Abstract
Although principles of nonviolence have been applied in sociopolitical arenas, they can also be helpful in understanding intimate partner relationships. This is because couples who handle conflict in a constructive way are often using techniques and ideas congruent with nonviolent philosophies. Relationships that handle conflict by becoming aggressive could potentially apply principles of nonviolence to help them address problems in constructive ways. The purpose of this study was to explore qualitative data that described intimate partner dynamics (including conflict, violence, appraisals, and safety) to better understand how individuals apply principles of nonviolence in their partnerships to achieve healthier relationship outcomes. Three qualitative data sets were analyzed using grounded theory methodology. From this secondary analysis, emerged categories and concepts that illustrate the ways couples demonstrate nonviolence principles in these relationships. The first main category was awareness, which included accountability, reflection, commitment, and justice. The second category was action, which included the concepts of authenticity, resistance, repair, and care. These are shown in a process model that in undergirded by the category of context, which includes interaction, gender/culture, and family of origin. Implications for clinical practice and research are provided.
“The aftermath of violence is tragic bitterness, while the aftermath of nonviolence is the beloved community.”
“Violence affects people and changes them forever” (Barnett, Miller-Perrin, & Perrin, 2011, p. 368). Intimate partner violence (IPV) causes devastating emotional, physical and financial costs for individuals, families, and communities (Healey, Smith, & O’Sullivan, 1998) and compromises relational health by eroding the safety in the relationship. At the individual level, the consequences of IPV consist of acute injury, pain, loss of the ability to function, and potentially death. Other negative outcomes include impaired problem-solving, depression, low self-esteem, anger, anxiety, fear, sleep problems, posttraumatic stress disorder, and suicidal ideation (e.g., Barnett et al., 2011; Cercone, Beach, & Illeana, 2005; Halligan, Michael, Clark, & Ehlers, 2003; Hathaway et al., 2000; Zlotnick, Johnson, & Kohn, 2006). At the societal level, costs of IPV exceeded US$8.3 billion annually, with 70% of that amount derived from health-care expenses (Logan et al., 2006; Max, Rice, Finkelstein, Bardwell, & Leadbetter, 2004). The Center for Disease Control (CDC) reported that health-care costs for one incident of IPV is US$948 for female victims, and this does not include costs associated with loss of productivity, mental health care, social services, property damage, or quality of life (CDC, 2005; Miller, Cohen, & Weirsema, 1996). Total health-care costs for female victims of IPV were 19% higher than women who had not experienced IPV, which translates to US$19.3 million health-care dollars spent due to IPV per 100,000 women in the United States (see Modi, Palmer, & Armstrong, 2014).
Clearly, the social, emotional, and individual costs of intimate partners who fight are substantial. Scholars have suggested that professionals need better understandings of the internal workings of couples, particularly their conflict and violence, to better address these problems (e.g., Carroll, Knapp, & Holman, 2005). Many approaches to understanding intimate partner conflict and violence have been used, including individual therapy, support groups, and targeted interventions for violence. For example, traditional batterer intervention programs (BIPs), which intervene with violent partners at the individual level, utilize principles of anger management, such as recognizing triggers, reducing denial, and relaxation techniques. However, a meta-analysis of 22 efficacy studies on batterer intervention revealed that these models have little effect on whether or not those enrolled will reoffend (Babcock, Green, & Robie, 2004). Researchers have suggested that traditional BIPs often fail to get participant buy in and may not be adequately distinguish between types of abusers (Aldarondo & Fernandez, 2008; Johnson, 2010).
Although there is a well-developed body of literature and history of the principles of nonviolence that have been powerful in overcoming large-scale conflict, these philosophies have not been scientifically applied to microlevel relationships. It may be that these ideas can be helpful in understanding the dynamics between partners who struggle with high conflict.
Purpose of the Study
Nonviolence is known as a set of values that have been applied in social oppression and protest. For example, nonviolence principles were used by Gandhi and his followers to overcome the British occupation of India. In the United States, these ideas fueled the women’s suffrage movement and were championed by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr., in the effort for equality in race relations and civil rights (e.g., Holmes & Gan, 2005). These and other historical contexts have shown how principled nonviolence techniques and ideals can be a force for good. Nevertheless, although these ideals have proved useful, there are few examples of applications of these ideas in intimate relationships. There do exist parenting programs that use nonviolence principles (Weinblatt & Omer, 2008), and guidelines for nonviolent couple’s communication (Rosenberg, 2003), but little empirical work has been done with nonviolence and intimate relationships. The purpose of this study was to examine couples who had experienced conflict or violence in their relationship and explore where principles of nonviolence were exercised in these relationships. The purpose was not to establish causal relationships between nonviolence principles and reduction in conflict but to examine how couples describe their relationship functioning in terms of ideas or techniques that could be congruent with nonviolence philosophies. We also use terms such as conflict and violence in a general sense, not to diminish the distinctions between types and effects of abuse, but because the focus of this study is how couples describe efforts to move away from abuse and escalation, and in the data there were no such distinctions made (e.g., Smith & Whiting, 2016).
To achieve this, the authors analyzed data that described intimate partner dynamics (including conflict, violence, and safety) to better understand how individuals may have applied principles of nonviolence in their partnerships. Specifically, we sought to answer the following questions: (1) How do individuals in relationships describe their efforts to reduce conflict or create peace in their relationship? (2) What underlying attitudes exist when authenticity and nonviolence occurs? (3) What structural or contextual conditions in the relationship environment do individuals identify that either encourage violence or nonviolence? We first review key principles of nonviolence, then present our methodological strategy to understand how these principles manifest in couples.
Principled Nonviolence
Nonviolent social movements have been credited with changing cultural contexts of racism, oppression, and imperialism. Even where appeals to human rights have failed, or uprisings were pushed back down, nonviolent movements and passive resistance have prevailed. There are many principles of nonviolence that have been written about, but we will focus upon the following in this study: Nonviolence (1) is an underlying commitment, (2) sees others as legitimate, (3) attempts to defeat injustice (not people), (4) is active, (5) is characterized by patience and endurance, and (6) includes choice and responsibility as key elements.
Nonviolence is an Underlying Commitment
The first verse of The Dhammapada, the teaching of the Buddha, states that the mind precedes all mental states (Eknath, 1986). This verse conveys the Buddhist belief that one’s thoughts shape their actions and who they are or more simply stated: People are the product of their thoughts (Eknath, 1986). This principle applies directly to violence, in that violence is not just physical, but an attitude or state of mind (Arbinger, 2006). It is not enough to claim to be a peaceful person or espouse a belief in nonviolence, there must be a corresponding commitment to practicing its principles. “Peacemaking is nothing more nor less than the application of soul force to human violence at its greatest scale. Therefore, it must begin, somehow with deep changes that take place within the person—where the soul is” (Nagler, 2004, p. 203). In couples, violence is sometimes distinguished by the intent to injure—not the act itself (Whiting, 2008). The Sanskrit word “ahimsa” or “the absence of the desire, or intention to do harm” is a nonviolence principle that teaches that not just the act but the intention of violence must change (Nagler, 2004, p. 44). People who embrace a commitment to nonviolence therefore, not only hurt no living thing, but they strive to have no evil thoughts, deception, or hostility toward others (Holmes & Gan, 2005).
Nonviolence Involves Seeing Others as Legitimate
Gandhi discussed the concept of Heart Unity or the empathetic desire for the welfare of others. Seeing others as legitimate and valuable goes beyond just viewing friends and family members in this way; but, our enemies as well.
Nonviolence is when you humanize your enemy and let your enemy humanize you. When you respond with courage and respect under duress, it raises your image, humanizes you, in the opponent’s eyes and helps, in however small a way, to enhance awareness of humanness in the world’s violence (Nagler, 2004, p. 273).
Often couples become at odds and see each other as enemies or objects, instead of a person with legitimate desires and opinions (Fishbane, 1998). This view contributes to enmity and misunderstanding in couples and creates defensiveness and insecurity (Whiting, Parker, & Houghtaling, 2014). Being able to show compassion toward a partner (e.g., seeing the partner as valuable and legitimate) can contribute to de-escalation, even in abusive relationships (Stosny, 2004). Allowing a partner to have a difference of opinion or the freedom to feel what they feel is a key part of love (Maturana & Varela, 1987).
Nonviolence Seeks to Defeat Injustice, Not People
In his writings on segregation, Martin Luther King, Jr., wrote the conflict that existed between white and Black citizens was not truly their conflict but a conflict between justice and injustice. He stated, “the victory will not be merely for the Negro citizen to defeat the white citizens, but it will be a victory for justice and a defeat of injustice” (Wink, 2000, p. 176). Similarly, many approaches for couples emphasize justice and teamwork as healthy ways to reduce conflict and abuse (e.g., Jory, 2004). Some treatments, such as narrative, or emotionally focused therapy, focus on helping couples work together against the problem or pattern, instead of each other. Both of these models aim to make the problem or dysfunctional cyclical interactions the “enemy” while uniting the couple as a team against their problem (Freedman & Combs, 1996; Johnson, 2004).
Nonviolence is Active
Nonviolence activists urge supporters to action in achieving the goals of social change. Lunch counter sit-ins and the bus boycott in the Southern states as well as Indians’ refusal to have their fingerprints taken for registration with the British Empire were actions that required courage, fortitude, and perseverance. This involves more than mere pacifism, but sometimes protest against injustice (Kurlansky, 2006). This is what Thoreau advocated in his writings about civil disobedience, where concerned citizens resist unjust legal or social norms (1849). Likewise, couples wishing to increase health and safety in their relationships must actively work, which involves more than ignoring the problems (Doherty, 2013). Gottman (2012) argues partners need to address problems early on, before they become ingrained and difficult to change. Choosing to address unfair division of, or forgive after betrayal are examples of actions that would take sustained effort.
Nonviolence Emphasizes Patience and Endurance
Contrary to the values of much of consumeristic culture, nonviolence suggests that suffering and patiently enduring trials can be instructive and even transforming. Choosing to love, including one’s enemy, or endure patiently in the face of trials can invite change in another person and change relationships (Warner, 2001). For example, being patient with a spouse who loses their temper and responding nonviolently could contribute to de-escalation rather than escalation. We realize that this issue is tricky, and we are not suggesting that a victim of abuse is responsible for de-escalating an aggression. In relationships where control or violence is present, it is crucial to focus on safety and not imply that if a person suffers enough they can “fix” a violent partner (e.g., Sleutel, 1998). However, in relationships where power differentials are similar, either partner can choose to be patient and try to soothe self or other to help de-escalate conflict (e.g., Gottman & Notarius, 2000; Stith & McCollum, 2011).
Nonviolence Emphasizes Choice and Responsibility
At the heart of this principle is an ownership of one’s actions and accepting that choices impact others. A person who practices this principle chooses a course of nonviolent action and takes responsibility for the consequences of actions. For change to occur in intimate partner conflict or violence, partners must not blame the other (Davis & Piercy, 2007), and this is one of the most critical issues to address in treatment when working with violent and controlling individuals (Goldner, 1999). Taking responsibility and ending, denial or rationalization is a component of nearly all BIPs, because so much intimate partner conflict and violence is characterized by blame, excuses, and distortions of reality.
Care must be exercised when applying the concepts of choice and responsibility to those who are recipients of violent acts. Many victims of coercive control and violence have had choices removed from them, and their own sense of power and agency has often been damaged (Briere, 2012; Whiting, Oka, & Fife, 2012). However, one of the roles professionals can play with victims is to help them respond to the violence in ways that demonstrate choosing safety over retaliation and accepting responsibility for their actions within the relationship, even though these may pale in comparison to the acts of their partner. This may involve choosing to not minimize the violence, not take responsibility for their partner’s actions, or to choose to get help. These are related to the nonviolence principle of active resistance, which involves pushing back against the abuse and not accommodating it.
Method
To answer the research questions, a secondary analysis of existing qualitative data sets was undertaken. For this project, we analyzed data that addressed relationship issues including conflict, violence, perceptions, attitudes about power, context, and conflict resolution. We used a secondary analysis method known as supra analysis, which involves asking new research questions using existing data sets. Supra analysis is common with secondary data and can be conducted by the primary researchers who collected the original data set(s), as was the case in our study, or by a new set of researchers hoping to answer a new set of research questions (Heaton, 2004). We used constructivist grounded theory methodology (Charmaz, 2014) to analyze the data and generate a process model showing the interaction of nonviolence concepts described by the couples.
Samples
The data sets for this project are all in the possession of the primary researcher, and the necessary consent for use in future projects was obtained during data collection. Although the purpose in these projects was not to study nonviolence, it was estimated that the data contained examples of how partners demonstrated principled nonviolence in the face of conflict or violence. As each data set included a subset of either violent and/or clinical couples, this indicated the possibility for thick descriptions of both conflict (as was the purpose in the original studies) and conflict resolution (which was the purpose of this study). Although the data were not often deep in regard to nonviolence principles (there were not interview questions directly about these principles), it was very broad, allowing us to accumulate a significant number of examples from the complete group of interviewees (n = 87). To strengthen rigor in secondary analysis, it is important to understand the original data sets and the purpose for which they were used (Crotty, 1998).
Study 1
For Study 1 on safety and conflict resolution, the participants were collected from a southwestern university family therapy clinic as well as from a nonclinical community sample. Inclusion criteria were that participants needed to be in a committed relationship for at least 3 months and be 18 or older. The sample included 15 men and 22 women, some of whom were in relationships with one another. The ages ranged from 21 to 53 years, and the length of relationships ranged from 3 months to 22 years. Semistructured interviews involved questions about what partners believed safety in relationships meant, how they made sense of their own safety, and what types of things occurred externally and internally when they experienced safety or when they did not feel safe.
Study 2
Study 2 included interviews on conflict, distortion, authenticity, and responsibility. The sample was recruited from a southern university family therapy clinic and included 12 females and 11 males. The inclusion criteria were that participants were in a committed relationship (14 were married and 9 were cohabiting). Ages of participants ranged from 23 to 46, with length of relationships ranging from 1 to 21 years. The sample included African American (4) participants, Biracial (1) participant, and Caucasian (18) participants. Participants were asked questions related to conflict as well as questions and vignettes related to moral reasoning and cognitive distortions.
Study 3
Study 3 asked participants about violence, distortion, and responsibility. Participants were recruited through several sources: an onsite clinic at a university training program, a center for women who had been in violent and abusive relationships, and the third site was a Midwestern clinic that provided BIPs to court-mandated men who had been violent with their partners. The sample included 29 individuals, all of whom had been in heterosexual relationships (16 females and 13 males). The ethnic breakdown of the participants included individuals who self-identified as White (21), African American (4), Biracial (2), and Other (2). The interview guide was composed of questions and vignettes illustrating the sensitizing concepts of interest, including denial, rationalization, and minimization.
Procedure
When using secondary data, certain methodological questions must be answered: Do the data fit the new research questions and are there sufficient data to reach saturation (Heaton, 2004)? To determine if the data were usable, the first step was to read through literature regarding both the general characteristics of nonviolence and nonviolence in intimate relationships. This literature review was used to develop sensitizing concepts, which would serve as the basis for the open coding schema that would follow. Sensitizing concepts are general ideas based on theory or existing research that guide grounded theory research questions and the analysis of the data (Bowen, 2006). A sample of the data from each of the data sets was examined for those sensitizing concepts. Upon determining that there was enough potential in the data, the analysis proceeded.
Data Analysis
To ensure that this analysis was not influenced by the previous analyses, all original codes were removed, and a team of researchers who had not participated in previous projects was assembled. The original transcripts were read carefully and meaning units—or statements that seemed to capture some of the nonviolence elements—were pulled out and gathered into a separate document used for open coding. To determine if the data were sufficient to reach saturation, researchers followed the procedures for achieving saturation in grounded theory methodology in primary analysis (Charmaz, 2014; Corbin & Strauss, 2007).
After compiling passages from interview transcripts related to the research questions, open coding was used to identify nonviolent concepts among the data. Open coding involved reading each transcript and identifying themes or codes, within the data. These were highlighted and labeled within the transcripts and textual indicators, or participants’ words were organized according to the developing codes. This involved several meetings among the coders, which helped deepen and define the categories, which is a process of focused coding. Memos were written regarding how concepts related to one another, which aided the researchers’ own reflections about the data as well as the next step of data analysis—axial coding. Axial coding is the process of comparing categories to subcategories which serves to organize the data into a cohesive whole (Charmaz, 2014). This process helps the researchers track their analytic decisions and acknowledge the role of their own history, bias, and previous understandings in the analysis. It is known as bracketing and is important to ensure trustworthiness (Echevarria-Doan & Tubbs, 2005).
Axial coding further proceeded as the researchers met to refine and define the concepts, which led to expanding certain themes, while collapsing others. These fleshed out themes became the three main categories of the model, each of which had several concepts that fit within them (Corbin & Strauss, 2007). This model shows the ways that partners describe the use of principles of nonviolence in their relationships, and how these principles were useful to them.
Trustworthiness
Creswell (2013) recommends that qualitative researchers employ several validation strategies to ensure their work meets standards of rigor and trustworthiness. We did several of these, including following established grounded theory procedures (Charmaz, 2014), thick description, triangulation, and reflexivity. The procedures and description of data and participant’s words are described in the Method and Results sections, and triangulation was achieved by using multiple data sets and discussion between the coders and memos. These procedures also ensure reflexivity, which includes a tracking of the process and a commitment to stay close to the data while seeking action and process related to the categories. Reflexivity includes a “not-knowing” stance or a commitment to remain open to the data while avoiding forcing theories onto it that don’t fit. In a constructivist epistemology, the grounded theory model represents one interpretation of the data and is not seen to be the final word on the topic. Also, in qualitative projects, the researchers are the instruments of analysis and must remain aware of their own role in shaping the concepts and model that come forth. All authors have extensive experience researching, teaching, and working clinically with issues related to couple conflict and violence, and are in academic institutions. They each played various roles in the gathering of literature, coding, and writing up of the project, and they acknowledged these values as they engaged in memo writing and final analysis of the data.
Results
The goal of grounded theory research is to generate theoretical understanding of concepts and create a model that illustrates how participants experience a process. In this case, the concepts that were derived from the data show the importance of certain principles that were demonstrated in relationships to help the couples move away from conflict or violence toward nonviolence. The final model shows the two main categories of awareness and action playing a key role in leading intimate relationships toward nonviolence. A third category that underlies the other two includes the contextual conditions that influence the process (see Figure 1). Results are presented in terms of these broad categories, and then we specify how the concepts (listed in italics) within both categories were defined according to the analysis. Text from the participants will be used to illustrate these concepts.
A model of nonviolence principles in couple interaction.
Awareness
The category of awareness included various ways that partners perceived their relationship or each other. Specific types of thoughts seemed to be key in leading to nonviolent or relationship strengthening actions. These included ideas, values, and general perceptions related to their own role in their relationship. The awareness category contains four concepts: accountability, reflection, commitment, and justice.
Accountability
This concept describes participant data that demonstrate a sense of obligation to others and an ownership of one’s feelings and actions. It included a commitment to see the other as legitimate and worthy of respect. For example, one man caught himself playing up being a victim, and then decided to stop focusing on his wife’s issues, and instead take responsibility. He recalled, “I can’t blame her [by saying] ‘look at the situation you put me in.’ Well, no, I put myself there!” Another stated, “It takes two people to keep an argument going, and I’ve realized that. What I’ve done was wrong. I shouldn’t have done the stuff I did.” One participant described accountability this way: It’s one of the small things I learned in therapy … if a person really wants to change and stops doing whatever they are doing, they’re going to make up in their own mind that they want to change. They are going to see their own faults … They’re going to make up their own mind that they need to change … they don’t want to keep hurting people the way they do and then it’s a problem and it’s not right.
Reflection
Participants described periods of reflection, which included a process of trying to see the accuracy of the situation, or stepping back to evaluate. Many participants described conflictual events that invited them to reflect on what just took place: “One bad night makes you look at yourself and say, you know what, I’m not that controlled person I thought I was,” and “At first I thought … ‘I’m just retaliating here,’ but … I take responsibility, I’m the male, I’m the bigger person … it takes two to argue, but it definitely could have been avoided.”
Commitment
This concept describes an attempt to live up to one’s personal morals or be connected to partners in a caring way. Participants described attempts to see partner’s worth or remember obligations to one another. One reported, “I try to respect her the way I’d want her to respect me.” “Even in the thick of anger,” one recalled, “I don’t ever want to hurt [my partner].” In addition, participants reported knowing their actions were wrong based on how they felt about their actions. One said, “I knew what I was doing was wrong because … I lived with it. I knew what [my actions] made people do, and how it made people feel because I didn’t care for it myself.” These statements reflect an internal desire to do better or a regret about actions that may have caused harm.
Justice
A final concept that appeared relating to the category of awareness was justice, which included an inner commitment to fairness and equality in their relationships. As one said, “I look at it like we’re equals.” Sometimes this included discussion of division of labor, or how each should be treated. Comments in this category also reflected awareness of gender or power differentials in their relationship. This included reflections about not bossing each other around or being controlling: It’s not about gender, it’s about humanity. And we have to learn to deal with each other on an equal plane, and be on the same level … I don’t even understand all the things there are to understand about entitlement. I’ll spend the rest of my life learning that … Everyone on earth will until men and women see each other as equals if and when that day ever comes.
Action
The category of action describes the outward behaviors (verbal or physical) that demonstrate inner awareness and commitment to nonviolent actions. This category contains four concepts: authenticity, resistance, repair, and care.
Authenticity
This concept illustrated times when participants genuinely tried to speak and behave in a way that was honest and accurate. This included being honest about the situation and avoiding blame of others for one’s own behavior. Sometimes this included trying to see the complete picture: “[It is good] if you can listen to the other, get her perspective,” or, “He is pretty open to anything that I’ll say … he’s willing to hear the whole thing.” One woman stated, “I try to listen and often I try to put myself in his shoes to see how that would sound … frequently I’ll hit a point where I’m like ‘Yeah, ok. What you said is absolutely right.’” Others emphasized being accurate and true in the way they represent what happened: “I think the first thing is to be honest. Just being honest and just saying it, and then adapt somewhat to the way she responds.” Another emphasized the effort that it takes to find the truth in a conflictual situation that is becoming escalated: “It’s real easy to be honest and say what you need to say without escalating to that point where you’re just getting ugly. But it takes a while to figure out that that’s what it is. That’s what that time is for.” Another discussed being honest about one’s own needs: “I need reassurance, this is hard for me, and I’m not blaming you, I’m not holding this over your head. I’m willing to believe you, but I’m just telling you it’s hard for me and I’m uncomfortable with it.”
Resistance
This concept reflected a resistance or unwillingness to accept poor behavior or injustice. This was done in a nonviolent but assertive way. Sometimes this was through words: “Most of the time I speak my mind. If I don’t want it to happen again then I’m gonna tell you that it bothered me.” Others recalled using strength to end conflictual situations: “Occasionally I said, ‘ok this is getting out of control. We need to stop and we need to talk about this later when we can … talk about it without getting upset and yelling at each other. Just ‘cause it’s not doing any good.’” Another recalled, “I still love you, let’s take a deep breath and go watch TV.” Another chose to wait out the negativity instead of responding with anger and aggression, “I just sat there and took it because I knew fighting it was not going to bring peaceful things.”
When resistance occurred in more abusive situations, it was usually reflected by female participants. Almost all of the women who spoke to this concept used some form of an ultimatum as a means of resistance. One common ultimatum was that they would leave the relationship if unacceptable behavior did not stop: “I left because of my son. My main focus is my son. He is my main strength point.” “I just kept telling him he needed to leave,” another said, “and he wouldn’t leave … so finally I got up and started packing my bags because if he wasn’t going to leave then I was.” Another described how taking this step was important for her own growth: “I left the relationship feeling completely empowered … I walked away from that and it’s probably the best decision I’ve ever made in my life.” Another reported was calling the police: “All I am asking you to do is not put your hands on me. That’s it. [If you do] … I am going to call the police!” Some mentioned resistance in the forms of personal values or empowering statements, such as: “I do not allow anyone to pressure me into sex. It is just not going to happen. Period.”
Repair
Participants’ reflected the idea of repairing or trying to constructively address problems or damage that occurred. Part of this included the willingness to take responsibility for hurtful actions and try to make things better. Participants reported: “I accepted full responsibility for what happened and I didn’t belittle [her] at all,” and “I don’t deny that I was wrong, 100 percent wrong.” Many mentioned apologizing for their actions as an attempt at repair, as illustrated by this participant: “I even was man enough to call her father and mother and apologize to them and say that I’m sorry and I regret my actions.” Another element of repair was the need to understand why a fight had occurred. One woman stated: “We calmed down some and talked … Why did this happen, how did that start? Why did we just fight for an hour? What didn’t happen that needed to happen?” Others gave credit to their partner for making efforts in this regard and others talked about making improvements in their own efforts: “I’ve been doing a lot better at being able to think calmly during arguments. I try to keep from yelling.”
Care
The final concept in the action category is care, which involves showing concern or love through words or actions. There were many ways that these participants described partners caring for each other, such as not pressuring or controlling: “I have to consciously try to not … be in control of her … now I try to let her make her own decision.” Or, “I’m real careful not to personally attack her. I don’t, I’ve never told her she’s stupid. I’ve never told her that her ideas are bad or … I try to stay away from personal stuff. When I talk, I’ll say, ‘that’s not the way I seen it. This is what I see.’” Others did things just to meet each other’s needs: “I went ahead and took the old fixture down … it just made her incredibly happy, things like that.” Another looked for ways to enhance their relationship: “We went out and bought a book from a Christian store, we get together, we sit together and talk … how’s this going to strengthen our relationship?” Lastly, a participant mentioned the importance of trust, commitment, and helping her partner and his family to show actions of concern: “I trust him and I can tell him more than I can tell anyone else… I just tell him how I feel and show him the commitment that we’ve had for two years … Helping him out, helping his family out.”
Context
Nearly, all participants discussed contextual issues that helped or hindered them in their awareness and action. These included influences from the past, like previous intimate or familial relationships, but also included factors that affected their ability to reflect and act. These conditions were sometimes cited as excuses for the behaviors (like when someone blamed their work stress for their lack of taking responsibility for their actions), but some were also mentioned as being influential in the way they made decisions in their relationship. This category also describes the systemic influences that occur in relationships. Many partners talked about how they would get caught up in the dynamics of their relationship which would lead them to act in certain ways, such as acting mean when things escalated, or apologizing because their partner was making an effort to defuse things. Specific contextual influences on these couples included gender and culture, and the family of origin.
Gender/culture
This includes times when participants cited language, society, values, or other social influences on their relationship. For instance, some referred to the physical differences between males and females: “I don’t think I am threatening even if I am speaking in an angry tone. Whereas the 6′3″ guy can be threatening if he is speaking in an angry tone.” Another said, “For a woman, there’s probably always the presence in the back of your mind that the guy is physically more powerful … if this turns violent I’m in trouble,” and, “I’m a girl I can’t hurt him. But he wouldn’t do the same to me. I guess people think that they’re sure of that until it happens.”
The sociocultural influences included pressure from friends and the culture in which they were raised. One female respondent talked about how her religious and cultural beliefs were relevant in her husband’s lack of helping around the house: “I would come home and he would have friends over drinking and playing cards and there was our son toddling around in his dirty diapers.” Another discussed the influence of his culture in leading him to rationalize his past violence: “If a woman’s big enough to slap that man repeatedly then in a sense that man has a right to defend himself so he needs to knock her ass out one hard time and teach her a lesson. That’s the way I was grown up.” This man, like many others, needed to transcend this belief and embrace values of restraint and nonviolence.
Family of origin
Most participants mentioned family of origin as a contextual issue, and many reported that they chose to reject or separate themselves from harmful family of origin violence excuses, such as, “it can’t all be wrong, your dad and mother did it all those years.” This man explained that he had to overcome this excuse. He said, “I knew what I was doing, and I knew it was wrong.” Others committed to be nonviolent because they saw the pain of violence: “I watched my mother go through that … I used to say ‘I’m never going to be like that’.” As one recalled: My parents used to fight a lot when I was a child, and I saw all the fights between them. I think that makes me now very stable in my relationship because I don’t want to have the same problem in my family … So I think your previous experiences help you to understand what you want in your next relationship. [My parents would] make me do something that I didn’t want to do, they would put expectations on me. Every time in the relationship … she would do that it would bring up some of those emotions that I had with my parents, like anger. That’s when I would start lashing out words, basically yelling, getting mad, saying ‘no I don’t want to do this, leave me alone.’
Discussion
We found many principles of nonviolent philosophies in the dynamics of these intimate partnerships, particularly when participants were describing conflict and the resolution of conflict. These couples described healthy relationship choices that fit with nonviolent principles, in thought (awareness) and behavior (action). The model generated from this analysis shows theoretical relationships that suggest that when couples apply principles of awareness (accountability, reflection, commitment, and justice) and action (authenticity, resistance, repair, and care) they will be moving toward nonviolence. We will explore how this organization of categories and concepts can be useful for professionals who work with and study couple conflict and aggression.
Clinical Implications
Clinicians can assess whether these themes are occurring in the couples they work with, and they can use the language of these themes to generate discussion and insight about their interaction. For example, are the members of the relationship being accountable for their actions? As Gandhi’s common sentiment might be restated, “Be the change you want to see in your relationship” (e.g., Wink, 2000). Do the partner’s narratives show signs of commitment to nonviolent interactions? Do they reflect an attitude of care, or of justice? If underlying attitudes are negative or contemptuous (e.g., Gottman, 2012), then addressing temporary problems (like a recent fight) will not help. The broader attitudes of care and concern must be addressed and repaired for lasting change to happen. Otherwise, as Nagler (2004) has said, “If we only intervene at the behavioral level, it is like trying to fix one leak at a time in a rusted plumbing system” (p. 6). Our model reiterates the importance of addressing underlying attitudes that lead to behavior, which creates second-order change.
Additionally, the model can inform skill building that may help couples de-escalate from conflict and may also help to change the hostility and negative attributions that contribute to relationship dissatisfaction (e.g., Oka, Whiting, & Reifman, 2015). For example, the principle of resistance can be taught as a way to refuse to engage in escalation while still standing for principle or defending one’s own self from attack. Refusing to engage in aggressive or escalating attacks often invites a partner to do the same. This is crucial because one of the main problems in couples’ conflict is escalation—responding to threat or aggression with reciprocal aggression. Gottman’s therapy approach is built upon this key point: “To create lasting change in troubled marriages, interventions need to enhance the overall level of positive affect in both non-conflict and conflict contexts, and teach couples how to reduce negative affect during conflict” (Gottman, 1999, p. 105). Similarly, emotionally focused couples therapy addresses de-escalation in its first stage by helping the couple identify negative interaction patters and remove blame from one another to the cycle. This process de-escalates the conflict between partners (Johnson, 2004). Narrative therapy likewise uses language to separate the problems from the people and invites people to join in defeating the mutual patterns and problems that have had undue influence over their relationship (Freedman & Combs, 1996; White & Epston, 1990).
The concepts in the action category can developed and used to help defuse conflict. When couples choose to honestly try to repair when things go awry, they are choosing to move toward nonviolence and de-escalation. As Gottman (1999) said, “In marriages that work … and only in these marriages-positive affect was used with great precision in the service of de-escalating marital conflict and moving the overall affect from negative to a less negative (even neutral) state” (p. 59). Problems related to conflict cannot be solved through more conflict. It is a principle of nonviolence that violence creates more problems than it solves (Nagler, 2004).
Omer’s (2004) framework for using nonviolence principles with parents with children with acute behavioral problems also emphasizes de-escalation. The nonviolence resistance model instructs parents to commit to a nonviolent and nonhumiliating stance, assume responsibility for their own escalation, and resist rather than control. They assert an absolute avoidance of all physical or verbal attacks and focus heavily on nonviolent resistance, which is to break down escalation behaviors that occur in the relationship in order to learn effective, nonviolent means to de-escalate. This implies that couples who work together to understand their joint patterns of escalation and value fairness are going to be more effective than those who point fingers or deny responsibility.
When working with couples who are violent, it is important to put safety as the priority above principles of nonviolence that may not help de-escalate a dangerous situation. Although conjoint therapy for domestic violence has had success with couples where violence is not severe or controlling (LaTaillade, Epstein, & Werlinich, 2006; Stith & McCollum, 2011), it is important for assessment for violence to occur, to ensure that those who are not safe or willing to participate in therapy are screened out and referred to appropriate interventions (e.g., Bograd & Mederos, 1999). Even in cases where violence has been minor and noncontrolling, therapists must take precautions to ensure safety, including nonviolence contracts, safety planning at the outset of therapy, and regular check-ins with couples to ensure fidelity to nonviolence. These nonviolence principles are not appropriate for individuals or couples who are in current coercive controlling relationships (Smith & Whiting, 2016).
The importance of contextual influences cited by these partners reinforces the clinical value of asking about family history, current stressors, race, and gender. Care should be taken by therapists so that these factors are not used as excuses or causes, but as opportunities to highlight constraints of inequality and voice. Gandhi was known to be an early crusader for gender equality, freedom from domestic violence, and educational opportunities (O’Neill, 2015). Therapists can similarly be an advocate for equality and nonviolence, while inquiring about influences and holding partners responsible for their own actions and attitudes. This has been done in work with abusers, who must let go of their entitlements and excuses in order to get in touch with their own compassion and concern (Jenkins, 2009). This is congruent with the nonviolence principle that argues that we are not innately aggressive or abusive, but often need to recommit to existing care and concern for each other. The Dalai Lama discusses compassion as an active choice toward another: “Nonviolence does not mean the mere absence of violence. It is something more positive, more meaningful than that. The true expression of nonviolence is compassion, which is not just a passive emotional response but a rational stimulus to action” (Kurlansky, 2006, p. xii).
Research Implications
This project involved secondary data, and future studies could gather new data specific to nonviolence and couples. Research could be undertaken using interviews, focus groups, or surveys exploring these findings. This could be helpful in creating interventions or educational models that use nonviolence principles (e.g., Leu, 2003). For example, these ideas could be developed into an enrichment model similar to the one used with parents (Omer, 2004), and this could be implemented and evaluated. Other studies could address how effective it is to apply nonviolence principles in clinical settings, or whether couples who have made successful changes in their relationship use language reflective of the concepts in this nonviolence model.
Limitations and Conclusions
As with all research, the process of gathering and analyzing grounded theory data is influenced by the values of the researchers and is subject to flaws and idiosyncrasies. This is true in qualitative analysis, where the researchers are a key instrument in bringing forth the results, and it is likely that other researchers approaching this topic would find variations on our concepts. This study is one representation of how nonviolence ideas may fit with the choices couples make, but it would be helpful to see how other studies approached this topic. Also, the data used in this study were gathered for other projects, so these partners were not specifically being asked about nonviolence principles. These results were derived from data that inquired about abuse, conflict, safety, and resolution, and it would be enlightening to see if a study using primary data yielded similar responses. Although grounded theory techniques are flexible enough to be used for purposes like ours, it was not possible to use some grounded theory tools like theoretical sampling and constant comparative analysis (LaRossa, 2005).
Also, with any situation regarding IPV (especially in gendered, unequal power relationships), we want to be very careful not to suggest that a victim should submit, or stand by to receive abuse. Nonviolence principles may not always fit intimate partner circumstances, and certain approaches or techniques (e.g., submission, fasting) are not appropriate in a situation where one person is hurting and controlling another. We also do not suggest that resistance should involve coercion or violence. This would extend to the literature detailing different typologies of violent partners (e.g., Johnson, 2010; Holtzworth-Munroe & Stuart, 1994), that suggests that some couples would not be amenable to therapy, and would therefore be inappropriate for this approach. Also, this study was only an exploration of how conflictual couples described their interactions in nonviolent terms. These findings do not offer tested prescriptions to reduce violence in intimate partnerships. Given the severity and frequency of domestic violence, caution should be taken when attempting to intervene with those who have a history of violence (Johnson, 2010).
Nevertheless, the principles of nonviolence found in these couples suggest that they usefully describe the ways that couples reduce conflict, coercion, and aggression in their relationships. We hope that these ideas offer language that can be used to further understand how to reduce pain and problems in couples and perhaps can be used to motivate partners to behave in more compassionate and less conflictual ways. If partners embrace nonviolence principles they choose to make a difference in the whole system. This tenet of systems theory is congruent with the nonviolence principle that all life is interconnected. This poses an invitation to each person to give their best personal effort and commitment, which in turn changes the relationships they are in. As Gandhi said, “Our greatness lies not so much in being able to remake the world, as in being able to remake ourselves” (O’Neill, 2015, p. 97).
Footnotes
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.