Naturaleza y funciones de la Curia Romana 1 Comparación con el CIC

Given that communication and cooperation appeared to hold quite specific meanings within an abusive context, what then of the third element of Scheff’s framing,

attunement? For participants this also assumed a quite specific form, generally described as something they strove to attain, with great difficulty and little success, unless at significant personal cost. Achieving an ‘attuned bond’ with their partners most often involved demonstrating their ratification of his rights to control and abuse. For most women this meant putting aside their own beliefs, thoughts, and needs or wants in order to appease their partner and maintain calm. As Sandy recalls, “I compromised my beliefs all the time to suit his”. For some gaining attunement within their relationships required that they sever bonds with others, such as family or close friends. As Heather explains,

[partner] used to say – Heather, you should choose me over your parents, I don’t want you seeing your parents ever again (Heather).

For others, maintaining their bonds meant that they needed to carefully compartmentalize the abuse within their relationships. Angie, for instance, knew that knowledge of the abuse would cause problems for her partner. At that time, because of the pressure she felt to be in a successful relationship with a suitable man, it was important to her that he be protected from the potential consequences of his violence. As she recalls,

I was scared that if I spoke to anyone about what he was doing to me, they wouldn’t like him and he wouldn’t be accepted…. very important…having a partner that people really liked, you know, and so it was good, ‘cause it took the pressure off me finding a partner that fitted in to the family so easily….. He did, and everybody loved him. They thought that he was wonderful and nobody knew (Angie).

By protecting her partner Anita managed to achieve attunement with her family and their expectations of her, submerging her own fear in order to present an image of a seemingly secure and healthy intimate bond. This discussion around the componentry of Scheff’s framing of the social bond raises interesting questions given the earlier quote from Scheff and Retzinger, which speaks of each party understanding and ratifying the other’s

“thoughts, feelings, and actions but also their intentions and character – their being, so to speak” (1991, p.24). As noted earlier, this comment suggests that secure social bonds must necessarily rest upon the mutual and ongoing ratification of each person’s right to ‘be’. In effect, in the context of an abusive relationship, such mutual ratification cannot be anything other than the ratification of one person’s right to dominate and abuse the other. Regardless of the rightness or justice of such a position, or of the costs to the individuals concerned, so long as ratification continues, the security of that particular bond will be maintained and reinforced. While this may present a useful way in which to look at the mechanics of the social bonds between people, it offers little in terms of a feminist political agenda. It is in the unproblematised meaning attached to ‘secure’ within Scheff’s model that much of the difficulty arises. A simple application of social bond theory to abusive relationships, using a common-sense understanding of secure, would suggest that secure bonds may well be impossible within such a context. It is doubtful

that Scheff would intend otherwise. Indeed at one point he and Suzanne Retzinger argue that

In functional families and societies, attitudes towards a particular conflict are oriented towards the good of the whole system and towards the long run…. The building of a stable, just, and effective social order requires a certain type of social control. In such a society, efficacious, ethical, and law-abiding behaviour is quickly and copiously encouraged by highly visible rewards

(1991, p.168-75).

This certainly implies some form of judgment around desirable and undesirable behaviours and does not seem to support the notion that bonds between abusers and victims constitute a secure (if secure is desirable) social bond. From the position implied by this excerpt, it would seem rather that secure social bonds, at least in Scheff’s

understanding of ‘secure’, may well be impossible within the context of an abusive relationship

However, bringing a feminist lens to bear once more though opens the opportunity to read this in a somewhat different way. From this alternative perspective, the bonds created in the context of intimate abuse may well be just as secure (if not more so) as those of non-abusive relationships, especially if both parties are following Scheff’s prescription of mutual ratification. However, rather than the equitable process of understanding he implies, in this context, the abuser’s words and actions ratify his partner’s being as that of victim, paralleled by her ratification of his being as that of abuser – as demonstrated by her fearful compliance. What are primarily being called into question here are the meanings attached to the central notion of ‘secure’ – particularly in respect of our understandings around intimate relationships. If interpreted as describing something as fixed, solid, or locked in place, then certainly the bonds connecting victim to abuser qualify as secure. Whether or not this security constitutes an oppressive or destructive influence in the life of either party, and whether the ongoing ratification of

individuals’ beings as abuser or victim are politically or socially desirable are quite another matter.