受暴女性為何無法脫逃？─從「家庭暴力」到「高壓控管」

Why Don’t Victims of Intimate Partner Violence Leave? From Physical Abuse to Coercive Control

鄭詩穎(Shih-Ying Cheng)

《中華心理衛生學刊》 28卷4期 (2015/12) Pp. 481-497

https://doi.org/10.30074/FJMH.201512_28(4).0001

摘要

研究目的：阿靜為作者服務的家暴個案，她在接受服務過程中的反覆態度、對社工的拒絕，深化作者對親密關係暴力、以及社工處遇的認識與省思。因此，本文以「個案報告」形式，陳述阿靜的受控處境、求助歷程，並與長期研究家暴議題的學者Evan Stark提出的「高壓控管」(coercive control)理論對話，希冀藉此提供關心家暴議題的人士參考。研究方法：透過案例討論，從作者服務親密關係暴力個案的經驗著眼，分析個案阿靜的受暴處境，以及她在社工與網絡服務歷程中面對的困難。研究結果：Stark的「高壓控管」理論貼切解釋個案阿靜的受暴處境，加害人的嚴苛控管使阿靜有如驚弓之鳥，不僅難以擺脫傷痕累累的關係，向正式體系的求助也遭阻斷，本文以「性別陷阱」、「專屬權信念」、「孤立與社會隔離」三點進行分析。研究結論：台灣家暴防治社工服務目前對家暴事件的介入，多以保護令與報警等處遇方式為主，使得在實務上，社工或其他網絡成員(警政、衛政)傾向重視「看得見」的肢體暴力，而忽略精神暴力、嚴苛管控等受暴處境。針對此現象，Stark分析，外界與服務體系習慣以「暴力事件」為指標，視而不見控管關係中「連續、反覆出現」、「以剝奪受害人自主性為目的」等關鍵特質，使得專業人員難以深入理解控管關係對受害人的影響，從中發展有效的協助策略。本文採「個案報告」形式，探討家暴個案阿靜的求助歷程，並與Stark的「高壓控管」理論對話，希冀深化對親密關係暴力本質、與相關處遇的認識。

關鍵字

親密關係暴力 ； 高壓控管 ； 家庭暴力

並列摘要

Purpose: The case report provides insight into the nature of intimate partner violence and the limitations of current social work treatments. Methods: Ching is a Taiwanese woman who suffered from intimate partner violence (IPV) from her husband. I narrate her story and help-seeking processes, particularly the difficulties she faced with intervention by domestic violence services. I reflect on her reluctant and fickle attitude toward me as her social worker in light of Evan Stark’s coercive control theory, which emphasizes gender entrapment, privileged access, and social isolation. Results: As Stark’s theory suggests, the control relationship made Ching a prisoner to her partner. She could not escape to seek help from the formal system. In Taiwan, the social work intervention strategies that aim to enhance domestic violence victims’ safety, such as protective orders and reporting to the police, are mainly judicial tools. Consequently, social workers and network members (e.g., the police) place greater emphasis on physical abuse than psychological abuse and controlling relationships. Stark claimed that tools that aim to enhance domestic violence victims’ safety are only useful short-term. I also found this to be the case for Ching. Conclusions: Unless the controlling and oppressive relationship that is depriving a victim of autonomy can be recognized, it is difficult for professionals to develop effective strategies that truly help victims lead an independent and free life. I hope this article can help practitioners rethink the nature of intimate partner violence and their strategies for helping domestic violence victims.

並列關鍵字

intimate partner violence ； domestic violence ； coercive control

參考文獻

王珮玲(2012)。臺灣親密關係暴力危險評估表(TIPVDA)之建構與驗證。社會政策與社會工作學刊。16(1)，1-58。

高鳳仙(1997)。論家庭暴力防治草案。律師雜誌。216，16-24。

現代婦女基金會北區工作站、王增勇()。

陳秀峯(2010)。台灣家庭暴力防治之現況與未來：從被害人保護及加害人處遇角度觀察。亞洲家庭暴力與性侵害期刊。6(1)，187-210。

潘淑滿(2003)。婚姻暴力的發展路徑與模式：臺灣與美國的比較。社區發展季刊。101，276-292。