structures
within the family reinforce male privilege as “our culture has reinforced the belief that men are
the heads of household and, therefore, have the innate right to make decisions for their families”
(Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 174). Using male privilege within the family “is both controlling and
abusive” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 120; 1993, p. 147).
Gender Roles.
Gender roles in the family are directly linked to status within the family and to
socialization. “Men are culturally prepared for their role of master of the home even though they
must often physically enforce the ‘right’ to exercise this role. They are socialized to be dominant
and women to be subordinate” (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. 5). Gender role socialization also
defines group behaviors.
Women have been taught from the cradle how to survive in a world where
men hold most of the power. These survival techniques include deferring
to men, influencing men to make things happen, and attaching themselves to
Page 4 of 13
men who can provide for and protect them. (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 12;
1993, p. 11)
Men learn to batter (and are given permission to batter) in their families of origin and
through media images, “but also by growing up as males in a culture that itself uses abusive
tactics as a form of social control” (Pence, 1987, p. 55). The use of tactics to control individual
relationships “must always be seen in the context of the relationship to the community and the
culture in which it occurs” (Pence, 1987, p. 59). Cultural institutions and social systems
manifest the values and beliefs that legitimize tactics of control.
Cultural Facilitators.
In the first training manual published in Duluth, Pence identifies four elements of culture
that support battering.
The combination of these four elements -- the belief in a natural order of
power and authority within adult relationships, the objectification of women,
forced submission of the victim, and the unbridled use of physical coercion …
explains the disproportionate number of women as victims. (1985, p. 8)
The socialization process reinforces belief systems which assert male privilege and dominance
are part of a natural order that entitles men to service and comfort from women – and the right to
enforce those privileges of gender. Belief in this entitlement supports violence against women.
Male entitlement to privilege relies on denying, silencing, or redefining women’s
experiences and realities. For example, the redefinition or silencing of women’s sexual
experiences demonstrates the connections between cultural and individual batterer’s
objectification of women. Even as children, girls are told “that touching and sexual comments
directed to us are not abusive, nor are they something we can control” (Pence, 1987, p. 68).
Objectification is strengthened by “community institutions [which] support men’s sexual access
to women and … deny, through inadequate response, the effects of sexual abuse” (Ibid). These
messages of access to women’s bodies are reinforced in adult relationships and institutional
messages until “women [are] not recognizing sexual abuse when they are experiencing it” (Ibid).
Objectification of women is routine for batterers: “In seven consecutive court-mandated
counseling sessions involving thirty-two male batterers, ninety-seven references were made to
the men’s victims. Only once was the victim referred to by her name” (Pence, 1985, p. 3). The
batterer’s objectification of women “allows him to hit the object he has created rather than his
partner” (Pence & Paymar, 1993, p. 2).
Violence against women in our culture is directly linked to the marriage of patriarchy and
capitalism. “The expectation that women will work for free in the home and for low wages in
the work force affects the relative power of a woman in the family unit” (Pence & Paymar, 1990,
p. 121; 1993, p. 148). The economic positioning that results from a division of labor based on
gender affects economic status, power in relationships, and the privilege granted to men and to
women in their community. “It is fundamental to women’s oppression that [their] labor be either
for low pay or free” (Pence, 1987, p. 67). Women’s exploitation in the workforce, as well as the
batterers’ control of their educational and employment opportunities “places battered women in a
double economic bind and becomes a strong social facilitator of the violence used against her”
(Pence, 1996, p. 6).
The social conditions that create women’s oppression converge in the world view and
belief system of the batterer. From this gendered cultural system, which is structured
hierarchically and entitles males to privilege, “the abuser bases his actions on two beliefs: first,
that he has the right to control his partner’s activities, feelings, or thoughts, and second, that
Page 5 of 13
violence is a legitimate method of achieving that control” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 36; 1993,
p. 95). While legal supports for domestic violence have shifted over the last 25 years, violence
against women is still firmly embedded in the culture and institutions of the U.S.. Ultimately,
the “use of abusive behavior to maintain a superior status in the family is common in many
American families” (Pence & Paymar, 1986, p. 64; see also 1993, p. 95).
Conceptualizations of Power and Control
Power.
The question of power is central to feminist analyses of the condition of women’s
oppression. To those who adopt a violence against women perspective in the domestic violence
discourse, gender and power are key dimensions of their analysis (Bograd, 1988). Power is
understood as a neutral resource that requires action to determine moral value.
Our culture and society encourage us to see power as the ability to control.
The extent to which one is able to influence events, to acquire and control
increasing amounts of resources, and to influence the behavior and actions
of others, is the measure of his or her power. (Pence & Paymar, 1986, p. 242;
1990, p. 186; 1993, p. 180)
This negative concept of power-over is one of imposition, intentionality, and submission. The
DAIP articulation of power relies on Gilbraith’s (1983) presentation of three institutional forms
of power-over: coercive, conditioned, and compensatory (Pence,1987). Each of these forms of
power are used alone or in combination to impose one’s will on another.
Coercive or condign power “wins submission by the ability to impose an alternative to
the preferences of the individual or group that is sufficiently unpleasant or painful so that these
preferences are abandoned” (Gilbraith, 1983, p. 4). Coercive power is a continuum of actions
that include overt physical force and more subtle coercive actions such as intimidation, threats,
or the use of children (Pence, 1987).
Compensatory power “wins submission by the offer of affirmative reward – by the giving
of something of value to the individual so submitting” (Gilbraith, 1983, p. 5). These rewards are
often economic but may also encompass broad cultural, religious, relational, or community
rewards. Compensatory power “gives access to the most commonplace exercise of power, that is
the bending of the will of one person to another by straightforward purchase” (Gilbraith, 1983, p.
47).
Conditioned power “is exercised by changing belief. Persuasion, education, or the social
commitment to what seems natural, proper, or right causes the individual to submit to the will of
another or of others” (Gilbraith, 1983, p. 5). Through socialization, role expectations, everyday
experiences in hierarchical relationships, cultural and institutional reinforcement, “the individual
who submits through conditioned belief is not aware of his submission; proceeding as it does
from belief, it seems normal and right” (Gilbraith, 1983, p. 70). Gilbraith (1983) explains that
when explicitly conditioned, submission is “deliberately cultivated—by persuasion or education”
(p. 24). Implicit conditioning is “dictated by the culture itself; the submission is considered to be
normal, proper, or traditionally correct” (p. 24).
Once belief is won, whether by explicit or implicit conditioning, the resulting
subordination to the will of others is thought to be the product of the individual’s
own moral or social sense - his or her feeling as to what is right or good. (p. 35)
Page 6 of 13
Conditioned power works in gender relationships to the extent the characteristics of those
relationships are understood to be the natural order. Conditioned power is experienced in many
forms at so many levels in our everyday experience that it is thought of as normal.
Numerous examples of how batterers use all three types of power are demonstrated
through the Power and Control Wheel and described throughout the DAIP manuals for group
facilitation (Pence, 1987; Pence & Paymar, 1986, 1990, 1993). Three additional characteristics
of power are noted in these writings: monopolization of perception, retroactive sanctions, and
suppression.
The power of perception is exercised through monopolizing another’s world view and
consciousness of self. The term “monopolization of perception” is borrowed from Biderman’s
Chart of Coercion (Amnesty International, 1975; see also Russell, 1990, p. 282). Using power to
establish and enforce definitions of another person’s self and her world is an extreme view of
entitlement and male privilege. The DAIP reports batterers hold a common belief that
entitlement is not limited to the right to control a partner’s behavior or conversations, but extends
to control of her beliefs as well (Pence & Paymar, 1990). Through “efforts by her partner to
distort the truth, twist facts to the point of absurdity, [and] shift focus from himself to her”
(Pence, 1987, p. 85), the borders between his fiction and her reality are blurred. Through
monopolization of her perception and world view, the batterer creates a closed system in which
he controls access to information to increasingly interpret and define her world.
Her abuser imposes an interpretation of her reality that protects his self interest.
He works to prevent his partner from thinking about herself as a person separate
from him. With few exceptions, batterers attempt to cut women off from other
people, places, ideas and resources that would help her understand what is
happening to her. (Pence, 1987, p. 15)
If successful, this use of power-over collapses her boundaries of self definition, autonomy, and
personhood.
Retroactive power exercises sanctions to reinforce submission through unpredictable use
of other types of power. Three examples are given here. Hart summarized one type of
retroactive power in her observation that a woman “should have known what he wanted before
he understood what he wanted so that she could provide him with what he wanted when he
wanted it” (Barbara Hart, Interview, 1998). While this refers to a woman’s failure to meet the
batterer’s personal specifications for behavior, it also implies the use of retroactive sanctions for
non-incidents and retroactive enforcement of undefined and unspecified expectations.
Reinforcement of power-over is also affirmed in sexual access after violence to retroactively
reaffirm his dominance and her future compliance. And finally, retroactive sanctions are evident
in the batterer’s ability to successfully restructure events, relocate responsibility to her behavior,
avoid accountability, or use his privilege to seek outside cultural or community reinforcement.
These behaviors all imply a particular use of power retroactively to support and reinforce other
types of power.
Suppression is exercised through restraint or inhibiting resistance to submission.
Gilbraith (1983) maintains that with each type of power “another motive for submission is
present: it is that submission reflects a proper, reputable, accepted, or decent form of behavior”
(p. 23). On the contrary, Pence (1985) asserts that “submission is forced on battered women; it is
culturally and institutionally reinforced” (p. 6). The DAIP concludes that “being on the bottom
[of a gender hierarchy] does not make women naturally good. In fact, it takes a very heavy
physical, emotional, intellectual, and spiritual toll on women” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 23;
1993, p. 77). Submissive acceptance may be the outward manifestation, but “the anger of people
Page 7 of 13
who are dominated by another is always powerful” and leads to fear by those higher on the
hierarchy as it demonstrates “outrage, resentment, resistance, and defiance” (Pence & Paymar,
1986, p. 193; 1990, p. 168; 1993, p. 61).
The exertion of power as a response to non-submissive behavior is pursued in the DAIP
writings through a discussion of women’s anger as a “response to injustice” (Pence, 1987, p. 83),
reasserting self definition or worth, and separateness of self. Culturally, “because anger can
move people to action it must be stopped by those who fear that action” (Pence, 1987, p. 83).
Suppression will be employed to the extent that her anger threatens the batterer’s perceptions of
his gender role, behavioral mandates of the other, or position of dominance.
Anger is often an emotional reaction to injustice, exploitation and attack.
When a group or person attempts to establish power over others, the
oppressor must also prohibit the oppressed from expressing anger and
must prevent any outside validation of that anger. (Pence, 1987, p. 81)
The justifiable use of power to suppress non-submission or to control another’s response to
oppression is a value shared by batterers and by institutions throughout a culture of dominance.
The conceptualizations of power as monopolization of perception, retroactive sanctions,
and suppression go beyond Gilbraith’s presentation of power as an exchange. In this sense,
men’s use of power is conditioned by “an incredible sense of entitlement” that is intended to get
what he wants while creating an environment that ensures this will hold true into the future
(Ellen Pence, Interview, 1998). Pence (1987) relocates power and women’s submission in “the
complexity of the environment, the community in which we live and the tremendous cultural and
institutional support for forcing women’s submission” (p. 78). The outcome of these complex
interweavings of power is more than passive receipt of submission; it becomes an active psychic
rending.
Control.
The concept of control as the purpose or goal of battering is a constant theme throughout
the DAIP training manuals.
This curriculum is based on the premise that the purpose of using physical
abuse in relationships is to control the thoughts, feelings, and/or actions of
the victim. Physical abuse is not merely an unhealthy way of dealing with
anger or stress or a means of venting frustration. It is, with few exceptions,
a deliberate attempt to control or to use the victim. (Pence & Paymar, 1986,
p. 16; 1990, p. 17; 1993, p. 69)
The effectiveness of battering is not dependent upon physical presence or specific individual
actions. The effectiveness of battering lies in creating and then controlling the context of the
relationship and individual responses within that context. The batterer
uses the combination of all of those tactics in a way that you don’t have to
use violence all the time or even intimidation or coercion. You just have
to have this bag of possibilities so that he can always draw on the fear; he can
always draw on the past experience. (Ellen Pence, Interview, 1998)
While physical violence may be sporadic or intermittent, prior violence can carry forward to
control the present. “When a batterer uses an intimidating gesture, look, behavior, statement or
physical contact, he is evoking the power he has established through past acts of violence”
(Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 48; 1993, p. 105). This awareness keeps her from seeking outside
support or filing criminal charges, and motivates her to protect his interests in public. Batterers
Page 8 of 13
have established systems of control to protect themselves from future intervention as “women
are forced to protect themselves by protecting their abusers” (Pence & Paymar, 1990, p. 1).
Summary
Grounded in the violence against women perspective, the Power and Control Model is
guided by the DAIP’s analysis of women’s oppression and conceptualizations of power and
control. Core assumptions of that analysis are that
culture is socially constructed and western society is structured through hierarchies of
power and privilege.
patriarchal constructions entitle men to privileged positions and rights of enforcement,
including violence against women in intimate relationships.
hierarchical social orders are reinforced through socialization of gender roles,
legitimization of violence, dichotomization of difference, and marginalization of the
other.
This framework defines the character of violence against women as unjust and assigns cultural,
institutional, and individual responsibility for that injustice. It also adds substance to strategies
designed to change institutions, political structures, and the belief systems that organize society.
Endnotes
1
2
3
4
5
For an historical perspective of violence against women and the battered women’s movement,
see Schechter (1982) and Kurtz (1989).
See Smith (2003) for a discussion of sexual/domestic violence, colonization, and social
control.
Minnesota Program Development, Inc. (www.duluth-model.org) houses the Domestic
Abuse Intervention Project (DAIP), Duluth Family Visitation Center, Mending the
Sacred Hoop, and the National Training Project. This paper is based on a content
analysis of six written manuals produced by the DAIP (Pence, 1985, 1987, and 1996;
Pence and Paymar, 1986, 1990, and 1993) and interviews with DAIP staff and
consultants.
The DAIP written materials are not designed or intended to be a comprehensive theory of
domestic violence or part of the academic discourse. They are designed and intended to
be training manuals for those interested in systems reform, facilitation of batterer’s
educational groups, or organizing through women’s groups.
Control tactics of the Duluth Power and Control Model include coercion and threats;
intimidation; emotional abuse; isolation; using children; male privilege; economic abuse;
and minimizing, denying, and blaming. For definitions of tactics see Pope and Ferraro
(2006), Attachment C.
References
Amnesty International (1975). Biderman’s Chart of Coercion. In Report on torture (p. 53).
London: Gerald Duckworth & Amnesty International Publications.
Anderson, K.L. (1997). Gender, status, and domestic violence: An integration of feminist and
family violence approaches. Journal of Marriage and the Family, 59, 655-669.
Page 9 of 13
Bersani, C.A. & Huey-Tsyh, C. (1988). Sociological perspectives in family violence. In V.B.
Hasselt, R.L. Morrison, A.S. Bellack, & M. Hersen (Eds.), Handbook of family violence
(pp. 57-86). New York: Plenum Press.
Bograd, M. (1988). Feminist perspectives on wife abuse: An introduction. In K. Yllo, & M.
Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp. 11-27). Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Boulette, T.R. & Anderson, S.M. (1985). “Mind Control” and the battering of women.
Community Mental Health Journal, 21(2), 109-118.
Breines, W. & Gordon, L. (1983). The new scholarship on family violence. Signs, 8(3),
491-531.
Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R.P. (1992). Women, violence and social change. New York:
Routledge.
Dobash, R.E. & Dobash, R. (1979). Violence against wives. New York: The Free Press.
Ferraro, K.J. (1979). Physical and emotional battering: Aspects of managing hurt. California
Sociologist, 2(2), 134-149.
Follingstad, D.R., Rutledge, L.L., Berg, B.J., Hause, E.S., & Polek, D.S. (1990). The role of
emotional abuse in physically abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 5(2),
107-119.
Gilbraith, J.K. (1983). The anatomy of power. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Hart, F. (1991). A sudden silence: An analysis of the psychological literature on battering men,
1982-1990. Resources for feminist research/documentation sur la recherché feministe,
20(3/4), 108-114.
Kurz, D. (1989). Social science perspectives on wife abuse: Current debates and future
directions. Gender and Society, 3(4), 489-505.
Martin, D. (1976). Battered wives. San Francisco: Glide.
Okun, L. (1986). Woman abuse: Facts replacing myths. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press.
Pence, E. (1996). Coordinated community response to domestic assault cases: A guide for
policy development. Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Pence, E. (1987). In our best interest: A process for personal and social change. Duluth, MN:
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Pence, E. (1985). The justice system’s response to domestic assault cases: A guide for policy
development. Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1993). Education groups for men who batter: The Duluth model.
New York: Springer.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1990). Power and Control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth, MN:
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Pence, E. & Paymar, M. (1986). Power and Control: Tactics of men who batter. Duluth, MN:
Minnesota Program Development, Inc.
Pope, L. & Ferraro, K. (2006). The Duluth Power and Control Model. www.vawresources.org
Russell, D.E.H. (1990). Rape in Marriage. New York: MacMillan.
Schechter, S. (1982). Women and male violence: The visions and struggles of the battered
women’s movement. Boston: South End Press.
Smith, A. (2003). Not an Indian tradition: The sexual colonization of native peoples. Hypatia,
18(2), 70-84.
Page 10 of 13
Stanko, E.A. (1988). Fear of crime and the myth of the safe home: A feminist critique of
criminology. In K. Yllo, & M. Bograd (Eds.), Feminist perspectives on wife abuse (pp.
75-89). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stark, E. & Flitcraft, A. (1996). Women at risk: Domestic violence and women’s health.
Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Walker, L.E. (1979). The battered woman. New York: Harper & Row.
Yllo, K.A. (1993). Through a feminist lens: Gender, power, and violence. In R.J. Gelles, &
D.R. Loseke (Eds.), Current controversies on family violence (pp. 47-62). Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Lucille Pope, Collaborative Consulting, Bozeman, MT
Kathleen Ferraro, Department of Sociology, Northern Arizona University, Flagstaff, Arizona
© 2006, Lucille Pope
Correspondence should be addressed to: Collaborative.Consulting at yahoo.com
Page 11 of 13
Racist language.
Called lazy.
Whites deny worth
of other cultures.
Ridicule other
languages.
Last hired. Poor
paying jobs. First
laid off.
Pornography
racist. No
protection from
rape. Seen as sex
machines.
Emotional
Abuse
Sexual Abuse
Economic
Abuse
Red-lining. Lack
of police and
social services
response to
minorities.
Gentrification.
People of Color
Isolation
Tactic of
Control
Ignored. Ideas not
listened to. Talked
about while
present as though
they aren’t in the
room. Patronized
Low priority for
government
funding. Mail
fraud schemes
aimed at old
people.
High incidence in
care facilities for
old and young
people. Children
exploited in
pornography.
Adults take
advantage of
children’s trusting
natures.
Old People &
Children
High rises become
ghettos. Separate
medical care.
Welfare
regulations keep
them down. Use
fact that they need
money to invade
their lives.
Less police
protection.
Blamed for their
poverty.
Considered lazy.
Housing projects.
No access to
transportation.
Poor People
Accused of child
molestation.
Ridiculed as not
being real men or
women.
Discrimination in
employment.
Viewed as sexual
perverts. Public
taunting.
Gays
Lesbians
Forced to stay
closeted. Some
neighborhoods
unsafe.
Male attitudes
toward Jewish
girls as prime to be
used sexually.
Corporate
environment is
anti-Jewish.
Excluded from
clubs and
communities.
Quota systems
define which
occupations were
allowed.
Stereotyped. AntiSemitic remarks.
Jewish People
Attachment: Relationship of Sexism to Other Forms of Oppression Chart
Page 12 of 13
Rape, incest,
marital rape,
pornography.
Low-paying jobs,
paid less than a
man for the same
work.
Called names.
Treated as sex
objects. Called
dumb.
Need a man for
protection. Women
out alone are
whores.
Women
Spanking.
Mugging-seniors.
Sexually abusing
kids.
Elderly fear being
out at night. Easy
targets.
Threat of violence.
Complaints not
taken seriously.
Non-income
producing, thus,
nonproductive,
thus, not a part of
the mainstream.
Court system
works differently
for those who
can’t afford
attorneys.
Hospitals won’t
admit the critically
ill. Slum buildings
burn, killing
people.
Social workers
threaten to
terminate benefits.
Welfare threatens
to take children to
gain compliance.
Middle-class
values seen as
most important.
Homophobia
rarely challenged
publicly. AIDShomosexual
disease.
Gay bashing. Gay
killings.
Taken away in
custody battled.
Police harassment.
Burn Synagogues.
Destroy Jewish
property. “Night of
the Broken Glass”
Swastikas painted
on Synagogues.
Non-recognition of
Jewish holidays
and religious daysassumption of
Christianity.
Battering. Rape.
Economic security
bargained away in
divorce for
custody.
Police don’t
protect women.
Subservient to
men. Bible used as
a tool to keep
women in their
place.
Page 13 of 13
Note: Group participants focus on filling in the cells on this chart. Several cells are left blank indicating its use as a tool for group
dialogue and process.
From In Our Best Interests: A Process for Personal and Social Change (p. 57) by Ellen Pence (1987) Duluth, MN: Minnesota Program
Development Inc., 202 East Superior Street, Duluth, MN, 55802. www.duluth-model.org
Reprinted with permission.
Violence
Intimidation
Genocide,
lynchings, Trail of
Tears, police
brutality.
Less investigation
needed to
terminate parental
rights.
Police stops and
checks. More
arrests.
Using
Children
Threats
Access to school
and job.
Assumption that
white culture is the
only one that
exists.
Police brutality.
Privilege of
Status