Commentary on Johnson’s “Conflict and Control: Gender Symmetry and Asymmetry in Domestic Violence”

Abstract

Michael Johnson (l995, 2000) reframes the debate about whether men and womenare equally abusive by replacing the tenets underlying the controversy, that abuse should be equated with violence, that abuse can be assessed by a calculus of physical harms, that a single moral yardstick can be applied to any use of force by family members, and that, therefore, the issue of parity can be resolved by agreeing which family members use force, what kinds, and how often. Instead, he argues, because of the added element of “control, ” the “intimate terrorism ” that affects women primarily involves a qualitatively different dynamic (and so different harms) than the “common couple ” or “situational ” violence in which surveys show there to be sexual parity. Johnson separates the question of sexual symmetry in the use of force from the issue that is critical to intervention, whether the abuse that men and women experience is qualitatively symmetrical. Johnson’s categories need to be flushed out empirically, theoretically elaborated, and refined. However, he challenges us to map the tactical combinations of coercion and control used in relationships, reformulate a theory of harms accordingly, and link the dynamic and outcomes in these situations to social fac-tors. Facing this challenge could awaken the field from the stupor in which it has lan-