Ambivalent and Consistent Relationships: The Role of Personal Networks in Cases of Domestic Violence

TL;DR

This study explores how personal social networks can both support and hinder victims of domestic violence through ambivalent and consistent relationships, affecting their ability to seek help and escape abuse.

Contribution

It introduces the concepts of relational ambivalence and consistency to analyze complex social network dynamics in domestic violence cases, based on qualitative data from Swedish women.

Findings

Relationships can both support and undermine victims' efforts to escape abuse.

Social support dynamics are complex, involving ambivalence and consistency in relationships.

Networks influence victims' perceptions and actions regarding abuse and help-seeking.

Abstract

Social networks are usually considered as positive sources of social support, a role which has been extensively studied in the context of domestic violence. To victims of abuse, social networks often provide initial emotional and practical help as well useful information ahead of formal institutions. Recently, however, attention has been paid to the negative responses of social networks. In this article, we advance the theoretical debate on social networks as a source of social support by moving beyond the distinction between positive and negative ties. We do so by proposing the concepts of relational ambivalence and consistency, which describe the interactive processes by which people, intentionally or inadvertently, disregard or align with each other role relational expectations, therefore undermining or reinforcing individual choices of action. We analyse the qualitative accounts of nineteen female victims of domestic violence in Sweden, who described the responses of their personal networks during and after the abuse. We observe how the relationships embedded in these networks were described in ambivalent and consistent terms, and how they played a role in supporting or undermining women in reframing their loving relationships as abusive; in accounting or dismissing perpetrators responsibilities for the abuse; in relieving women from role expectations and obligations or in burdening them with further responsibilities; and in supporting or challenging their pathways out of domestic abuse. Our analysis suggests that social isolation cannot be considered a simple result of a lack of support but of the complex dynamics in which support is offered and accepted or withdrawn and refused.