Trait Examination OR Character Assassination?

By Sandra L. Brown, M.A.                           

Part of the problem we face in trying to get to the nitty-gritty of pathological love relationships is that ‘how we do it’ or ‘what we call it’ is judged so severely that it impairs sharing the valuable outcomes that are learned.

There are groups of professionals, women’s orgs, and service agencies that tip toe around what we ‘call’ patterns of selection in relationships. There are unspoken rules and heavily weighted opinions about ‘what’ we can discuss and ‘how’ we discuss the outcomes.

What am I talking about? Since the 1970’s and the women’s movement, discussing the specifics about women’s choices in relationships, patterns of selection, personality traits, mental health, sexual addiction/deviancy has been largely discouraged and ‘semanti-sized’ as ‘labeling the victim’ or ‘victim blaming.’ It has put the victim off limits for any in depth studying other than from a victimology theory that was developed in the 1970’s.

It is hard to get around the billboard image of ‘victim’ to talk about any kind of relationship dynamics or other psychological aspects (including biology or temperament engrained traits) that is happening in the pathological love relationship. The rules are that we may study him but we already have a ‘theory’ for her which is not to be disturbed.

Compare this to any other field of mental health and it’s absurd that we would say ‘We already understand depression, no more theories, no more studying! Don’t call it depression or you are blaming the patient for their own depression.’

In this kind of rationale, to study her is to blame her. To measure her traits to see if there are vulnerabilities or pattern typing is to suggest she is flawed.

·        The victim assuredly has been through trauma.

·        Studying the victim in no way says they have not been through trauma.

·        The victim is not to blame for what happened to them.

·        Studying the victim in no way says they are responsible for what happened to them.

·        The victim did not ‘choose’ the victimization, but in relational dysfunction, she did pick the victimizer.

Could we learn something about that?

How will Cancer be won or a cure for AIDS is found if we don’t study the problem from all angles? If we conclude that studying the victim blames them, then we have cut off one entire segment of research that can help us in prevention, intervention and treatment–whether it’s a medical disorder or a pathological relationship.

Studying victimology, including aspects of the victim, is not victim character assassination. It might be trait examination or pattern of selection analysis. It might be a lot of things that have nothing to do with blame and shame and everything to do with understanding or creating new paradigms in which to see these relationships. It might piggyback off of theories developed in the 1970’s…surely we have learned SOMETHING new about relationship dynamics, pathology in relationships, personality disorders as intimate partners, violence and addiction and their part in these relationships…surely we can UPDATE a theory without our own assassination or that of the victim?

In some ways, I envy the Scientific and Research communities that look at the data and pass all the darn political correctness and emotional politics of ‘labeling’ it something that certain groups find offensive. They test and crunch numbers and put it in a journal without all the rig-a-ma-rol. But in our case, where we are a notch below the researchers, what we study and how we describe what we found, is subject to so much scrutiny that many clinicians and writers hesitate to publish what they found.

So it has been with many of the things that The Institute has studied, found, reported, and written. In many organizations the first book ‘How to Spot a Dangerous Man’ was rejected for looking at family role modeling, patterns of selection, and other aspects that women themselves said contributed to their pathological relationship. (On the other hand, it has been hailed by many domestic violence agencies and used widely in shelters, treatment centers and women’s prisons.)

We stepped it up a huge notch in the ‘Women Who Love Psychopaths’ in which we used testing instruments to test women’s traits to see if there were temperament patterns in women who ended up in the most dangerous and disordered of relationships. This caught huge attention from some groups as the ground-breaking trait identification that it was and yet still; the victim groups saw it as labeling. How can we help women if we don’t understand their own biology?

Ironically, what we found was significant–super-traits so perfectly and symmetrically seen in 80 cases. Did we hurt a victim by studying that? Or have we helped now thousands of women who have read the books, been counseled by our trained therapists, come to our treatment programs? How would we have gotten here today without daring to look deeper…to even risk looking at her! Not to blame her, but to understand her.

Some of the biggest breakthroughs that have been happening are in understanding the biology of our own brains and the consequences of our biology on our behavior, choices, and futures. We know that MRI’s are being done on psychopath’s brains–revealing areas of brains that work differently. Some day, I think that may cross over and other personality disorders and chronic mental illnesses will be MRI’d as well so we understand how those disorders effect biology and brain function.

But what about victims?

·        If we put the word ‘damaged’ away and instead looked at how ‘different’ brain regions in victims function, over function, under function, are influenced by stress, PTSD, adrenaline, cortisol, and early childhood abuse–could we come to understand how their brain might function in their patterns of selection in dangerous relationships?

·        Could we come to understand that even temperament traits might give proclivity to how the brain ‘chooses’ or how the brain categorizes (or ignores) red flags, danger, or is highly reactive to traumatized attraction?

·        Could we understand brains that have higher tolerance levels because of certain brain areas that operate differently than other people?

·        Could we understand traumatic memory storage and why good memories of him (even as awful as he might be) are so much stronger than the abuse memories?

·        If we know what part of the brain distorts memory storage, can we work with that?

·        Could we come to understand trait temperaments as risk factors or certain brain functions as possible victim vulnerabilities?

·        Then would we know who is at risk?

·        Would we understand better, how to TREAT the victim in counseling?

·        How to develop prevention and intervention?

·        Or how intensity of attachment could be either a temperament trait or a brain function instead of merely ‘victim labeling.’

I am not only interested in the psycho-biology of the victim but how the psycho-biology affects patterns of selection and reactions in the most pathological of relationships. When we start really dealing with an open dialogue about these survivors, looking past ridiculous theories that asking questions is victim blaming, then maybe we can really offer some new theories into victimology that by-passes band aid approaches to complex psycho-bio-social understandings. This is what The Institute intends to do.

At the Bleeding Edge of Victim Rights

By Randy McCall

I'll apologize beforehand for what may sound like an overly descriptive -- not to say violent -- term, but bleeding edge could not be a more appropriate phrase for my topic today.

It is a term, usually found in the computer and technical fields, for technology and software so new, so different, so untested, that the user assumes some risk in working on it. In other words, they're knowingly taking a risk in using the new technology, hoping the potential benefits will outweigh the possible costs.

In the realm of crime victim assistance, we can apply this phrase to those people who are working at pushing back the outer boundaries of available victim rights, by directly challenging the system as it stands. Sometimes they have to do this from outside the criminal justice system; at other times, the person is a member of the very system they want to see changed.

In the world of technology, the risk we speak of is the loss of data, of the work you've already done.

For advocates working at the bleeding edge of rights advocacy, the risk is different. Tackling government, courts and the legal system, with all their combined power, prestige, connections and funds, is daunting. The hope of the advocate is to broadcast their message, to reach the public and touch their hearts, and to gather enough support to their cause that government is moved to change the process.

The risk for the advocate at the bleeding edge is more than just failure to achieve their goals of change. It's the danger of being publicly labeled and dismissed: "crackpot", "over-emotional", "extremist". Of being shut out from the chance of making effective change through official agencies refusing to deal with them. Of losing funding, sponsors or helpers, or losing the chance of obtaining future positions from which to work on systemic change.

At the extreme edge, there is even the risk of contempt-of-court or other charges, of prosecution, and of fines or incarceration.

Yet, even with the risks involved, people continue to work at pushing the envelope of victim rights, extending and increasing the ability of victims to have at least some control of their cases, and by extension, a larger feeling of control in their lives. These people are not found in any one country; indeed, there are people working on the bleeding edge of victim rights in countries around the world.

What these people achieve has ramifications far beyond their own countries. In the fight for victim rights, the achievement of a new right in one country sets an international precedent. Advocates in other countries point to the achievement and say "they won that right, why can't we?".

And so the world changes.

In an earlier post on the Time's Up blog, I mentioned how the World Society of VictimologyINTERVICT (with others) are working towards a UN Convention on Victim Rights.

In New Zealand, the father of a murder victim is fighting to change the laws on victim impact statements, after having his own statement heavily edited by the court. Under heavy public scrutiny, the government is examining the situation and considering changes to the law.

In the United Kingdom, Sara Payne, the mother of a girl murdered by a pedophile, was appointed to the position of Victim's Commissioner. She has issued a 51 page report, Redefining Justice which essentially recommends a complete revamping of the UK justice system to provide integrated support to victims of crime, as well as strengthening application of laws on certain types of crime. The UK Home Office has politely received her report and recommendations, but without effusive support or fanfare.

These people and organizations -- and many, many others -- are operating at the extreme bleeding edge of victim rights. Success in their endeavors will be met with thanks and congratulations, then the duplication of those rights in other countries.

Failure is an option none wish to consider. Without risk there can be no reward, and they take these risks so we do not.