Abstract: Over the past decade, there has been a massive increase in the phenomenon of gender-based violence: all those forms of violence: psychological, physical, sexual, including persecutory acts of so-called stalking, rape, up to femicide, affecting a vast number of people discriminated against on the basis of sex. Institutions, noting the rapid increase in domestic violence, feminicide, and mistreatment of women, have recently mobilized an onerous load of energy, which has flowed into actions to counter the phenomenon, including novelties in the legislative field. To provide impetus to institutional actors and political figures who have contributed internationally to put in place actions to counter the phenomenon, Gender violence
have also been a number of studies promoted by experts in the social, psychological and criminological fields regarding the forma mentis of perpetrators, and the study of the psychosocial determinants of the phenomenon and the development of strategies to be implemented in order to prevent and curb, if not defeat, the use and abuse of violent behaviour.
This article examines the psychosocial characteristics of perpetrators and victims. The former appear to be characterized on a macrosocial level by: dysfunctional relationships in the family of origin; alcohol and/or substance abuse; chronic stress; poor social support networks; unemployment; and experiences they had during childhood, such as witnessing scenes of domestic violence or experiencing physical and sexual harassment. At a deeper level, on the other hand, motivations related to the individual’s history, which has led him or her to develop a relational style calibrated to ambitions of power, which generates dangerous instability in the relationship, and historical issues concerning women’s emancipation and the consequent destabilization in male-female relationships, come into play.
As for the victim, on the other hand, triggering the unconscious choice of a partner who will turn out to be physically or psychologically violent, factors such as: affective deficiencies; insecurity and low self-esteem; need for approval; and previous family experiences that have imprinted her personality on the habit of being manipulated, disconfirmed and even mistreated come into play. Often the phenomenon of learned helplessness is also engendered in these individuals, making the victim fundamentally unable to defend herself or rebel against what she has suffered, unconsciously reviving the perpetrator’s propensity to abuse her. The psychological configuration of the victim, moreover, not only often appears to be characterized by serious basic insecurities and existential paths paved by devaluations in the family and work spheres, but also seems to be the object of that underground river that for centuries has quietly but impressively swept through the psychic life of women, considered and self-considered as a kind of tool in the hands of men.
Keywords: violence, mistreatment, power, aggression, gaslighting, gender, perpetrator, victim.
Introduction
The term gender-based violence refers to all forms of violence: psychological, physical, sexual, including stalking, rape, and even femicide, which affect a large number of people discriminated against on the basis of sex. Article 1 of the UN Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women states: “Violence against women” means any act of gender-based violence that causes physical, sexual or psychological harm or suffering to women, including threats, coercion or arbitrary deprivation of liberty”[1].
Over the last ten years, there has been a massive increase in the phenomenon. According to ISTAT data (see tables 1 and 2) “31.5% of 16-70 year olds (6 million 788 thousand) have suffered some form of physical or sexual violence in their lifetime: 20.2% (4 million 353 thousand) have suffered physical violence, 21% (4 million 520 thousand) sexual violence, 5.4% (1 million 157 thousand) the most serious forms of sexual violence such as rape (652 thousand) and attempted rape (746 thousand)”[2]. This report, if considered a vast grey area that escapes statistics, appears extremely alarming; with almost daily frequency we learn, through the media, of episodes of gender violence in every part of the world, not least in Italy. These events exemplify what is now evident to public opinion: on the level of what Jung would call “collective consciousness” the theme of gender violence is becoming more and more widespread, configuring the need to generate a new socio-cultural structure.
At the very beginning of this year, the outcome of a Technical Table set up on the initiative of the Ordinary Court of Rome, First Civil Section, was defined, in which delegates from the Order of Psychologists of Lazio, the Order of Lawyers, the Order of Physicians of Rome, and some Associations that deal with protection against gender violence took part. From this extensive collaboration the guidelines for technical consultancy were born ex officio in family and minors proceedings with important specifications regarding cases involving violent conduct.
The institutions, having noted the rapid increase in feminicides and mistreatment of women, have recently mobilized a heavy load of energy, which has flowed into actions aimed at combating the phenomenon, including new legislation. In fact, a new legal culture has been born, more sensitive and attentive, which has introduced the law against sexual violence (L. 66/1996), the law against paedophilia (L. 259/1998), the two laws on the removal of violent family members from the home (L. 149/2001) and protection orders. Starting from the Istanbul Convention (2011), the first legally binding international instrument “On the prevention and fight against violence against women and domestic violence”, updated in 2019 with law no. 69 on the protection of victims of domestic and gender-based violence, the legislation against gender-based violence pursues three main objectives:
1. prevent crimes,
2. punish the perpetrators,
3. protect the victims.
With the introduction in 2009 of the crime of stalking, which is expressed in any violent and persecutory attitude and which forces the victim to change their conduct in life, up to Law 119/2013 on “Urgent provisions on security and to combat gender-based violence”, both judicial protection and support for victims have been strengthened once again.
Within the phenomenon of “Gender-based violence”, domestic violence appears to be the most widely represented at a statistical level in recent years. According to the State Police database, in fact, in 2023 in Italy, “there were 13,793 requests for help and intervention for episodes of domestic or gender-based violence suffered by women. In the context of interventions classified as alleged domestic/gender-based violence in which the alleged victim is female, in only 1.5% of cases the perpetrator is unknown to the victim. On the other hand, in 61.5% of cases the perpetrator is linked to the victim by a romantic relationship, current or past (in particular: in 43.2% of cases the spouse/cohabitant or ex; in 18.3% of cases the partner or ex). In the context of such violence carried out against women by perpetrators linked by romantic relationships, existing or ended, in two out of five cases (42%) there are minors cohabiting”[3].
The impetus given to institutional actors and political figures who have contributed, at an international level, to implement actions aimed at countering the phenomenon has been not only the alarming data regarding the extent and severity of the acts of violence outlined so far, but also some studies promoted by experts in the social, psychological and criminological sector regarding the mindset of the perpetrators of crime, who in recent years have been guilty of acts of gender violence, and the historical-social correlates of brutal actions against other human beings. Although in fact more than in other cases there is a vast grey area at a statistical level, caused mainly by the refusal, by the victims, to file a complaint, the phenomenon has become so visible in the eyes of public opinion, to give rise to associations and foundations entirely dedicated to the study and analysis of the psychosocial determinants of the phenomenon and to the development of strategies to be implemented in order to prevent and contain, if not defeat, the use and abuse of violent behaviour.
The executioner:
What drives an individual to adopt violent behaviour towards another individual? Often, not only the layman, but also the professional, the scholar or the expert sees his own ideation blocked in front of this question, because horror takes over. Who among us is exempt from any form of moral judgment towards those who attack, mistreat, rape or persecute a fellow human being? Yet it is a duty, each within their own area of expertise, to try to offer valid answers and provide plausible interpretations in order to take adequate action to minimize the episodes that we now witness almost daily.
The scientific panorama on the front of psychopathology, by the hand of scholars and professionals, tries to do its part on the one hand in the clinical-experimental field, on the other by composing a puzzle of knowledge from various sectors of human knowledge (sociology, psychology, philosophy, medicine, criminology and pedagogy) in order to arrive at an exhaustive picture of the mindset of those who commit this type of action. As regards the psychological profiles and risk factors of domestically violent men, according to UNICEF data from 2000, the main elements that characterise men who commit domestic violence are the following:
• dysfunctional relationships in the family of origin
• alcohol and/or drug abuse;
• chronic stress;
• poor social support networks;
• unemployment, with little sense of financial control of the family or, on the contrary, total economic dependence on the partner;
• experiences during childhood, such as having witnessed scenes of domestic violence or having suffered physical and sexual harassment. Children who witness their father’s violence against their mother are more likely to be perpetrators of violence against their partners, internalizing violence as a plausible and justifiable way of resolving conflicts.
In a more in-depth study by Di Rosa (2017), a further classification appears in the context of domestic violence. The author, based on international studies and statistics, has identified three types of violent men, based on three descriptive dimensions: severity and frequency of abuse, type and generality of violence, including that exercised outside the home, and psychopathology/personality disorders. For each type, the chances of success of psychological treatments are also estimated.
– “Family only-batterer”: men who belong to this type are almost never violent outside the family context and therefore do not publicly display criminally punishable behaviours. They limit their acts of violence to the family and act according to the situation; the frequency and severity of the acts they commit is rather limited. They demonstrate poor social skills in relationships, have difficulty tolerating stress, and are not inclined to express their emotions. They also tend to avoid conflicts and rarely suffer from problems related to alcohol or drug consumption. When they resort to violence, they apparently regret it and suffer for the behaviour adopted. The anamnesis shows a rather linear experience: as children they were rarely victims of violence. In addition, they generally have a rather severe opinion on violent behaviour. In these cases, the author states, family therapy has a good chance of success and a low rate of recidivism;
– “Dysphoric/borderline-batterer”: men classified in this typology resort to violence to exercise their power and maintain control over the context, within relationships, experienced in a vertical manner. They are characterized by an unstable personality; despite appearances, they suffer from deep feelings of fear and transitory, but intense, depressive states; sometimes they suffer from problems due to alcohol and drug consumption. These subjects have an ambivalent behaviour towards the victim and show dependence on romantic relationships, which however they do not recognize and avoid through acting-out aimed at revealing unequivocally that they are the person who holds the power within relationships. They are more violent than aggressors of the “Family only-batterer” type and may display violent and criminally relevant behaviours even outside the family. Unlike the first type, dysphoric/borderline types more often present misogynistic ideas and are generally favorable to the use of violence to resolve conflicts. They respond well to therapy, especially if focused on processing their experience of violence;
– “Generally violent/antisocial-batterer”: this type includes men who are violent in all types of contexts and display antisocial traits; they have a high potential for violence in various contexts and commit abuse in different relational constellations. These individuals often have criminal records and carry out serious violence within the couple relationship: for them, mistreatment is a tool to maintain power, they are hostile towards women and have a rigid vision of sexuality. They can be extremely manipulative and charismatic; They totally lack empathy and social skills and often have problems related to alcohol and drug use. They never or only rarely show signs of repentance, mostly for instrumental purposes; they do not show remorse for the violence committed and do not take responsibility for it. Often during childhood or adolescence they were victims or witnesses of abuse, embodying a retaliatory dynamic towards society, which they apply indifferently towards anyone who happens to fall under their socio-relational sphere; in general they cultivate the idea that society has contracted a debt with them, for which they deserve just compensation and, in case of frustration, adequate revenge.
This type of violent men reacts badly to therapy and tends to relapse: in these cases it is advisable to avoid meetings between the aggressor and the victim[4]. In fact, despite the Cartabia[5] reform, which implies the possibility of access to restorative justice programs at every stage of the procedure, on a voluntary basis and with the free and informed consent of the victim and the perpetrator, as well as the judge’s assent and which provides for an intensification of the use of penal mediation, in these cases the Judge, assisted by social services, is called upon to carefully evaluate the possibility of meetings between the perpetrator and the victim, both in terms of the actual questioning, which is normally not genuinely carried out by this type of offender, and for the possible harm suffered by the victim in the unpleasant eventuality of finding themselves in front of the person who committed the crime.
There are also some historical-social determinants, which cannot be overlooked in the analysis of the phenomenon of “gender violence”. The history of the last century, preceded by over two thousand years of submission to patriarchy by women, teaches us that starting from the 1960s, on the basis of the social and political demands that gave rise to the composite movement known as “feminism”, women achieved an initial, but progressive, change towards gender equality. The first important goal was the achievement of the right to vote, for which the suffragettes fought; other steps were conditioned by war events: following the world conflicts, women, who had replaced in the workplace the many men sent to the front, obtained greater roles in society and job opportunities outside the family. This fact put the whole society in the position of noting that women, like men, were able to carry out not only domestic work, but also in those sectors in which high-level educational qualifications and technical knowledge were required. Therefore, as explored in depth by that current of studies called “Women’s Studies”, as documented by A. Taronna (2004), men and women have been able to ascertain that biological sex is not configured as a pre-determining factor that shapes the social identity or the socio-political and economic rights of the person. The achievement of equal rights by women, however, has generated more than one misunderstanding regarding equal roles and even today we witness an effort, by women, to apply themselves both in typically feminine tasks, for biological reasons, such as having children, and in tasks more typical of men, with heavy repercussions on their daily life and interpersonal relationships. The revolutionary female response to male sexist oppression, in essence, if on the one hand has served women to conquer a new social dignity, but in some of its manifestations has tipped the scales to the other side, where, paradoxically, the feminine has become obscured by grabbing the phallicism of the previous patriarchy and transforming women into modern Amazons; a very efficient virago, but suffering, perpetually tired and profoundly alone.
This change in perspective has had inevitable repercussions also in male psychology: men, destabilized by the sudden change in the patriarchal parameters to which they were accustomed, have experienced as threatening the female revenge that saw them defrauded of the power deriving from the role of supremacy reiterated for millennia and have reacted in different ways. In culturally elevated environments, in families that can count on a significant level of education, the man, knowing the historical path that has characterized female emancipation, sees the woman as a being with whom he can finally have an equal, horizontal relationship, freed from the verticality of a relationship experienced as a constant exercise of power, which presumably lives as a stimulant, even on a sentimental and sexual level. Where, on the other hand, the man remains traditionally tied to anti-historical precepts of innate inferiority of the other sex, he lives female freedom as a challenge or as an uncomfortable obstacle to his own free expression, which is also expressed in the resolution to break the bond, when unwelcome, as it is not tainted by the stamp of economic dependence and the need to belong to the other. The failure to accept the possibility of being abandoned, in fact, often represents the main motive for mistreatment and feminicide.
The forms of violence:
Although the extreme phenomenon of femicide raises social alarm and “steals” visibility from other phenomena, there are many forms that violence, mistreatment and abuse can take within a pathological relationship, in which some traits of aggression, initially below the threshold, can take on the form and dimensions of a much more dangerous process until they result in actions with a fatal outcome. When we talk about violence, in fact, we immediately think of physical or sexual aggression, but emotional manipulation and psychological violence, for example, are forms of abuse that are not very visible, but no less impactful on the mental health of those who suffer them.
Psychological violence consists of a series of behavioural patterns, aimed at leading the other to act against their will. It manifests itself mainly with insults, threats and intimidation and can be found in different contexts, often also occurring within emotional relationships, when a partner, or ex-partner, carries out behaviours of psychological and emotional abuse; It manifests itself through behaviours of control, isolation and humiliation, often managed also by using emotional manipulation, a process that aims to push the other to assume certain behaviours or beliefs. Emotional manipulation often manifests itself through a passive-aggressive communication style, where one’s will is not expressed in a clear and direct way, but allusive, ironic or sarcastic tones are used, which leverage emotional blackmail and the sense of guilt or responsibility of others. This method aims to control and influence the emotions, thoughts or behaviours of the interlocutor, without one’s intentions being made explicit; indeed, they are often deliberately hidden behind a screen of flattery or welcoming gestures. Those who suffer emotional manipulation may feel insecure and confused, even to the point of questioning their own credibility. The underlying desire for power and control over the other person is constantly fueled by relational dynamics of narcissism on the part of the perpetrator and depressive dependence on the part of the victim. Control is exercised through behavioural strategies that have the effect of a total impoverishment of the victim’s self-determination. The perpetrator aims to control the time, spaces, social networks, and movements of the person, often including subjective areas of personal life such as food, clothes to wear, and places to frequent; he or she tends to give orders about what is right to do in different areas of life, demonstrating disappointment or even outbursts of anger in the event of choices that do not conform to what is suggested; or mimic depressive crises denoting deep dissatisfaction, as if to demonstrate that the other person does not love enough because he or she does not follow the appropriate suggestions offered. The victim, as a result, is increasingly isolated from friendship, family, and social networks because they are not sufficiently sizable. An extremely effective means of controlling the other is humiliation: the actions and results obtained by those who suffer psychological violence are constantly devalued with negative comments, irony, or explicit insults to the person, which often take place in public. Even blaming the victim for one’s unpleasant feelings is a means of control, as it induces in the other a subtle and constant sense of guilt, often accompanied by a state of anxiety that is triggered as a consequence, which induces the victim to try, without success, to remedy their behaviour that is unsatisfactory for the partner. The emotional manipulation thus implemented is never made conscious by the aggressor, who, if faced with the evidence of his own attitude, is ready to deny and counter-accuse the other of wanting to defame and devalue him.
Gaslighting
A type of psychological abuse, with a typical denial mechanism, appears to be that of “gaslighting”. The meaning of the term gaslighting refers to a form of psychological abuse and manipulation carried out against a person, in order to make them doubt themselves, their perception of reality and their thoughts. The term originates from the film by George Cukor Gas Light, which tells the story of Paula (Ingrid Bergman) and her husband Gregory (Charles Boyer), who tries to make her believe she is crazy by taking possession of some family jewels without her noticing, using as a strategy that of altering the lights of the gas lamp in the house in which they live. When the wife notices the drop in intensity of the light, the husband makes her believe that everything depends on her imagination, leading her to doubt herself, her judgments of reality and pushing her to believe she is going crazy. Gaslighting is considered a form of psychological violence that is not based on impulsive actions or expressed anger, but rather represents a form of insidious, subtle and hidden violence, characterized by false assertions and findings carried out by the abuser and presented to the victim as truth, with the aim of placing her in a position of psychological and physical dependence. The gaslighter’s mode of action appears “… difficult to identify: … it insinuates itself, takes place within the ‘safe’ walls of the home, destabilizing the unaware victim, who, not understanding what is happening, blames herself.”[6] Psychological violence, in this case, is carried out by the abuser with the aim of damaging the victim’s autonomy, decision-making and evaluation capacity, in order to take full control of her. This constant exposure to psychologically violent, but silent, behaviours leads the victim to a feeling of impotence and oppression, which makes her increasingly dependent on the aggressor and sees her sense of identity and self-esteem undermined.
The subject acts using the following strategies:
• devaluation: to manipulate the victim, the gaslighter initially uses subtle irony, then moves on to criticize and openly discredit the other, undermining their self-esteem. He insinuates doubts about morality, intelligence and honesty, going to hit the emotional reference points of the victim, to progressively lead them to isolation;
• conditioning: the gaslighter uses positive reinforcement (such as words of affection, praise, nods of esteem) whenever the victim appears to be on the verge of collapsing or when he or she complies with his or her requests, implementing an emotional manipulation aimed at generating an attitude of total subjection in the victim;
• denial: the emotional manipulator can deny reality, stating that the victim has a bad memory, or that what he or she says is the product of his or her imagination
• hijacking: the gaslighter attacks the victim when he or she feels cornered, shifting the focus of attention to topics other than the initial point of the discussion, thus putting the victim in the position of having to defend themselves from new accusations. Paradoxically, in this way, the victim ends up justifying themselves for something that has nothing to do with the initial argument made in order to “flush out” the gaslighter and defending themselves for something that was not the subject of discussion;
• manipulative silence: the gaslighter uses silence as a preferential strategy, which consists in the failure to recognize the victim, based on unfulfilled requests and demands. The abuser ends up refusing any form of communication, using this strategy as a method of punishment. The victim will have the tendency to assume all the responsibilities and will apologize for the behaviour put in place, submitting once again to his tormentor.
The gaslighter has also been classified based on different embodied typologies:
• the “glamour” gaslighter, who controls the victim mainly by flattering them;
• the “good guy” gaslighter: the “covert” narcissist who tries to maintain a positive image of himself, showing a false interest towards the other, but in reality satisfying his own needs;
• the “intimidating” gaslighter, who appears critical and contemptuous; often acts by inducing feelings of desperation and impotence in the victim.
Paradoxically, as the manipulative and intimidating behaviour of the gaslighter increases, the victim’s ability to discern decreases, and the victim finds himself experiencing the couple as a unique, indispensable and necessary condition to confirm his own value.
The victim
Based on the data collected by experts in the sector who meet with users at the facilities responsible for the rescue and treatment of the victim, we learn that the victim is often such because of an original weakness of the ego, which leads him to maintain, for mere survival, an anaclitic attitude towards the executioner. In the anamnesis, it is possible to trace, in the existential path of victims of violent crimes, some recurring characteristics:
1. Affective deficiencies: when a subject suffers a lack of affection in primary relationships, he or she is not familiar with the language of affection, therefore his or her need to feel loved and reassured, not welcomed during developmental age, is activated without the ability to discern the psychological and relational typology of the person he or she meets. This subject is more easily manipulated and susceptible to violence than others, especially in the case of gaslighting, in which physical action is missing. The intent of the perpetrator is misinterpreted and distorted: the victim interprets the actions undertaken with the aim of creating a state of passive subjection in the other as a manifestation of love, affection and genuine interest.
2. Insecurity and low self-esteem: since the central component of emotional manipulation is to generate doubt in the victim regarding his or her own value, in order to maintain control over him or her, those who already have doubts about themselves, due to basic insecurities rooted deep within them, are more vulnerable to this mechanism;
3. Need for approval: as a logical consequence of the first two, this emotional vulnerability can lead those who suffer from it to give in to manipulations, even at the cost of questioning their own perception of reality. Unable to offer themselves a sufficiently strong and stable self-image, the victim relies on the other’s conception of them and is led to believe them, even in the presence of unequivocal signals, coming from within and without, about the existence of positive characteristics, completely different from the criticisms, insults and humiliations proposed by the tormentor.
Furthermore, as mentioned, it is possible that the person in question has already experienced manipulations of this type in the past precisely within a depriving and disconfirming family context; therefore, the tendency to live with the tactics and strategies mentioned above can be configured as a habit that can be traced back to the subject’s personal history.
In this regard, it is useful to recall the research of Mary Ainsworth and John Bowlby[7], who, in an attempt to outline the psychological and relational determinants of different psychopathological structures, were able to note how the secure attachment behaviour, observed between the mother and her child, in addition to providing protection to the child, serves to constitute a “safe base” to which the child can return in the phases of exploration of the surrounding environment. This “safe base” thus allows to promote in the child a sense of self-confidence, progressively favouring his autonomy. As a consequence of the “normality” or pathology of the parental psychological structure, different attachment styles are established in the child, observed by the authors during the well-known “strange situation” experiment[8]:
The third style, the insecure-ambivalent one, is the one that will progressively become a generator of bonds characterized by anxiety and worry. In fact, in the child characterized by this relational configuration, abandonment anxiety is present, being the threat preferred by caregivers, even when not explicit: “If you don’t do what I tell you, I’ll abandon you”. The child will perceive himself as a person to be loved in a discontinuous manner and will feel that the certainty of being loved depends strictly on his obedience to parental precepts, also with regard to his remaining in a state of eternal dependence. The child’s attachment style will predict the subsequent relational style and all the difficulties he could suffer, as an adult, in dealing with the other. The adult who has implemented this attachment style in developmental age will be more likely to renew relational choices based on a relational strategy oriented towards the avoidance of basic abandonment anxiety, not having the possibility of basing the relationship on an equal exchange with the partner. The fear of being abandoned, combined with the basic insecurities resulting from the relationship with a parent who has not been able to offer the infant the sensation of being able to turn to him as a “safe base”, to be internalized in order to generate a sense of continuity and stability in himself, create in the subject a fertile “humus” for a relational choice in which the partner acts as a support for self-confidence and towards whom an emotional dependence will probably be developed. Where the partner, due to personal psychological and relational problems, in addition to the aforementioned historical-social problems, feels the need to maintain a relationship of superiority and possession with the other, the subject will find himself trapped in a dynamic in which he can easily be abused, manipulated and mistreated almost without realizing it and with the feeling of deserving, ultimately, that kind of treatment. The more the basic insecurity is rooted in the past, starting from primary relationships, the more the victim will be led to make an unconscious choice oriented towards narcissistic partners, extremely self-confident and in need of a reflective relationship, in which the other does not manifest his own needs, but limits himself to satisfying those of the subject. The depressive tone underlying the mindset of a person who has not been able to benefit from an effective parental couple, who has adequately responded to the needs for recognition, emotional containment and security, leads them not only to accept being constantly directed by the other, but also to actively choose as a partner a person who will tell them how to conduct their existence, ready to criticize them, if not humiliate them and possibly hit them, psychologically and physically, if they do not adhere to the established modus vivendi. The internal dynamics that make the victim such, carry within them some correlates traceable in the relational configuration in which a form of gender violence is present, such as “learned helplessness”.
Learned helplessness
This concept was coined by Seligman in 1975, following studies and laboratory experiments that began in 1967; it indicates a condition in which a subject can learn that they have no control over what happens to them in certain situations and adapt to the unpleasant condition. For his experiments, the author used two dogs as guinea pigs: he placed the first in a cage in which electric shocks were delivered that the animal had no way of interrupting; the second was instead placed in a cage in which the animal could avoid the shocks by pressing a lever. The second dog learned, after several attempts, to stop the electric shocks, while the first adapted to the situation of suffering. Subsequently, Seligman placed the two dogs in two new identical cages, divided in half: on one side the electric shocks were delivered, on the other they were not. The dog that had had the opportunity to learn to stop the shocks, immediately understood that by jumping to the opposite side of the cage it was possible to avoid the shocks. The other, on the other hand, did not even try to jump to the other side; he did not look for any way to escape from the electric shocks, accepting the situation of suffering without reacting, appearing totally helpless (Seligman, 1972).
After this laboratory study on animals, the concept of learned helplessness was also studied on human subjects: in a second experiment (Hiroto& Seligman, 1975) some students were placed inside a room where a noise loud enough to annoy everyone was emitted. Inside this room there were some knobs, which the subjects tried to use to stop the noise, but without any effect. Later, the subjects were transferred inside another room where there was the same deafening noise, but, in this case, it was possible to use the knobs to stop the loud noise. Most of these students did not even try to use the knobs: these individuals, in fact, had learned that it was not possible to escape from this unpleasant situation. According to Seligman, this mechanism induces people to accept a negative situation without trying to improve it: they remain anchored to the belief that any attempt is ineffective. As a consequence, learned helplessness reduces self-esteem and can lead the subject to depressive outcomes. Subjects who explain negative events in terms of internal, stable and global causes will be more likely to develop a depressive disorder and to react to negative events with a maladaptive pattern of learned helplessness (Peterson & Seligman, 1987). Similarly, victims of violence can adapt to the situation of subjection to the violent conduct of their partner without reacting, in the belief that the situation cannot change, that ultimately he behaves in this way because she induces him or in the self-induced belief that other partners would also behave in the same way towards her. Another author, Leonore Walker (1984), has formulated the concept of “battered woman syndrome”, which, due to the aforementionedlearned helplessness, suffers symptoms similar to those found in post-traumatic stress disorder and does not implement coping strategies to end a violent relationship.
Other factors that can increase the risk of becoming a victim of a violent relationship are:
1. dysfunctional relationships in the family of origin;
2. alcohol and/or drug addiction in caregivers;
3. maltreatment or abuse as a minor;
4. socio-educational models aimed at submission. Children who witness abuse between their parents are more likely to accept violence as the norm in a marriage than those who come from non-violent families.
In adulthood, other risk factors are the poor economic independence of a subject with respect to the partner (more often of the woman with respect to the man) and social isolation, the latter understood as an absence of social networks, both informal (family and neighbours) and formal (community organizations, support groups, affiliation to political parties).
Starting from this basic psychological configuration, a traumatic bond is established and it is plausible that the dynamic called Stockholm syndrome is also established in the perpetrator/victim couple, that is, the induction in the victim of a dysfunctional model that leads her to maintain a balance during exposure to trauma; it is a coping mechanism, a process of continuous psychological readjustment of the victim, who in order to deal with the abuse feels a positive feeling for her tormentor, despite the mistreatment and violence. These elements that, in the subjects who are victims of violence, act as facilitators and generate a self-reverberating situation in which the phenomenon cannot be recognized as such, therefore it cannot be prevented or blocked by the victim.
Beyond purely individual and family issues, which characterize the victim of abuse, it is possible to trace the presence of matriarchal dictates, which have induced women to accept and sponsor for centuries their role of uncomfortable, but in other ways advantageous subjection to men who, under the aegis of patriarchal ambitions of power and domination, have nurtured a conception of the other sex not as complementary to their essence, but as a function to obtain material satisfaction. According to the studies of A. Grassi and S. Berivi (2018), in fact, there is an underground phenomenon that emerges in the daily clinical work of many psychotherapists: “countless feral coils that mothers weave around their children in a hidden way, in a world, ours, that not only does not recognize the violence inherent in such behaviours, does not grasp their madness, but rather encourages them in all possible forms: psychological, cultural, social, legal, economic. This precisely contributes to perpetuating a status quo where men can react with violence, children choose psychopathological paths and women become increasingly embodied in an inevitably victim image, which on the one hand makes them continuously prey to hateful claims and on the other condemns them to a dramatic existential solitude, but in the face of a secondary advantage: always being daughters in need of help”[9]. If in fact women have been subjected for centuries (in many cases still today) to what B. Friedan (1964) defined as the “mystique of femininity”, according to which even when a different path is taken than dependence on the partner, any cultural, work or artistic activity is derogable in the face of the perceived need to marry and have children, it is not surprising that as a compendium such dependence also includes the possibility of being mistreated, abused because, deep down, dehumanized. It therefore seems legitimate to ask what role women play in this tragic panorama of violence that sees them as the predominant victim; to what extent she has a responsibility in the choice of the man who will mistreat her and whether, instead of the man using his coercive authority over the woman, leading her to internalize the negative vision that the aggressor has of her, as Rhatigan, D. L., Street, A. E., and Axsom, D. K. (2006) state, it is not by chance the woman who nurtures within herself an extremely mortified vision of herself, so much so as to conceive the idea, albeit unconscious, that the mistreatment suffered is ultimately well-founded and justifiable.
Conclusions
Far from representing an exhaustive response to the complex phenomenon of gender violence, this article aims to stimulate careful reflection on the historical, subjective, psychological and social determinants underlying unfortunate events that recently, forcefully appear more and more often in the daily news, causing social alarm. We certainly cannot avoid analyzing the psychological characteristics of the perpetrators, who, on the basis of more or less manifest psychopathologies and regardless of the levels of imputability, increasingly appear to be entangled in relational dynamics that are more similar to a power game than to an equal exchange with the other. But we cannot even avoid analyzing the psychological configuration of the victim who not only often appears to be characterized by serious basic insecurities and existential paths burdened by devaluations in the family and work environment, but also seems to be the object of that underground river that for centuries has overwhelmed, in a silent but imposing way, the psychic life of women, considered and self-considered as a sort of instrument in the hands of men, useful for their success and as such treatable, therefore also mistreatable or, worse, when no longer desired or malfunctioning, eliminable.
Table 1
Dataset: Women who have suffered violence – demographic characteristics and habits
| Territory | Italy | ||
| Type of perpetrator | any male (partner and non-partner) | ||
| Select period | 2014 | ||
| Data type women aged 16-70 who have suffered violence during their lifetime (% of women aged 16-70) | women aged 16-70 who have suffered violence in the last 5 years (% of women aged 16-70) | women aged 16-70 who have suffered violence in the last 12 months (% of women aged 16-70) | |
| Type of violence | |||
| physical or sexual violence | 31,5 | 11,3 | 4,4 |
| physical violence | 20,2 | 7 | 2,7 |
| threatened to be physically hit | 12,3 | 4,1 | 1,6 |
| hit with an object or had something thrown at them | 6,1 | 1,8 | 0,7 |
| pushed, grabbed, pulled, twisted an arm, pulled hair | 11,5 | 3,9 | 1,4 |
| slapped, kicked, punched or bitten | 7,3 | 2,1 | 0,6 |
| attempted to strangle, suffocate, burn | 1,5 | 0,4 | 0,1 |
| used or threatened to use a gun or knife | 1,7 | 0,4 | 0,1 |
| suffered physical violence in another way | 1,2 | 0,3 | 0,1 |
| sexual violence | 21 | 6,3 | 2,2 |
| rape or attempted rape | 5,4 | 1,2 | 0,3 |
| rape | 2,3 | 0,6 | 0,2 |
| attempted rape | 1 | 0,8 | 0,2 |
| unwanted sexual intercourse | 4,7 | 1,7 | 0,6 |
| forced to have sexual activity with other people | 0,4 | 0,1 | 0,1 |
| anything that is sexual violence but was not listed | 0,5 | 0,1 | 0 |
Data extracted on 05 Dec 2024 14:08 UTC (GMT) from I.Stat
Number of crimes committed and incidence of female victims
| Description of crime | 2020 | 2021 | 2022 | 2023 | Var% Crimes committed 2020-2023 | ||||
| Crimes committed | Incidence % female victim | Crimes committed | Incidence % female victim | Crimes committed | Incidence % female victim | Crimes committed | Incidence % female victim | ||
| PERSECTORY ACTS | 16,744 | 73% | 18,724 | 74% | 18,671 | 74% | 18,664 | 75% | 11% |
| MALTREATMENT AGAINST FAMILY MEMBERS AND COHABITANTS | 21,709 | 81% | 23,728 | 82% | 24,570 | 81% | 24,474 | 81% | 13% |
| SEXUAL VIOLENCE | 4,497 | 93% | 5,274 | 92% | 6,291 | 91% | 6,062 | 91% | 35% |
Source: State Police
Bibliography and webography
Ainsworth M., Bowlby J., Child Care and the Growth of Love. Penguin Books, London, 1965
Ainsworth M. Bowlby J. Modelli di attaccamento e sviluppo della personalità, scritti scelti, Raffaello Cortina Editore, Milano, 2007
Berivi S., Grassi A. (2018) Le follie del matriarcato, in LIRPA Journal
N. 1 07/2018Le follie del matriarcato | Lirpa International Journal
Convenzione di Istambul ISTANBUL-Convenzione-Consiglio-Europa.pdf
D. Lgs 10/10/2022 Riforma Cartabia
DECRETO LEGISLATIVO 10 ottobre 2022, n. 149 – Normattiva
Di Rosa C. (2017) VITTIME E CARNEFICI: I profili psicologici nelle dinamiche di violenza domestica e violenza sessuale in La Medicina della povertà, 2017
VITTIME E CARNEFICI: I profili psicologici nelle dinamiche di violenza domestica e violenza sessuale
Felici S. (2024) Violenza domestica e di genere 2023 – dati in Polizia di Stato (2024)
Violenza domestica e di genere nel 2023: i dati | Polizia di Stato
Fraser, S. (2021). The toxic power dynamics of gaslighting in medicine. Canadian Family Physician Medecin de Famille Canadien, 67(5), 367-368.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8115954/
Friedan B. (1964), La mistica della femminilità, Edizioni di Comunità, Milano, 1972.
Galán, J. S., & Figueroa, V. M. (2017). Gaslighting. La invisible violencia psicológica. Uaricha, Revista De Psicología, 14(32), 53-60.
http://www.revistauaricha.umich.mx/ojs_uaricha/index.php/urp/article/view/151
Hiroto D.S. e Seligman M.E.P. (1975) , Generality of learned helplessness in man, in Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, vol. 31, n. 2, 1975, pp. 311-27, DOI:10.1037/h0076270
Howard, V. (2022). (Gas) lighting Their Way to Coercion and Violation in Narcissistic Abuse: An Autoethnographic Exploration in Journal of Autoethnography, 3(1), 84-102.
ISTAT Violenza sulle donne – Il numero delle vittime e le forme della violenza
Il numero delle vittime e le forme di violenza – Istat
L. 66/1996 – Norme contro la violenza sessuale
LEGGE 15 febbraio 1996, n. 66 – Normattiva
L. 119/2013 – Conversione in legge, con modificazioni, del decreto-legge 14 agosto 2013, n. 93, recante disposizioni urgenti in materia di sicurezza e per il contrasto della violenza di genere, nonchè in tema di protezione civile e di commissariamento delle province.
LEGGE 15 ottobre 2013, n. 119 – Normattiva
L. 149/2001 – Modifiche alla legge 4 maggio 1983, n. 184, recante “Disciplina dell’adozione e dell’affidamento dei minori”, nonchè al titolo VIII del libro primo del codice civile.
LEGGE 28 marzo 2001, n. 149 – Normattiva
L. 259/1998 – Norme contro lo sfruttamento della prostituzione, della pornografia, del turismo sessuale in danno di minori, quali nuove forme di riduzione in schiavitu’
DECRETO 19 giugno 1998, n. 259 – Normattiva
Mendicino R. (2016), Gaslighting: i profili giuridici di una forma di abuso psicologico, in Profiling – I profili dell’abuso, Giornale scientifico a cura dell’ONAP-Osservatorio nazionale abusi psicologici, ISSN 2282-3867 A.7 n. 2 giu. 2016
Ministero dell’interno – Dipartimento della pubblica sicurezza – Direzione centrale della polizia criminale, 8 marzo giornata internazionale della donna – Donne vittime di violenza, 2024
report-8-marzo-donne-vittime-di-violenza.pdf
Ordine Psicologi Regione Lazio, Linee guida per la consulenza tecnica d’ufficio nei procedimenti in materia di famiglia e minori
CTU in materia di famiglia e minori
Peterson C. e Seligman M. E. P. (1987), Explanatory Style and illness in Journal of personality V. 55 I. 2, June 1987
Explanatory Style and Illness – Peterson – 1987 – Journal of Personality – Wiley Online Library
Rhatigan, D. L., Street, A. E., & Axsom, D. K. (2006) A critical review of theories to explain violent relationship termination: Implications for research and intervention in Clinical Psychology Review, 26(3), 321–345
Risoluzione 48/104 del 20 dicembre 1993 – Dichiarazione sull’eliminazione della violenza contro le donne
Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women | OHCHR
Seligman M. E. P. (1972), Learned helplessness, in Annual Review of Medicine, vol. 23, n. 1, 1972, pp. 407-412, DOI:10.1146/annurev.me.23.020172.002203, PMID 4566487.
Sweet, P. L. (2019). The Sociology of Gaslighting in American Sociological Review, 84(5), 851-875.
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0003122419874843
Taronna A. Women’ s Studies in Dizionario di Studi Culturali, a cura di M. Cometa, Meltemi, Roma, 2004, pp. 523-537
Van IJzendoorn M. H., Bakermans – Kranenburg M. J. (2008), La distribuzione delle rappresentazioni di attaccamento degli adulti in gruppi clinici: una ricerca meta-analitica di modelli di attaccamento in 105 studi AAI., psycnet.apa.org, 2008
Walker, L. (1977). Who Are the Battered Women? in Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 2 (1), p.52.
FRONTIERS – A JOURNAL OF WOMEN STUDIES
Walker L. (1979),The Battered Women, Harper and Row, New York, 1979
- Resolution 48/104 of December 20, 1993 ↑
- ISTAT in The number of victims and forms of violence (2024) ↑
- Felici S. – State Police (2024) ↑
- Di Rosa C. (2017) ↑
- D. Lgs 149 of 10/10/2022. In this reform, a specific chapter on “domestic or gender-based violence” (set forth in Articles 473a no. 40 et seq.), designed to legislate peculiar ways of assessment and intervention of the Judicial Authority, and auxiliaries, in proceedings in which there are allegations of family abuse and/or conduct of domestic or gender violence, which the civil judge, within the scope of his evaluative and decisional autonomy, is called upon to ascertain in order to issue in a timely manner the most appropriate measures to ensure the psychophysical protection of the parent and/or minors allegedly victimized. In these cases, specific wording of the question is provided for the OTC, which will intend to delve into sensitive aspects of the case: the parental competence of the parent with respect to whom clues emerge regarding the commission of domestic violence conducts; the capacity and resources of the other parent; the psychophysical state of the minor, which is always the primary interest to be preserved and with respect to which, in cases of violence, particularly accurate assessments must be made on the manner of acquiring information, on the level of procedure, as well as on the advisability and, if so, on the manner of managing the relationship with the parent with respect to whom clues emerge regarding the commission of domestic violence conducts. ↑
- Mendicino R. (2016) pag.1 ↑
- Ainsworth M., Bowlby J. (1965) ↑
- Based on this study, the authors were able to outline the following relational modes:
– “Safe” style: the child explores the environment and plays under the watchful gaze of the caregiver with whom he or she interacts. When the caregiver leaves and stays with a stranger, the child is visibly upset. When the caregiver returns, he calms down and allows himself to be comforted.
– “Insecure-avoidant” style: the child explores the environment while ignoring the caregiver, is indifferent to the caregiver leaving and does not allow himself to be approached when the caregiver returns.
– “Insecure-ambivalent” style: the child has contradictory behaviors toward the caregiver, at times ignoring her, at times seeking contact. When the caregiver leaves and then returns, she is inconsolable.
– “Disorganized” style: the child enacts stereotypical behaviors, and is surprised/stupefied when the caregiver leaves. ↑
- Berivi S., Grassi A. (2018) pag. 41 ↑
