Los adjuntos en las actas capitulares de la Diócesis del Antiguo Tucumán

In a similar fashion, cooperation, in an abusive context, assumes a distinctly different character than that which Scheff implies. From the perspective he advances, striving for cooperation is an inherent aspect of each and every social bond. Cooperation, in secure healthy bonds, is therefore presented as the natural outcome of rational processes of negotiation. The actual form and/or content of that cooperation are left unspecified. The idea that achieving cooperation is an obviously desirable outcome is left unchallenged. And, most importantly, the suggestion that some forms of cooperation may far more closely resemble coercion is easily disguised. The particular form of cooperation sought by abusers clearly falls within this grouping. How then did participants see this idea of ‘cooperation’? Did they feel they ‘cooperated’ with their abusers and vice versa? And, if so, is there an alternative reading that can be applied to their stories of cooperation?

Most tried, at least in the early stages of their relationships, to cooperate as fully as they possibly could with their abusers’ demands, including sustained and complex attempts to keep the abuse hidden. The women offered a range of reasons for why they ‘cooperated’ in maintaining this secrecy. Some expressed embarrassment over their ‘bad choices’, as was the case with Heather who didn’t want anyone to think she was “stupid in the head” and Sandy, who was ashamed that she had “married such a nutcase”. One woman, Angie, hid the violence to protect her abuser from possible retribution, fearing that her “family probably would have just killed him if they knew”. Many others, like Sandy, maintained their silence out of a fear that they would not be believed. As she explains,

people are very gullible and I would have to say that country people are very quick to believe the men. There’s absolutely no doubt about it. Men are believed before women are (Sandy).

Whatever the reasons given however, all of these women would be seen, from Scheff’s perspective, as ‘cooperating’ with their abusers, albeit reluctantly. Others ‘cooperated’ more explicitly with their partner’s violence, with some women describing how they would provoke a violent episode in order to ease tension in the relationship.

Like there would be a lot of verbal abuse and just a general shittyness and sometimes I would, like, bait him, so that he would explode and then the tension would be gone. You know, sort of rark him up a bit and then he would lash out and then, you know, you get on with your life again (Rachael).

For some women, achieving a state of ‘cooperation’ with their abuser required massive compromise on their part. Miriam here describes how she rationalized her decision to give in to her partner’s demands for what she considered unpleasant sexual practices in order to gain some sense of control. Unfortunately, while these strategies were expedient at the time, they tended also to add an additional layer of emotional pain for these women as they assumed further responsibility for their victimization.

I kind of turned it round. I can, I remember a point where I decided, well, okay, we'll play your game but I'm going to get enjoyment out of this too because this is not going to be one sided any more - I've had it. So I actually started to play the game with him…because it made me feel like I had a little bit of control over it (Miriam).

A similar cost attached to another common form of cooperation in which women attempted to alter aspects of themselves which their partners’ had identified as problematic. As Debra and Sandy explain,

There was always a reason, and you could think - oh I’ll change my behaviour, and like I knitted for the children too much, or I watch the wrong television programmes or I read too much or I cooked the wrong meal. So you know, you always tried to change your behaviour, so that that wouldn’t happen (Debra). I was a martyr in the sense that I tried very desperately to be the best wife I could, to him. I tried to do the thing that he wanted and I turn inside out to do them. And of course the more I did it the more he wanted. It was never ending. We were never going to win on that….I tried to manipulate myself. I tried to change my personality and it didn’t work. You can’t do that with you own personality (Sandy).

Also apparent in the women’s stories was an additional form of ‘cooperation’, with some participants speaking of how they and their partners had worked together to disguise the abusive character of their relationship and present an image of a happy partnership in front of others. This did not appear to be an explicitly spoken agreement for most of the women. In each case, both parties were pursuing parallel aims of maintaining an illusion of relationship unity. Sandy illustrates the chameleon-like nature of the cooperative image she and her husband presented to the outside world.

He was really nice guy and he was very considerate and all those things. But it was quite different to the true person that he was. He could still be like that, when visitors came he was that person, and I actually got very jealous because other people had that person, but the minute they walked out the door the other person was there….We were always a good couple when we were out. I never ran him down or spoke badly of him, or ignored him. We always interacted in public to the extent that a lot of people who weren’t in the know were very, very surprised (Sandy).

Because this research did not seek the views or stories of the men involved in these relationships, their motivations in the above circumstances must remain conjecture, as is also the case in another common instance of apparent cooperation on the part of many abusive men. Active cooperative attempts by abusers to preserve their bonds with their partners were most evident in their efforts to convince women to return to them. At this point, many of the men adopted a stance clearly designed to present what they considered to be a properly conciliatory and remorseful image. Sandy illustrates this with her

description of her husband’s actions following their separation.

He said that he would go to anger management and that if he ever did it again then I was to tell the Police and they would come in, which of course is all a load of rubbish. And I mean I came down here and there were flowers sent and all this nonsense (Sandy).

In short then, cooperation for these women was experienced in a far from straight- forward fashion. As was the case with communication, cooperation was a constantly shifting and changing experience. Women ‘cooperated’ with their abusers for a variety of reasons, in a variety of ways. Some cooperation, mostly within the relationship, was largely passive, in that the women simply stayed as quiet as possible, did their best to obey instruction and avoided conflict with their partners. Sometimes though cooperation required them to take on a more active role, most notably in instances where they worked together with their abusers to convince outsiders that everything was fine. Their reasons

for cooperating ranged from their own need to somehow maintain the fiction of a happy marriage to the outside world, through to simply trying to preserve some degree of safety. Many facets of this cooperation lessened over time for most participants, although this was not always the case. Some, for instance, maintained secrecy around their abuse long after leaving the relationship, thus cooperating in the preservation of their abuser’s reputation and protecting him from criticism or censure. As Paula explains,

I’ve never told the kids. My point has always been why do you have to, why do you dump that on the kids. They don’t necessarily need to know. …. I still wanted him to have a relationship with the kids, for probably the same reasons I hooked up with him in the first place – To give them a family. … They don’t need to know what an arsehole he is, and they’ll never hear it from me…. I’m still reluctant to tell the kids, because this is their father. I don’t have to shit on their father. Just because our relationship, his and I relationship didn’t work, doesn’t mean that they can’t have a relationship with him. And I know that sounds dumb. But they need to know who he is (Paula).

Maintaining ‘cooperation’ in this way has had significant consequences for some women, particularly in respect of social bonds with others. For Paula these have involved

managing the effects of secrecy on her children’s relationship with her current partner. The children, now teenagers, blame him for the breakdown of their parent’s marriage and consequently have been unwilling and/or unable to form anything resembling a

functional relationship with their stepfather. As she explains,

My kids don’t like him. They like him enough to not swear at him. But they can be disrespectful. He might ask them to wheel the rubbish bin out “Nah.” Dry the dishes “nah”. And to the point where he has learnt, in order for those kids to do something, he has to come through me. Kids will do it for me, but they won’t do it for him. They don’t flat out hate him, they’re just disrespectful. And I can’t

change that. I don’t know how to change that and it’s too late now I think. They’re almost old enough to leave home (Paula).

Some participants reported strain in their relationships with parents and families who did not understand why seemingly stable partnerships had ended, or who, lacking adequate knowledge of the violent nature of the relationship, disapproved of the family break up. Others attributed their lack of subsequent intimate relationships to their inability and/or unwillingness to disclose their abusive past to prospective partners, fearing they might somehow be blamed for the violence or stereotyped as victims. For these women, ‘cooperation’ holds a far from positive position in their lives, extending far past the termination of the abusive relationship. In some circumstances then, it is perhaps possible to call into question the very idea of a post-abuse life for some victims. Clearly for some women the abuse, while altered in form, remains a constant in their lives whatever their relationship status.