Family dynamics can be extraordinarily complex, especially when abuse is involved. Understanding why some family members choose to enable and protect abusers, even after heinous acts like murder, while others distance themselves or flee, requires delving into psychological, social, and cultural factors. It’s not a matter of simple personality differences. It’s a multifaceted issue influenced by various elements, including fear, loyalty, social conditioning, and individual psychological responses.
FEAR IS A significant motivator in the behaviour of those who enable abusers. In many cases, the abuser may exert a powerful psychological or physical hold over their family members. This dominance can create an environment where family members feel they have no choice but to comply with the abuser’s wishes out of fear for their own safety or that of their loved ones. This is particularly evident in cases involving intimate partner violence, where victims often stay due to threats of further harm or even death.
Abusers often use a combination of psychological and physical tactics to instil fear and maintain control over their victims. This can include threats of violence, actual physical harm, and emotional manipulation. In some cases, the threat might be implied – for example, if someone subject to death threats was threatened with the removal of their security.
The abuser may threaten to harm other family members or pets, or to commit suicide if the victim attempts to leave. This creates a pervasive atmosphere of fear that can paralyse victims and prevent them from seeking help.
In the case of Josh Powell, who killed his two sons during a supervised visitation, his father, Steven Powell, was convicted of voyeurism and possession of child pornography. Steven’s enabling behaviour, which included defending Josh and attempting to control the narrative around his son’s actions, showcased how fear and manipulation can perpetuate an abusive environment. Josh’s wife, Susan Cox Powell, disappeared under suspicious circumstances, further illustrating the deadly consequences of such control.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disappearance_of_Susan_Powell
Abusers often also isolate their victims from friends, family, and other support systems, making them more dependent on the abuser. This isolation can be physical, such as not allowing the victim to leave the house (or castle), or emotional, such as undermining the victim’s relationships with others. For most abusers, this pertains to the victim’s relationships with friends and family, but for abusers with power this can include workmates, whole industries – and even a country’s media and law-makers.
By cutting off external support, the abuser makes it more difficult for the victim to seek help or escape.
A prominent example is the case of Jaycee Dugard, who was kidnapped at age 11 and held captive for 18 years by Phillip Garrido and his wife, Nancy Garrido. (Nancy enabled Phillip’s abuse, partly due to the intense control and psychological manipulation he exerted over her.) Jaycee’s isolation from the outside world was complete, making any form of resistance or escape seem impossible.
The cycle of abuse, which includes periods of tension-building, explosive incidents of abuse, and reconciliation, can further entrench the victim’s fear and dependency. During the reconciliation phase, the abuser may apologise, make promises to change, or manipulate the victim into feeling guilty or responsible for the abuse. This cycle creates a confusing and unpredictable environment that keeps the victim off balance and more likely to comply with the abuser’s demands.
Intergenerational trauma plays a role in why some family members protect abusers. When abuse has been normalised across generations, family members may see it as an unfortunate but accepted part of life. This can lead to a reluctance to confront the abuser, as doing so would challenge deeply ingrained family dynamics and beliefs.
The case of the Turpin family is a stark illustration of this. David and Louise Turpin held their 13 children captive, subjecting them to severe abuse and neglect. Louise’s sister, Teresa Robinette, later revealed that they had also endured a traumatic and abusive upbringing. The intergenerational trauma likely influenced Louise’s behaviour and the broader family’s initial reluctance to intervene.
SOME INDIVIDUALS (not victims themselves) actively join in the cycle of abuse. This can be harder to understand.
But abusers can be extremely manipulative, using tactics that convince others to join their abusive behaviour. This can include gaslighting, where the abuser distorts reality to make their actions seem justified or normal.
Some individuals develop a psychological bond with their abuser, a phenomenon known as Stockholm Syndrome. This can lead them to identify with and even support the abuser’s actions.
Individuals with low self-esteem may join in abusive behaviour as a way to gain approval or validation from the abuser. If an individual has no job outside their marriage, for example, if their whole identity is wrapped up in their married title, then they may believe that their self-worth is tied to their loyalty to their abusive spouse.
And dysfunctional family dynamics, such as intergenerational trauma and learned behaviours, can lead individuals to participate in abuse. They may see abusive behaviour as normal or justified based on their upbringing.
What could explain a cohort of reporters, law-makers – even a nation’s courts – joining in the abuse? In some cultures, abusive behaviour, particularly patriarchal dominance, is normalised. Individuals and institutions may join in the abuse because it aligns with their cultural or societal expectations.
ABUSERS OFTEN EMPLOY psychological manipulation tactics, such as gaslighting, to control their victims and those around them. This manipulation can warp the perceptions of family members, making them doubt their own judgments and feel dependent on the abuser. Gaslighting can create a reality where the family member believes the abuser’s version of events over their own memories, leading to protection and enabling behaviour.
A notorious example is the case of Diane Downs, who shot her three children, killing one. Her parents staunchly defended her, convinced of her innocence despite clear evidence to the contrary. This defence likely stemmed from Diane’s manipulative behaviour and her parents’ inability to reconcile her crime with their perception of her.
Family loyalty can be an overpowering force. Some family members might protect the abuser out of a deep-seated belief in familial duty and the importance of maintaining family unity. This loyalty can be rooted in cultural or religious beliefs that prioritise family reputation and cohesion over individual well-being.
In certain cultures, the concept of ‘family honour’ can lead to protecting an abusive family member to avoid shame or ostracism from the community. This cultural context can make it incredibly challenging for family members to act against the abuser, even in the face of criminal behaviour.
With monarchies, the whole family is charged with ‘protecting the crown’ – and that includes the reputation of the monarch and their heirs.
Social and cultural conditioning play crucial roles in shaping how family members respond to abuse. In patriarchal societies, for instance, there may be a tendency to protect male abusers due to ingrained beliefs about gender roles and power dynamics within the family. Women and children in these settings might be conditioned to accept abuse as a norm and therefore might not recognise their right or ability to flee or seek help.
Individual psychological responses to trauma also vary widely. Some family members might experience learned helplessness, a state where they feel incapable of escaping their situation due to prolonged exposure to trauma and abuse. This psychological state can paralyse action and make it difficult for them to leave the abusive environment.
Other individuals might respond to trauma with resilience and determination to escape the toxic situation. This response can be influenced by various factors, including personal temperament, previous experiences, and the availability of external support systems such as friends, social services, or mental health resources.
OUTSIDE ACTORS OFTEN, sometimes unwittingly, come to the abusers’, rather than the victims’, aid.
The case of Peter Sutcliffe, the Yorkshire Ripper, who terrorized northern England by murdering 13 women and attempting to murder seven others between 1975 and 1980, is a grim reminder of how a combination of factors can enable an abuser or even a serial killer’s prolonged activity. Several elements contributed to Sutcliffe’s ability to continue his killing spree for so long.
The most significant enabler of Peter Sutcliffe’s prolonged killing spree was the series of investigative failures and missteps by the police.
The investigation was marred by poor coordination among different police departments. Information was not effectively shared, and critical leads were often overlooked or mishandled. The police also fixated on certain theories, such as the idea that the killer had a specific type of accent.
But there was also a series of missed opportunities that enabled Sutcliffe to continue killing.
Sutcliffe was interviewed by police nine times during the investigation but was not seriously considered a suspect. This was due to a combination of factors, including his calm demeanour and plausible explanations for his activities.
Horribly, societal attitudes towards women, particularly those perceived as sex workers or leading lifestyles outside the norm, also played a role in enabling Sutcliffe’s actions.
Many of Sutcliffe’s victims were initially dismissed as “lesser” victims because they were believed to be sex workers (although some were not). This victim-blaming mindset contributed to a slower and less urgent response from law enforcement and the public.
The willingness of some people to victim-blame is sadly still with us, as evidenced on a daily basis on social media.
Trolls and online abusers of Princess Meghan, for example, work tirelessly to signal that Princess Meghan “deserved” the abuse of her by painting her as an unkind person or social climber or “grifter” – without a shred of evidence.
Her husband, Prince Harry, has his military career and achievements routinely rubbished – even with ample evidence of his service and his work. By name-calling and trying to paint him as a coward who hid in his bunker during his tour of Afghanistan, online trolls and abusers again seek to signal that he “deserves” whatever abuse he endured – whether at the hands of the media or from within his own family.
The societal undervaluing of women influenced the allocation of resources and the seriousness with which the crimes were investigated. This bias allowed Sutcliffe more freedom to operate without immediate, comprehensive pursuit by authorities.
Again, the societal undervaluing of women persists – all the worse if you are black or a woman of colour. Britain’s tabloid newspapers were so disrespectful of Princess Meghan that one national newspaper even printed a column that talked of wanting to see her paraded through the streets naked (and worse, which I will not repeat here).
The decision to protect or flee from an abuser is influenced by a complex interplay of fear, psychological manipulation, loyalty, social conditioning, and individual psychological responses.
As is the decision to join in the abuse – whether in person, in print or online.
unpacked4.wordpress.com 