construction of motherhood is the notion of an intergenerational cycle of violence. This was something I adopted largely unchallenged in my early conceptualisation of this project, pushing aside a nagging awareness of the value judgements involved – these I excused on the grounds that they were necessary if we (Refuge workers) were to ‘keep children safe’. A quite different ‘cycle of violence’, this particular incarnation is more damaging to victims of abuse than that proposed by Lenore Walker. While the latter creates a narrow and prescriptive way of ‘being a victim’, something dangerous enough
in itself, the intergenerational transmission of abuse theory compounds this damage by attaching responsibility for ‘breaking the cycle’ with mothers/victims (mothers).
This perspective, based on social learning theory (Bandura, 1973 & 1977), suggests that abuse, normally expressed through power and control tactics, is learnt through
socialisation processes and thus passed down through families. Proponents of the theory suggest that children exposed to abuse are significantly more likely to repeat this abuse in their own adult partnerships (O’Leary, 1988; Bancroft & Silverman, 2002). Some
research has in fact found family violence to be one of the most consistent and accurate predictors of intimate partner violence among adults (Stith et al., 2000, Hotaling & Sugarman, 1986). This claim has however received only equivocal support from many other researchers. In an extensive review of research since 1986, Delsol and Margolin for example offer only qualified support, noting that
Although there is some truth to the notion that violence begets violence with respect to marital aggression, mere exposure to violence in the family of origin does not necessarily mean that a man will become martially violent. There is a link between growing up in a violent home and
engaging in husband-to-wife abuse, but overall, this link is quite modest… (2004, p.118).
Claims of an intergenerational cycle of violence are frequently invoked to demonstrate why abuse is such an urgent social problem (Lichter & McCloskey, 2004; Delsol & Margolin, 2004), and also to support particular forms of intervention. These were arguments I found hugely persuasive, particularly given that such claims characterized the early domestic violence literature – feminist and otherwise, and continue to constitute a dominant theme in contemporary research (Delsol & Margolin, 2004). Linkages are routinely posited between childhood exposure to violence and increased risk of adult victimization (for girls), or violent adult offending (for boys) (Heyman, 2002; Pollak, 2004; Purvin, 2003).
Regardless of significant critique and only limited/qualified empirical support, the
intergenerational transmission of violence theory flavored much early feminist activism – including the work of Women’s Refuge, and continues to enjoy solid support from policy makers, service providers and the general public (Mullender & Morley, 1994). Certainly it seemed a sensible and entirely rational argument to me as I began this project.
Personally I could see little possibility that children could be exposed to the horrifying levels of abuse I heard described by some Refuge clients and not suffer serious negative repercussions in their adult relationships. Operating from this standpoint I began (albeit sympathetically) from a place of understanding abused mothers as placing their children in jeopardy – and with the idea that they too should be aware of the potential
consequences. The connections were so commonsense that I failed to see how they could
not understand them in the same way I did.
Enter resilience
My interest in the notion of ‘resilient survivors’ – a concept that will be unpacked in detail below, was driven by a pragmatic concern about the high stress and ‘burnout’ levels among both paid and unpaid staff that I witnessed, and experienced, during my time with the local Refuge collective. One source of stress - drawing from informal conversations with other workers at both local and national gatherings - was a sense of disillusionment and helpless impotence at the high ‘failure’ or ‘recidivism’ rates
characterizing our work with abuse victims. Investigation of recidivism or, as it is more commonly termed in the domestic violence literature, the ‘leave/return’ cycle, has been the primary focus of much partner abuse research, as evidenced by the ongoing
preoccupation with efforts to track down the answer to ‘why she stays’ questions (e.g. Kirkwood, 1993). However, it is less often mentioned in relation to the way it may impact upon workers and is rarely discussed as a contributor to staff burnout (Dunn & Powell-Williams, 2007).
The impact on workers is instead most commonly attributed to the emotional demands generated by working with severely traumatized woman – in particular having to hear
repeated accounts of “trauma survivors’ terrifying, horrifying, and shocking images; strong, chaotic affect; and intrusive traumatic memories” (Jenkins & Baird, 2002, p. 423). Labeled variously as secondary traumatic stress, burnout, vicarious traumatization, and compassion fatigue, these responses are conceptualized in the social services literature as being associated with human service workers who routinely deal closely with other people’s problems. Maslach (1982), for instance, describes burnout as a form of defensive response to ongoing occupationally required contact with stressful
interpersonal situations that result in severe psychological and/or emotional strain. The consequences of these reactions may include problems or difficulties around physical, emotional, behavioral, work-related and/or interpersonal aspects of one’s life. While most commonly related to therapists working with sexual assault or incest victims, vicarious traumatization is also now recognised as a potential consequence for those working with victims of domestic violence (Jenkins & Baird, 2002).
The importance of dealing with these issues was and is both recognised and
acknowledged by Women’s Refuge – with standard operating procedures including the need for staff supervision. For paid workers this involves professional supervision on a regular and ongoing basis; for unpaid workers, most collectives utilize peer supervision sessions, accompanied by the availability of individual professional supervision if required or requested. However, despite supervision, peer support and awareness of the ‘facts’ - that escaping violence and creating an abuse-free life is an immensely difficult process, fraught with contradiction and confusion and frequently characterized by a vicious leave/return cycle - many of us still felt a sense of failure when a woman with whom we had been working ‘chose’ to return to her abuser.