Morrow and Hawxhurst

abuse, batterers may receive more therapeutic attention than victims (M. Niemann, personal communication, March 3, 1988). Systems Model

A systems approach deals with battering as a manifestation of the partnership's dysfunction (Giles-Sims, 1983). Battering is perceived as a result of ineffective communication patterns and relationship dynamics. NCADV recommends avoiding therapy with couples because it is implicit in couples therapy that the victim shares responsibility for the abuse. Like the intrapsychic model, this approach tends to contribute to victim-blaming and assists the batterer in denying responsibility for the abuse. This approach frequently escalates the abuse because the batterer will often use what the partner says in therapy as ammunition for more abuse (Schechter, 1987); as a result, both victim and batterer denial systems become firmly entrenched as they perpetuate the secrecy surrounding the abuse. The counselor is then a party to perpetuating the denial while putting pressure on the system that is likely to contribute to the tension-building and escalate violence. It should be emphasized that battering is not a communication problem-it is a problem of the abuse of power, of dominance, of control, and, in the case of lesbian battering, of other dynamics we do not yet comprehend. Addiction Model

Treatment programs have evolved from Alcoholics Anonymous, which stresses that stress working through a 12-step program to overcome addictive behaviors. Although 12-step programs (and their outgrowth in Adult Children of Alcoholics/Dysfunctional Families and programs for codependency) have been remarkably effective in promoting a recovery process from a variety of problems (chemical dependency, eating problems, compulsive sexual behavior, and others) (Beattie, 1987; Woititz, 1983), certain problems emerge when addressing the issue of battering. One approach to battering (Buck, 1988) is to view the batterer as codependent and addicted to rage and to give priority to the treatment of the batterer. The victim is perceived as a "woman who loves too much" (Norwood, 1985), remaining in the battering relationship because of her codependency; economic restraints, isolation and lack of support systems, and threats of more severe battering or even death go unrecognized as reasons for the abused woman to stay with her partner. Although there is a potential for using this model to encourage accountability on the part of batterers for their behavior, it has been our observation that alcohol or other chemical abuse is frequently the focus rather than battering. We have seen individuals who are very successful in their 12-step programs related to chemical abuse and who still continue to batter their partners.

Battered Women's Movement

Originating from grass-roots feminist political organizing, the battered women's movement stresses that the source of battering is a violent and exploitative societal structure emphasizing possessiveness, ownership, control, and domination in relationships. A major consequence of the battered women's movement is the development of safe spaces and shelters for abused women. The battered woman herself is perceived as the source of information about what works in supporting other abused women. It is the battered woman, not the batterer or the couple, who receives the first line of support (Schechter, 1987).

NCADV advocates empowerment as an approach to working with victims of abuse. Empowerment consists of asking specific

60

questions of the victim, such as, "Is anyone in your family hitting you?" "Are you forced to engage in sex that makes you uncomfortable?" "Does your partner watch your every move?" In addition, the counselor is instructed to declare the violence unacceptable, encourage the victim to name the forms of abuse she has endured, validate the woman's experiences, explore her options and advocate for her safety, build on her strengths and avoid victim-blaming, and respect her right to selfdetermination (Schechter, 1987, p. 9).

Leeder's Model: A Therapeutic Approach to Lesbian Battering

Few models have been proposed specifically for counseling lesbian couples in which battering is an issue. Leeder (1988) proposed a three-part counseling model, including treatment of the batterer, the victim, and the couple. Treatment of the batterer was seen as a long-term, in-depth counseling relationship focusing on family history, developing trust between the batterer and the therapist, and, only later, dealing with anger, building communication skills, and finally confronting the abuse. When the batterer and therapist together feel ready, the victim or the couple becomes the next focus of therapy.

Leeder stressed that the victim may need to seek therapy elsewhere. The victim's work focuses on her own need to stay with the batterer and put up with the abuse, thereby colluding in the abusive dynamic. Victims are encouraged to seek safety, set limits with the batterer, and understand that they do not deserve the abuse. Leeder fails to expand her model to address empowerment of the victim.

Finally, the couple is seen by the therapist for the enhancement of communication, to learn empathy, to develop a "time out" tactic in which the victim leaves the batterer alone to deal with her own anger, and possibly to involve close friends, family members, or both in a systems intervention.

LESBIAN PARTNER ABUSE:

AN ADVOCACY MODEL

To be effective it is essential that counselors be guided by lesbian victims of battering, just as they have been guided by victims of battering in heterosexual relationships, to find ways to be advocates for victims and generate education and change in the therapeutic community. As therapists working with lesbians, we have made mistakes by assuming that there was mutual violence when, in fact, battering was occurring; by ignoring physical signs of violence through our unwillingness to acknowledge battering in lesbian relationships; and by continuing to work with couples together after recognizing that there was battering in the relationship. The following recommendations have emerged from our clinical experience and from listening to lesbian survivors of partner abuse.

Victim Safety

Because of the acute danger to a woman in an abusive relationship, her safety is paramount. She is the only one who can decide whether or not she should leave the relationship, but the first step a counselor must take is to do whatever is necessary to make resources available for victim safety. This may include inquiring at local shelters about attitudes toward lesbians, identifying friends or family members who might provide safe space, and locating lesbian community resources that can assist the lesbian survivor of abuse. If, as is the case in many areas, nonhomophobic resources for abused lesbians are nonexistent,

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

the therapist may need to perform advocacy functions, such as inservice training to shelter staffs, identification of "safe houses" within the lesbian community, or other innovative activities. The victim should be informed about filing an order of protection if necessary to prevent further abuse. There may be many individuals in the lesbian woman's life who will encourage her not to "air dirty laundry" in the mainstream legal system; the responsible counselor, however, will encourage the victim to use whatever means are necessary to ensure her safety.

There is controversy among activists in the battered women's and battered lesbians' movements over therapists' responsibility to warn lovers or former lovers of abusive lesbians that they may be in potential danger. It is not uncommon for batterers, when confronted with their abusive attitudes and behaviors, to become enraged and actually seek out estranged or former partners to abuse. As counselors, we need to assess continually our stand on this issue, the limits of confidentiality, and our responsibility to care for potential victims.

Victim Empowerment

The choice to remain in or leave the battering relationship belongs with the survivor; we, however, advise victims to achieve whatever separation is necessary to prevent the violence from happening again. Because of economic, emotional, parenting, or other entwinements, the abused lesbian may not perceive herself as able to leave the relationship. She should be encouraged, however, to explore all options. It is our shared opinion that, if there is physical abuse in the relationship, the couple will need separation to end the violence. Establishing a support system and reducing isolation is an essential component of victim empowerment.

Victim Healing

Healing from abuse may be a lengthy process if the abuse has been prolonged or if the victim was also abused in childhood or in former relationships. We consider group support to be the most valuable method for abuse survivors to heal. It is optimal to have groups of all lesbians for this purpose because of the unique concerns identified above. Included in the healing process must be the following: clarification that the victim is not responsible for being battered, awareness that nothing she did or did not do caused or justified the abuse, education concerning the cycle of violence and what constitutes abuse, emotional support for anger and grief work, exploration of alternatives for continuing her life. Only later, after the survivor is clear that she was not to blame for abuse, should she be encouraged to look at family and relationship patterns that she may need to resolve; addressing these issues too early will reinforce her own sense of blame. Involvement in the battered women's, safe space, or shelter movements is often a final and essential component of healing; the process of helping other survivors or contributing to social change is a powerful therapeutic agent. Couple Counseling

At the present time, we are not optimistic about couples in long-term abusive relationships resuming a relationship that is characterized by trust and nonviolence. Even after each individual has addressed her own issues, reuniting will often set off old patterns, much as healthy adult children from abusive homes find themselves reverting to old, unhealthy patterns when they visit their families of origin. If, however, after

Lesbian Partner Abuse

extensive work, the couple wishes to attempt to reunite, counseling should be done by a therapist who is cognizant of the battering history and is familiar with battering dynamics. It should be the survivor, not the batterer or the counselor, who initiates readiness for couple contact.

Counseling the Batterer

It is common for counselors to want to address this issue first. The reasons for this phenomenon are complex: many counselors may identify more with the batterer because of the power held by the batterer; often, working with victims is frustrating, particularly when they continue to remain in abusive relationships; batterers are often charming, articulate, and able to demonstrate remarkable progress in therapy without ever confronting their abusive attitudes and behaviors, while victims may appear "crazy" as a result of their traumatization; and, because many counselors have themselves been victims of abuse, working with victims may be too uncomfortable. It is the victim, however, who needs and deserves the first line of assistance. To send the victim elsewhere, as Leeder (1988) suggested, is to say to her, "There is something wrong with you; you do not deserve my help."

We strongly recommend that the batterer and the survivor not work with the same counselor. As long as abuse is still a possibility, the batterer may detect real or imagined disclosures in therapy and use them as ammunition to batter again. If a counselor has been seeing both members of the couple before the abuse is discovered, she or he can explore with each partner separately the options for appropriate individual work. We do not see the couple together after abuse has been discovered. Referrals should be made to counselors or grass-roots support groups that are knowledgeable about the politics and dynamics of abuse.

Although little is known about successful work with batterers, particularly lesbian batterers, we believe the following issues need to be addressed: entitlement (the belief that others. exist for the abuser's well-being and that others are at fault if the batterer is unhappy); possessiveness; dominant attitudes and behaviors; abuse of power; and denial and other defense mechanisms (minimizing, rationalizing, and justification) supporting the abuse. Although chemical abuse must be treated if it exists, the batterer must not be allowed to shift responsibility for battering from herself to the chemical abuse.

Batterer accountability is an essential component of a program for abusers. The abuser must take full responsibility for her abusive attitudes and behaviors, understanding that it is her choice, and not stress, victim behavior, chemical abuse, childhood abuse, former relationship abuse, or other factors, to use violence to control another person. In the process of being accountable, she will need to recognize and respect that the victim of her abuse may not want contact, either now or in the future; the survivor's wishes regarding contact must be paramount in making this decision. Batterer accountability must be geared to ending abusive behavior, not to reestablishing a couple relationship.

TAKING THE LEAD FROM SURVIVORS

Although the issue of lesbian battering has been discussed for several years, a real focus on the issue has come recently, as a result of the 1986 NCADV conference and the publication of the book "Naming the Violence: Speaking out About Lesbian

JOURNAL OF COUNSELING & DEVELOPMENT SEPTEMBER/OCTOBER 1989 VOL. 68

61