P1: GVM/GDX

Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Sociological Forum, Vol. 17, No. 1, March 2002 (°

C 2002)

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome:

An Analysis of How Cultural Arguments Succeed1
Bess Rothenberg2

This paper examines how certain cultural arguments gain the authority neces-
sary to explain the social problem of domestic violence. I begin by demonstrat-
ing the existence of competing explanations for the question of why abusive
relationships continue. I find that a certain kind of explanation, multiple vic-
timization arguments that emphasize the numerous ways battered women are
victimized, are most common. Through an analysis of social science citations,
news papers, and legislative and judicial decisions, I conclude that one mul-
tiple victimization argument in particular, Lenore Walker’s battered woman
syndrome (Walker, 1979, The Battered Woman. New York: Harper & Row;
Walker, 1984, The Battered Woman Syndrome. New York: Springer), has
become the most recognized explanation for why abusive relationships con-
tinue. The syndrome was best able to meet the criteria necessary for gaining
cultural authority put forth by Schudson (1989, Theory and Society 18:153–
180): retrievability, rhetorical force, resonance, resolution, and institutional
retention. In recent years, however, this authority has been threatened as so-
cial and cultural conditions have changed, leaving competing understandings
of the domestic violence issue to challenge Walker’s claims.
KEY WORDS: domestic violence; sociology of knowledge; social problems; battered woman
syndrome.

The periods of violent behavior by the husband served to release him momentarily
from his anxiety about his ineffectiveness as a man, while, at the same time, giving his
wife apparent masochistic gratification and helping probably to deal with the guilt
arising from the intense hostility expressed in her controlling, castrating behavior.
(Snell et al., 1964:111)

1 An earlier version of this paper was presented at the 1998 American Sociological Association
Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California.
2 Department of Sociology, University of Virginia, 539 Cabell Hall, Charlottesville, Virginia
22903; e-mail: brothenberg@virginia.edu.

81
0884-8971/02/0300-0081/0 °
C 2002 Plenum Publishing Corporation
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

82 Rothenberg

Battered women are victims and it is from that perspective that I tell their stories . . .
[T]hese women were physically and psychologically abused by men and then kept
in their place by a society that was indifferent to their plight . . . Repeated batterings,
like electrical shocks, diminish the woman’s motivation to respond. She becomes
passive. (Walker, 1979:15, 49)
[B]attered women are active survivors . . . women respond to abuse with helpseeking
efforts that are largely unmet. (Gondolf, 1988:11)
[B]attered women . . . resist a dominant cultural script . . . [that] directs them to get
away and stay away from an abusive partner . . . When battered women resist that
script they demonstrate autonomy and declare that, indeed, they want some control
over their lives. (Baker, 1997:56) [Italics added]

The above quotations represent a number of the arguments available

to explain why abusive relationships continue.3 This issue has been defined
and redefined numerous times by knowledge professionals such as feminists,
social scientists, mental health professionals, and others who seek to explain
the continuing problem of domestic violence. Researchers focus consider-
able energy on explaining why violent relationships are not immediately
ended. In a paper entitled “Abused Wives: Why Do They Stay?,” sociologist
Gelles acknowledges that the “question itself derives from the elementary
assumption that any reasonable individual, having been beaten and bat-
tered by another person, would avoid being victimized again (or at least
avoid the attacker)” (1987:108). In an effort to explain this deviance, a vari-
ety of arguments have been put forth by knowledge professionals to explain
why some individuals remain with batterers. Only a small number of these
have established the cultural authority to explain why abusive relationships
continue.
It is not my intention to evaluate the truth or empirical validity of these
arguments but rather to examine how it is that a particular argument gains
cultural authority. I rely on domestic violence as an important social issue that
provides insight into how one cultural argument comes to be seen as the plau-
sible explanation for a social phenomenon. Relying in part on Schudson’s
model of “how culture works” (Schudson, 1989), I maintain that the success
of an argument is grounded in its ability to resonate, or align itself with larger
social and cultural patterns, as well as by achieving retrievability, rhetorical
force, resolution, and institutional retention. I note the cultural conditions
that have made certain explanations for why abusive relationships continue
3 Although this issue is most frequently referred to as a question of why battered women stay, I
avoid such terminology because of the implicit assumptions associated with the question. It as-
sumes first and foremost that domestic violence is solely a story of abusive men and victimized
women. Second, it places expectations on women alone and not on batterers or men to get out
of such relationships. Third, it assumes that abused women do not leave abusive relationships.
These assumptions illustrate the power of certain cultural arguments to have established their
own taken-for-granted reality. The question for an endeavor in the sociology of knowledge is
therefore not why battered women stay, but why (some) abusive relationships continue.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 83

more amenable to acceptance. In recognizing the social processes that allow

an argument to establish legitimacy, I also contend that the ability of an
explanation to gain cultural authority is very much contextual. As these so-
cial and cultural conditions change, an established argument comes to be
challenged by new explanations that threaten its cultural authority.
I begin by presenting a selection of competing explanations for the
question of why abusive relationships continue in order to demonstrate
the existence of alternative understandings. I then consider the success of
these different arguments in three social institutions: academia, the me-
dia, and the legislative and judicial systems. I argue that a certain kind
of explanation—multiple victimization arguments that emphasize how bat-
tered women are victims of their abusers, society, the “system,” patriarchy,
and psychological problems—has best been able to resonate by aligning
with larger cultural themes in modern American society. I then outline how
one multiple victimization argument in particular, the battered woman syn-
drome, achieved the necessary combination of retrievability, rhetorical force,
resonance, resolution, and institutional retention for establishing cultural
authority in the 1990s. I conclude by considering the changing social condi-
tions that challenge the battered woman syndrome’s ability to maintain its
success.

COMPETING EXPLANATIONS

In her exploration of how the once-neglected issue of child abuse came

to the fore as an urgent social problem, Nelson suggests that a “cultural will-
ingness to accept the problem as defined” make problems like child abuse
into “valence issues” (1984:5). Such issues, she argues, are relatively uncon-
tested and are therefore more likely to be accepted “as is” by the public.
Certain kinds of issues are not open for varied interpretations due to their
unusually uncontentious nature (e.g., virtually no one actively advocates for
more violence against children). Beckett (1996), however, complicates the
picture of valence issues in her study of the social problem of child sexual
abuse. She finds that even issues as relatively straightforward and uniformly
condemned as the sexual abuse of minors can be subject to numerous inter-
pretations. Beckett concludes that valence issues are not immune to contes-
tation by different interest groups and that they too can be interpreted in
vastly different ways.
My own research on domestic violence uncovered a similarly diverse
group of explanations for the question of why abusive relationships continue.
In order to collect my sample, I located those areas of my university library
that contained holdings on domestic violence. I selected all books that ad-
dressed the issue of why domestic violence relationships are not immediately
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

84 Rothenberg

ended. I then reviewed the references found in those books and collected
all papers and books that had not made the original sample and continued
this process until I had exhausted the library’s resources. My sample thus
represents all available literature on domestic violence found at my univer-
sity library.4 In total, I conducted a content analysis of thirty-three scholarly
books and papers written by social scientists and/or advocates for battered
women (e.g., counselors, psychologists, therapists, social workers) all pub-
lished between 1964 and 1997. The sample includes both prominent and less
well-known pieces as well as a variety of interpretations of the domestic
violence issue. I present here a brief summary of a few of the most diverse
arguments to demonstrate the existence of competing explanations for why
abusive relationships continue.
Psychiatrists Snell et al. (1964) employ a functionalist approach in ex-
plaining domestic violence by claiming that men beat their overbearing wives
in order to gain control in their relationships. Such marriages are character-
ized by the “husband’s passivity, indecisiveness, sexual inadequacy; the wife’s
aggressiveness, masculinity, frigidity, and masochism; and a relationship be-
tween the two in which a frequent alternation of passive and aggressive
roles serves to achieve a working equilibrium” (1964:111). In explaining
why women attempt to leave, thereby destroying the delicate balance of the
marriage, the psychiatrists contend that many wives seek outside help when
their adolescent children begin to intervene in conflicts. They speculate that
it is the children’s intervention that disturbs “a marital equilibrium which
had been working more or less satisfactorily” (1964:109).5
Psychologist Walker (1979, 1984) strongly rejects Snell et al.’s (1964)
claims, arguing that abused women suffer from a “battered woman syn-
drome” that prevents them from leaving abusive relationships. Walker (1979)
borrows from an experiment with dogs that, over time, had diminished re-
sponses to electric shock. She suggests that it is a similar form of learned
helplessness that results in battered women remaining with abusers. Such
women become “passive, submissive, ‘helpless’ ” when they learn that all
attempts to escape are futile (1979:47). A cycle of violence further ensures
that victimized women remain in abusive relationships. The first stage in-
volves tension-building in which the batterer expresses hostility without
violence and the woman tries to placate him and divert his anger. In the
second stage of acute battering, the batterer’s aggression is unleashed and

4 Two works written by sociologist Baker (1996, 1997) came to my attention through personal
interaction with the author while I was doing research. I included both pieces, even though
they had not yet been published, because they presented a significantly different approach to
the question of why abusive relationships continue.
5 Although this explanation may, for many today, seem farfetched, it is important to note that
this argument went virtually uncontested for almost a decade.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 85

an assault on the woman occurs. In the final stage, loving contrition, the
batterer tries to make up for what he has done. Although Walker reports
that women are most likely to want to leave in this stage, their partners’
appeals and professions of love often lead them to remain or return to their
abusers.
Walker also suggests that “society” contributes to the problem of do-
mestic violence by being “unresponsive” to battered women, condoning vio-
lence, and socializing young children into traditional gender roles (1979:xi).
She further cites the woefully inadequate protection by police, courts, and
medical professionals as central reasons that abused women do not leave.
Finally, she notes that “male-dominated institutions” and patriarchy are the
source of many societal problems. She writes “My feminist analysis of all
violence is that sexism is the real underbelly of human suffering” (1979:xi).
Together, Walker argues, these problems are internalized by women and ul-
timately lead to the psychological development of learned helplessness that
paralyzes women into staying.
Another battered woman’s advocate, Gondolf (1988) rejects Walker’s
theory (Walker, 1979, 1984) and concludes that severe abuse does not pro-
duce a sense of helplessness in battered women. Instead, domestic violence
requires a wide array of coping strategies that ultimately turn abused women
into “survivors” not victims. Gondolf argues that battered women do not
become psychologically paralyzed but instead actively attempt to seek help
from a variety of sources. In contrast to Walker’s theory (Walker, 1979),
Gondolf maintains that it is the failure of help-sources to intervene and not
the paralysis of women that ensures the violence will continue.
Straus et al. (1980) come to very different conclusions about the nature
of domestic violence in their nationwide study. They find that 49% of all
reported instances of violence in relationships were situations in which both
partners were violent. In the remainder of cases, 27% were situations in
which the husbands alone were violent and 24% were cases in which only
the wives were abusive. As far as specific violent acts were concerned, women
were almost twice as likely to throw something at their husbands and were
also more likely to kick or hit with an object. Men, on the other hand, more
frequently pushed, shoved, slapped, beat up, and used knives or guns on
women (1980:37–38). Concerning frequencies of beatings, the sociologists
conclude (to their own surprise) that rates of husband-beating were slightly
higher than those of wife-beating (1980:40). In a separate paper, Steinmetz
(1977) also concludes that men and women appear to have “equal potential
towards violent marital interaction, initiate similar acts of violence, and,
when differences of physical strength are equalized by weapons, commit
similar amounts of spousal homicide” (1977:69). These conclusions suggest
that abusive relationships continue because both partners rely on violence
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

86 Rothenberg

when fighting. Further, they imply that it is not solely women who are the
victims of abuse and they therefore should not be the only ones expected to
leave violent relationships.6
Sociologist Phyllis Baker (1996, 1997) takes yet another perspective on
the question of why abusive relationships continue when she proposes that
battered women who stay are expressing their independence from a dom-
inant cultural script. This script, Baker maintains, directs women to “get
away and stay away” from abusive partners; call the police and cooperate
fully, including pressing charges if necessary; be appreciative of services;
stay in a shelter; and maintain restraining orders (1997:56, 58). She argues
that women who do not follow this dominant cultural script are demonstrat-
ing “resistance” against the larger society and are making “active, reasoned
choices” (1997:58). Battered women assert their own independence, accord-
ing to Baker, by choosing to stay with their abusers rather than conforming
to society’s expectations. She does note, however, that the consequences of
such resistance can be deleterious, as this demonstration of independence
often leads to the further abuse of women. Baker’s argument, along with the
others cited here, serve as a reminder that even relatively noncontroversial
issues can be interpreted in a variety of ways.

MULTIPLE VICTIMIZATION ARGUMENTS

Although the above arguments represent a number of the most diverse

explanations for why abusive relationships continue, many of the works
coded share marked similarities and fall into the category I term multiple
victimization arguments. These explanations emphasize the ways in which
battered women are victimized and trapped into remaining in violent rela-
tionships as the primary reason for the continuation of abuse. Such inter-
pretations claim that battered women are victimized by abusers who cause
harm to them, a society that ignores their suffering, a “system” of failed in-
stitutional responses, and a patriarchy that disadvantages women in general.
These multiple experiences of victimization, according to many advocates,
are internalized by battered women and develop into psychological prob-
lems that further trap them in abusive relationships.
Seventy-three percent of the works in the sample share at least four
of these five components (abusers, society, system, patriarchy, and psycho-
logical problems) and are categorized as multiple victimization arguments.
Every book or paper in the survey consistently refers to women as the

6 Strauset al., do however issue words of caution that “soften the blow” of their conclusions.
They remind readers that men are more likely to do damage in disputes and that women are
more likely to be the victims in physical conflicts.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 87

primary recipients of domestic violence.7 In all but one of the coded works
(97%), male abusers prevent women from leaving by threatening their well-
being and promising further harm if they try to escape. Eighty-five percent of
the readings also cite “society” as constructing obstacles that make it more
difficult for women to leave their abusers. This occurs through the socializa-
tion of men and women into traditional gender roles as well as through the
explicit and tacit condoning of violence and the right of men to hit women by
the larger society. Ninety-one percent of the books and papers cite a “sys-
tem” of failed institutional responses as further trapping battered women
into abusive relationships by not adequately protecting them. Included in
this category are law enforcement, government, the court system, medical
professionals, therapists, shelters, clergy, and other helping professionals.
The everyday realities that hinder all women in a patriarchal society but are
especially difficult for battered women to endure are cited in 88% of the pub-
lished works. These problems include the bearing of responsibility for chil-
dren, and the lack of access to quality employment, transportation, and/or
housing. Finally, 67% of the authors suggest that psychological problems
that include depression, anxiety, low self-esteem, paralysis, overwhelming
fear, brainwashing, and posttraumatic stress disorder further hinder women
from asserting their independence.8
In considering the small number of competing explanations in the sur-
vey that do not fit into the multiple victimization model, one commonality
emerges. Arguments that suggest women have agency or that they at all play
an active role in abusive relationships are exceptional. Snell et al.’s functional
argument serves as the only published argument in my survey to suggest that
women are primarily to blame for violent relationships or that abuse plays
a positive role in marriages. Straus et al.’s (1980) and Steinmetz’s (1977)
recognition of the existence of mutual abuse by both women and men also
remains unique in the literature as all other authors believe men to be the bat-
terers and women the victims (Steinmetz, 1977; Straus et al., 1980).9 Bowker
(1983) and Gondolf (1988) are the only two authors to devote significant at-
tention to the ways women actively try to leave and/or minimize the violence.
Most notably, Baker’s papers grant the greatest amount of agency by sug-
gesting battered women actively choose to remain in abusive relationships
7 Even Straus et al. (1980) who find that both men and women serve as both victims and
perpetrators of violence believe women to be the primary victims of domestic violence. Snell
et al. (1964) also recognize women as the primary targets of domestic violence, even though
they do not consider them victims.
8 Although psychological problems are not cited as frequently as abuser, society, system, or
patriarchy arguments, it is still remarkable that a full two-thirds of the explanations see
women’s psychological states as contributing to the perpetuation of abusive relationships.
9 Even with this recognition, however, Straus et al. (1980) suggest that, despite their findings,
women should still be considered the primary victims of domestic violence.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

88 Rothenberg

in order to establish their independence from a dominant cultural script

(Baker, 1996, 1997). In contrast to the above “outliers,” the vast majority of
explanations maintain that battered women stay in abusive relationships not
of their own volition, but because they are trapped against their own will.

THE SELECTED ARGUMENTS

Academia

In an effort to determine which argument has gained cultural author-

ity as the explanation for why abusive relationships continue, I chose three
social institutions to survey: academia, the media, and the government and
judicial systems. Many of the writers on domestic violence are directly asso-
ciated with universities and those publishing on the subject often consider
academics to be a large part of their target audience. Having the support
of academics gives legitimacy to one’s own argument. For this reason, I
chose academia as a key social institution to survey. To research the aca-
demic world, I relied on the 1996 Social Science Citation Index (SSCI) to
determine which published arguments were most frequently cited by so-
cial scientists. The SSCI provides the researcher with a rough gauge of how
many times a work was cited for general conclusions as to who is and is not
recognized in academia.
There was, in fact, very little middle ground between works that were
frequently cited and works that were rarely cited. In almost every case, a
writing was either cited well over one hundred times or much fewer than
50 times. According to the SSCI, Straus et al.’s (1980) nationwide study is
the most cited work (961 times) on domestic violence through 1996. Given
that this piece represents the first nationwide study of domestic violence, this
is a rather unsurprising finding.10 Lenore Walker’s (1979) book, The Battered
10 Although the SSCI provides no hints as to why a work is cited, my content analysis of other
domestic violence literature suggests that acceptance of Straus et al.’s claims about mutual
abuse does not explain this success. Most other authors reject or ignore their conclusions about
women’s potential for physical violence. Feminists were particularly vocal in their critiques of
Straus et al.’s claims that men and women were equal partners in domestic violence (see, most
notably, Yllo and Bograd, 1988). As a further demonstration of the relative lack of support for
the mutual abuse theory, Steinmetz’s paper that concentrates solely on the issues of mutual
abuse and husband-beating was only cited 14 times (Steinmetz, 1977). My content analysis
suggests it was this book that provided the first nationwide data on domestic violence that
made the book so important to other social scientists. In their introduction, Straus et al. also
note that “this book was written to be understood by the general public. We therefore avoided
technical language and kept the number of footnotes and references to a minimum” (1980:
viii). The authors’ conscious efforts to court the largest audience possible, along with their
presentation of nationwide data on domestic violence made the book particularly conducive
to citation.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 89

Woman, is the second most cited work on domestic violence (530 times).11
Considering that The Battered Woman is not an “official” study with statis-
tics, but is instead heavily devoted to anecdotal evidence, this is no small feat.
Snell et al. (1964) functionalist argument was cited 96 times.12 Gondolf’s sur-
vivor theory was cited only 32 times.13 Although citations do not necessarily
equate to agreement with the authors’ arguments, these findings do suggest
that Straus et al. and Walker—even when controlling for time—are most
recognized by other social scientists as the names to contend with in the field
of domestic violence.

The Media

Having made some initial conclusions as to which knowledge profes-

sionals were most prominent in the social science literature, I then turned to
the media for further indications of cultural success. The complex ways the
media influence our lives have been recognized by many (e.g., Gitlin, 1986;
Manoff and Schudson, 1986; McLuhan and Fiore, 1967; Postman, 1985).
Excepting personal experience, most Americans become familiar with the
issue of domestic violence through their exposure to the media. Recogniz-
ing this, I surveyed two newsmagazines and one newspaper to discover how
domestic violence is depicted in the news, and conducted a content analysis
of 143 papers from Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times. I relied on
all papers from the newsmagazines published between 1965 and 1995 on
the subject of domestic violence for a total of 17 from Time and 14 from
Newsweek. For the New York Times, I took all relevant papers from every
5th year in the 31-year period for a total of 112 papers.
In analyzing the papers, I found that multiple victimization arguments
were the most frequently cited explanations for why abusive relationships
continue. Papers repeatedly referred to the ways in which battered women
are victims of their abusers, society, the system, patriarchy, and psychological
problems. Lenore Walker’s battered woman syndrome was the only theory
to be mentioned by name or by author. Although this does not demonstrate
that these publications universally accept the battered woman syndrome
as the sole or central reason for why abusive relationships continue, it is
11 Other multiple victimization advocates also received great attention, although nowhere as
frequently as Straus et al. (1980) or Walker (1979); Dobash and Dobash (1979) – 365 times;
Gelles (1977) – 356 times; Martin (1976) – 267 times. Walker’s 1984 study was cited 268 times.
12 In my sample, Snell et al.’s paper was almost exclusively cited as an example of what was
wrong with outdated views of domestic violence rather than as a form of support.
13 As noted earlier, Baker’s papers on the resistance of a dominant cultural script had not yet
been published at the time of the research and therefore could not tracked by the SSCI
(Baker, 1996, 1997).
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

90 Rothenberg

important to note that it is the only “packaged,” cited-by-name explanation

mentioned in the coded papers.
In considering which interpretations were not addressed by the media,
a commonality also emerges. Virtually no media papers suggest that women
are to blame for their problems, that they have agency, or that there could
be any acceptable reason for staying. In fact, alternative explanations for why
abusive relationships continue were very infrequently proposed. One Time
paper published in the mid-1960s reports on the findings of Snell et al.’s study
on the masochistic tendencies of battered women and the functional role that
violence serves in certain relationships. No other paper suggests that women
bear any responsibility for their situations. Although 13% of the coded pa-
pers argued that women remain because they love their abusers, this love
is primarily understood as a “false consciousness” or dependence manip-
ulated by batterers. Only one paper, written autobiographically about the
relationship between the writer’s parents, appears to argue that the decision
to stay can be a good one. The writer concludes: “My mother stayed with my
father for many reasons, not all of them noble and none that others would
consider reasonable given the risks we faced.” Nonetheless, both daughter
and mother chose to “love and trust, despite pain and risk” and ended up be-
ing lucky. “My dad came through for us” (Todd, 1995:32). This essay stands
out as the only paper to suggest that loving an abuser and sticking by him
can lead to positive consequences. The fact of its distinctness is a further
indication of the general acceptance of multiple victimization arguments in
Time, Newsweek, and the New York Times.

Legal and Judicial Systems

As a final institution to survey, I turned to the legislative and judicial

systems. The importance of law and its relationship to the rest of society has
received great attention by many scholars (e.g., Friedman, 1994; Garland,
1990; Macaulay et al., 1995). In the case of domestic violence, the connection
between law and battering is particularly strong. Decisions made by the
legislative and judicial systems have direct ramifications for battered women
on trial. Although both academia and the media are important for shaping
public perceptions of the domestic violence issue, the government and the
courts have the most potential to directly change battered women’s lives.
The official recognition of the courts or government also helps to provide
cultural authority to an argument through institutionalization.
A review of court decisions and state statutes on the admissibility of
expert testimony in cases where battered women are on trial demonstrates
that many states have formally accepted testimony on the battered woman
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 91

syndrome in conjunction with self-defense arguments for battered women

who harm their abusers (NCDBW, 1997). Although the battered woman syn-
drome is not in itself an official legal defense, in most states expert testimony
on the subject is admissible in court cases where it is deemed relevant. Ac-
cording to the National Clearinghouse for the Defense of Battered Women
(NCBDW), 614 of the 13 states that had passed legislation by 1997 allowing
expert testimony on battering and its effects explicitly permitted testimony
on the battered woman/spouse syndrome. Eighteen states plus the District
of Columbia had, as of 1997, proposed legislation on the admissibility of
testimony; 1615 of which explicitly refer to the battered woman/spouse syn-
drome.16 By 1997, at least 22 states had formally recognized the battered
woman syndrome in its legislation.17 Through this official recognition, the
battered woman syndrome became the only cited-by-name explanation to
achieve institutional authority in the legislative and judicial systems.18

RESONANCE AND MULTIPLE VICTIMIZATION ARGUMENTS

In understanding how it is that multiple victimization arguments, and

the battered woman syndrome as the prototypical example of such, came to
achieve cultural authority, Schudson’s concept of resonance is particularly
useful (Schudson, 1989). In his discussion of “how culture works,” Schudson
maintains that an argument must resonate by aligning itself with cultural
themes found in the greater social and cultural environment if it is to find
success. Resonance, he argues, is both the relevance and utility of a cultural
object for an audience and is a function not only of the content of a cul-
tural argument but also of its relation to the larger society. An argument
14 California, Maryland, Missouri, Ohio, South Carolina, and Wyoming.
15 California, Colorado, Connecticut, District of Columbia, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana,
Massachusetts, Nebraska, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, West
Virginia, and Wisconsin. In addition, as of 1997, Florida had created a panel to review clemency
decisions after an executive order “recognized that ‘battered woman syndrome’ was a sig-
nificant factor for consideration by the Clemency Board (NCBDW, 1997:24). Arizona and
California had similar legislation passed in regard to clemency that explicitly acknowledged,
in the case of California that “ ‘evidence of battered woman syndrome’ is among the good
cause reasons for commutation of sentence, or pardon” (1997:18).
16 In recent years, however, there appears to be a distancing from Walker’s theory by some
advocates in favor of other multiple victimization arguments (Walker, 1979, 1984). A 1997
report by the federal government best illustrates this new attempt to find other multiple
victimization arguments to explain why abusive relationships continue (see conclusion for
further discussion).
17 In those states that do not have specific legislation formally recognizing the syndrome, expert
testimony is normally permitted on the subject (NCBDW, 1997).
18 This is not to argue that the battered woman syndrome has therefore found great success in
individual courtrooms. Rather, these conclusions simply demonstrate the syndrome’s ability
to achieve institutional authority and retention through legislation regarding court cases.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

92 Rothenberg

must align itself with “existing opinions and structures” while maintaining
the autonomy necessary to distinguish it from others (1989:175). Schudson
concludes that resonance is neither a private relation between a cultural
object and an individual nor a social one between object and audience. It is
instead a public and cultural relation involving object, audience, and cultural
tradition (1989:170).
I argue that multiple victimization arguments have established cultural
authority because of their ability to align themselves with cultural and histor-
ical traditions already in place. The five different categories of victimization
within the arguments—abusers, society, the system, patriarchy, and psycho-
logical problems—all play crucial roles in making the explanation successful.
For this reason, I discuss the cultural resonance of each aspect of the argu-
ment separately, while also considering why competing arguments have not
met with similar kinds of success.
First, in claiming that battered women are to be understood solely as
victims of their abusers, multiple victimization advocates attempt to remove
responsibility from battered women (e.g., Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Martin,
1976; Pagelow, 1981; Walker, 1979, 1984). By emphasizing brutal conditions
(Loseke, 1992; Rothenberg, 2001), such advocates contend that the women’s
safety would be threatened if they tried to leave. These advocates stress the
ways in which abusers’ actions victimize women, leaving them incapable of
provocation and unworthy of blame. To suggest that women in any way play
a part in their abuse, they maintain, would be “victim blaming.”
There has been a shift in the media, political debates, and other public
forums over the last 25 years away from victim blaming toward a greater
sympathy for the experiences of victims (e.g., Griffin, 1979; Rose, 1977;
Ryan, 1971). Although some argue that this has led to a cult of victimhood
(Kaminer, 1992; Roiphe, 1994; Sykes, 1992), this transition has primarily
resulted in a greater acceptance in public discourse of stories of personal
suffering in relation to larger social problems (e.g., rape, drug/alcohol abuse,
child abuse, sexual abuse, sexual harassment) (Beckett, 1996; Gordon, 1988;
Rice, 1996; Rose, 1977; Tierney, 1982). This cultural transformation allows
multiple victimization advocates to fit their claims about the victimizing ex-
periences of battered women into a larger social argument about victimhood.
In contrast, those explanations which suggest that women bear responsibility
or play a role in their abuse (e.g., Snell et al., 1964; Steinmetz, 1977; Straus
et al., 1980) have come under sharp criticism and have often been held up
as examples of archaic or outright wrong thinking (e.g., Walker, 1984; Yllo
and Bograd, 1988).
Second, in depicting abused women as victims of “society,” battered
women’s advocates attempt to align their discourse with arguments that are
critical of the repressive nature of society and instead advocate the primacy
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 93

of the individual. Those who subscribe to such criticisms argue that societal
forces socialize individuals in ways that are detrimental to their self-interests,
a discourse, as Rice (1996) argues, that is commonly found in psychotherapy
and has been embraced by many Baby Boomers. Some feminists have also
used such language to denounce the ways in which a patriarchal system ne-
glects the needs of women (e.g., Bordo, 1993; Faludi, 1991; MacKinnon,
1989; Tavris, 1993). The claims of multiple victimization advocates (e.g.,
Dobash and Dobash, 1979; Gondolf, 1988; NiCarthy, 1982; Pagelow, 1981;
Walker, 1979 and 1984) about the negative effects of society on the battered
woman are just one example of the many larger public debates about the
importance of the individual in modern American society (Bellah et al.,
1985; Luker, 1984). Alternative arguments that suggest that battered women
should remain with their abusers for the sake of the marriage or family are no
longer made and instead the sole instance of such a claim (Snell et al., 1964)
has been sharply critiqued (Martin, 1976; Pagelow, 1981; Walker, 1979, 1984).
Individual interests thus come to eclipse social obligations as deserving
primacy.
Third, criticisms of the “system” for both discrimination and ineffec-
tiveness have also been on the rise in public discourse within the last three
decades. These forms of social critique recognize how societal institutions fail
those with little power—particularly minorities (Hawkins, 1986; Matsuda,
1993), the poor (Feeley, 1978; Reiman, 1990), and women and children
(Furstenberg and Cherlin, 1991; Sidel, 1986; Smart, 1989; Weitzman and
Dixon, 1994). In this context, the failure of various institutions—particularly
law enforcement agencies, the criminal justice system, government, and the
medical professions—to respond to the needs of battered women and pro-
vide necessary support fits well into a larger network of complaints about
how the system fails those in relatively powerless positions. Alternative ex-
planations that would suggest, for example, that women simply do not take
advantage of the institutional supports available to them are rare. The clos-
est such example is Baker’s argument that women actively resist a dominant
cultural script that encourages them to leave their abusive partners and make
use of available supports (Baker, 1996, 1997). Such an argument is unlikely
to find resonance in a climate in which the failure of helping institutions to
aid those in need are so frequently cited.
Fourth, complaints about the lower status of women in American so-
ciety align with feminists’ concerns for women in general. Feminists have
continuously recognized how such issues as gender gaps in pay, the bearing
of responsibility for child care, and the lack of education and/or job skills for
obtaining employment disadvantage all women (Chodorow, 1978; Coontz,
1991; Hays, 1996; Hochschild, 1989; Polakow, 1993; Sidel, 1986). But mul-
tiple victimization advocates realize that they cannot establish a monopoly
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

94 Rothenberg

on these everyday realities so long as they are the problems of all women.
Explanations that overtly align with feminist arguments are likely to find
only marginal success as the power of feminist discourse has waned since
the late 1970s (Faludi, 1991; Fraser, 1997). Multiple victimization arguments
thus go beyond general feminist criticisms and argue that battered women’s
problems are far worse than those of women in general (e.g., Glass, 1995;
Martin, 1976; Okun, 1986; Pagelow, 1981; Walker, 1979, 1984). Advocates
stress the extreme isolation of battered women and contend that the beat-
ings battered women receive make the experiences of patriarchy especially
difficult to handle.
Such claims are able to align with discourses that are sympathetic to
feminist claims. But, by emphasizing the extreme negative conditions bat-
tered women experience, multiple victimization advocates are also able to
fit their claims into larger cultural arguments about victimization rather than
about patriarchy. And, by proposing solutions that focus less on abolishing
patriarchy and instead encourage establishing greater institutional supports,
multiple victimization advocates are less likely to be dismissed as “merely”
feminists with an agenda (Rothenberg, under review). Snell et al.’s paper is
the only work that suggests women are not disadvantaged by their position
in society and, according to my data, has found virtually no resonance in
American public discourse today (Snell et al., 1964).
Finally, many multiple victimization advocates suggest that the inter-
nalization of such experiences and the consequent psychological problems
that develop are what ultimately trap women in abusive relationships (e.g.,
Browne, 1987; Graham et al., 1988; NiCarthy, 1982; Walker, 1979, 1984). They
conclude that the immediate solution to stopping the problem is individual
therapy that enables a woman to leave her abuser. Although these advocates
also argue that larger social issues need to be addressed, they suggest that
immediate action should be carried out at the individual level. A solution
is thus provided that recognizes the harm done by social institutions, but
nonetheless concentrates on action at the more “doable” individual level
(Rothenberg, submitted).
Numerous other social problems have also come to be understood on
the individual level. Gusfield argues that the problem of drinking and driv-
ing has taken on an “intensively individualistic character” in which drinkers
and not institutions are to blame for auto accidents (1981:7). Best’s analysis
of missing children also concludes that American society prefers “to blame
social problems on flawed, deviant individuals, while paying little attention
to the complex workings of the social system” (1990:180). In regard to the
issue of child abuse, Nelson (1984) echoes Gusfield’s and Best’s findings on
the American conception of social problems. This conception is of an “indi-
vidually rooted [problem] described as an illness, and solvable by occasional
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 95

doses of therapeutic conversation” (1984:2). In the case of domestic violence,

alternative arguments that cite larger problems like, for example, the exis-
tence of patriarchy or a flawed legal system (e.g., Baker, 1996, 1997; Gondolf,
1988) are less likely to find the resonance that individualized explanations
will. It is here we best see how proposals for radical change have little chance
for resonance. Systemic differences in power are relegated to a lower prior-
ity as explanations that cite battered women’s psychological problems as the
issue most urgently in need of attention are elevated.19
Multiple victimization explanations have thus achieved resonance by
aligning each aspect of the argument with larger cultural themes. Explana-
tions that present battered women first and foremost as victims who are not
responsible for their situations fit well into a relatively new public discourse
that is more sympathetic to the experiences of victims. Those arguments that
are critical of an overly repressive society which in turn hinders the sacred
nature of the individual align themselves with larger themes of individual-
ism within modern American society. Further, those who are also critical of
institutions for ineffectiveness or negligence resonate with a larger discourse
that recognizes the failings of societal institutions. Arguments that cite patri-
archy and the ways in which women are ultimately disadvantaged align with
(waning) feminist arguments. Finally, in a society where both individualism
and psychotherapy have been incorporated into the larger culture and are
enjoying unprecedented success, psychological and individualized explana-
tions for social problems are likely to find resonance. Such arguments fault
larger societal issues but suggest solutions on an individual level, thereby
providing micro level answers that require less effort to solve. For these
reasons, I argue, multiple victimization arguments best align themselves
with larger cultural themes and are most likely to resonate with the greater
society.

THE SUCCESS OF BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME

As noted earlier, it is the battered woman syndrome, as a multiple vic-

timization argument, that has gained the greatest cultural authority. The
question remains then as to why it was the battered woman syndrome and
not another form of multiple victimization argument that has acquired such
legitimacy. In understanding how this explanation for why abusive relation-
ships continue has achieved success, Schudson’s model of how culture works
19 Elsewhere (Rothenberg, submitted), I address how the acceptance of the battered woman’s
syndrome can be understood as the product of a cultural compromise between feminists
and the larger society. The battered woman syndrome, I argue, acknowledges the systemic
problems of gender inequality while simultaneously proposing relatively nonradical solutions
in order to court wider public acceptance for battered women’s problems.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

96 Rothenberg

is once again helpful (Schudson, 1989). In addition to resonance, Schudson

outlines the following components as necessary for establishing cultural au-
thority: retrievability, rhetorical force, institutional retention, and resolution.
According to his model, retrievability is the need to make an argument ac-
cessible to the public if it is to be accepted. Rhetorical force is the attractive
“packaging” that makes an argument both memorable and powerful to its
audience. Resolution is a directive for action that makes clear what needs
to be done given the particular understanding of the social phenomenon.
Finally, Schudson notes the importance of institutional retention in which
an argument is legitimized through its incorporation into a social institution.
I rely on these four dimensions, in addition to resonance, as a means for un-
derstanding how it is that the battered woman syndrome has gained cultural
authority.
Similar to other multiple victimization arguments, Walker’s explanation
finds strong cultural resonance. Walker stresses the ways that abusers, society,
the system, and patriarchy contribute to this victimization. She claims that
it is through the internalization of these experiences that battered women
“learn helplessness” and ultimately become psychologically paralyzed. The
battered woman syndrome, as a multiple victimization argument, resonates
in similar ways to other such arguments.
In order for a cultural argument to resonate, however, it must first be
retrievable, or culturally available, to a wide audience. Walker has been
particularly good at marketing her argument to diverse audiences, thereby
making her name prominent in a wide variety of fields.20 Her 1979 book, The
Battered Woman, in which she puts forth her hypothesis about the battered
woman syndrome, is filled with anecdotal evidence of battered women’s
experiences, making it her most readable—and most cited—work. Her 1984
book, The Battered Woman Syndrome, is based on empirical research that
establishes the “scientific validity” of her work and is primarily directed
toward other psychologists and social scientists. Her book on Terrifying Love
(1989) discusses her experiences as a legal expert witness for battered women
on trial and lends advice to those aiding in the defense of abused women.
Walker has also been a very prominent figure in the media, often serving as
a spokesperson for the battered women’s movement, commentating on the
state of battered women’s conditions for news organizations. By appealing
to such wide and diverse audiences Walker has best maximized her potential
audiences and made her argument retrievable in the manner required for
cultural success.
20 Theways that individual knowledge professionals advocate for their own interpretations of
a particular issue can strongly influence the reception of the audience to their argument (see
Lamont, 1987, and McLaughlin, 1998, for examples of how individual scholars do and do not
make their theories memorable).
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 97

The battered woman syndrome also has an advantage that arguably no

other multiple victimization argument can claim—its name. By terming her
argument a “syndrome,” Walker was able to package her argument more
effectively than others and achieve the rhetorical force Schudson (1989)
describes as necessary for success. Her argument is composed of two other
well-packaged terms: “learned helplessness” and the “(Walker) cycle theory
of violence.”21 Walker has created boundaries that serve as “symbolic mark-
ers” (Wuthnow, 1987) that draw attention through terminology to her claims
and allow audiences to distinguish the battered woman syndrome’s platform
from its competitors. The argument is therefore memorable by both its name
and its components.
The term “syndrome” also medicalizes, or sounds as though it medical-
izes, the issue of domestic violence, thus providing a legitimacy that other
arguments do not have. Conrad and Schneider have noted how certain kinds
of deviant behavior has been defined and labeled “a medical problem, usu-
ally an illness, [that] mandat[es] the medical profession to provide some type
of treatment for it” (1985:29). In the case of domestic violence, the otherwise
deviant behavior of remaining in an abusive relationship is termed a “syn-
drome.” In a society where the medicalization of deviant behavior has been
on the rise (Conrad and Schneider, 1985), reliance on medical terminology
can provide added legitimacy to an argument.
As a proponent of individual therapy for battered women as a means
to enable them to leave, Walker also provides a resolution, or solution, for
the difficult problem of domestic violence. Walker clearly recognizes larger
societal issues as playing a crucial role in the perpetuation of domestic vi-
olence but she also makes clear that a logical first step involves providing
psychological counseling to battered women. In this way, she offers a direc-
tive for action that is far more manageable than, for example, the overhaul of
a patriarchal society or even of law enforcement and the court systems. Such
a proposal allows for an acknowledgment of problems with gender relation-
ships in modern American society without requiring radical changes of the
power structure. Although other multiple victimization advocates endorse
individual therapy as a means of initially dealing with the problem of domes-
tic violence (e.g. Graham et al., 1988; NiCarthy, 1982), none of these authors
were able to combine such arguments with the other necessary components
Schudson (1989) outlines for establishing cultural authority.
A final aspect of the battered woman syndrome makes it more prac-
tical than many of the other explanations: its compatibility with defense
arguments in criminal trials that has made institutional retention possible.
21 By1984, Walker had begun referring to her “cycle theory of violence” as the “Walker cycle
theory of violence,” presumably as a means of further claiming ownership of her cultural
argument.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

98 Rothenberg

Psychological arguments individualize deviancy and provide an explanation

for why a particular individual is not to be blamed for a deviant act. In courts
of law, individualized explanations are required to explain why a particular
defendant committed a particular crime. Other explanations, such as socio-
logical ones that speak to generalized trends, are not specific or applicable to
a particular individual and are rendered virtually useless. Walker’s battered
woman syndrome serves a practical function in criminal cases by individualiz-
ing the problem and, through its terminology, medicalizing and pathologizing
the deviance as well. These practicalities make Walker’s argument particu-
larly amenable to incorporation into both the legislative and judicial systems.
By achieving this combination of retrievability, rhetorical force, resonance,
and resolution, Walker’s explanation was a particularly strong candidate for
institutional retention. And it is this institutional retention that has perhaps
best established the legitimacy of her argument. Together, these factors have
allowed the battered woman syndrome to establish cultural authority in the
1990s.

CHANGING CULTURE

I began my discussion of domestic violence by citing a variety of ways to

understand the issue of why abusive relationships continue. These compet-
ing explanations continue to serve as evidence that it is never a “given” as to
why a certain explanation gains cultural authority while others are deemed
at best improbable and at worst ludicrous. Michael Schudson’s (1989) the-
ory of how culture works provides one such means for understanding why
one cultural argument is able to establish authority while others are not.
Multiple victimization arguments that emphasize how battered women are
victims of their abusers, society, the “system,” patriarchy, and psychological
problems align with larger cultural themes and resonate in a particularly
powerful manner. The battered woman syndrome is the explanation that
best manages to combine the retrievability, rhetorical force, resolution, and
institutional retention necessary for establishing cultural authority.
Time and social life, however, do not stand still when it comes to issues of
cultural authority. Cultural traditions and social relationships change and, as
they do, the conditions that make the resonance of an argument possible also
shift. Other competing explanations that previously seemed less plausible
come to be seen as more probable; new interpretations arise that also come to
rival older understandings of a social phenomenon. In other words, gaining
cultural authority does not guarantee the ability to maintain that authority:
things change.
The fact that the battered woman syndrome was able to establish itself
as the most prominent explanation for why abusive relationship continue in
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome 99

the 1990s does not ensure its success for future decades. Indeed, there have
already been a few signs that the battered woman syndrome is losing some of
its authority. A 1997 federal report that was intended to detail the acceptance
of the syndrome in legal settings concludes that the syndrome is “no longer
useful or appropriate” (Campbell, 1996:xii). The report criticizes Walker’s
theory for insufficient empirical support, over pathologizing women’s expe-
riences, and overemphasizing women’s passivity. Although advocates and
social scientists, by the nature of their professions, often critique the works
of others (especially the most prominent names), Walker’s syndrome has
been the subject of significant criticism over the years (e.g., Douglas, 1987;
Dutton, 1993, 1996; Faigman, 1986; Ferraro, 1998; Gelles, 1987; Gondolf,
1988; Schuller and Vidmar, 1992). Battered women’s advocates, especially
multiple victimization advocates, are increasingly voicing concerns about the
validity of Walker’s claims.22 Advocates have come to argue for the terminol-
ogy of “battering and its effects” instead of using “syndrome” language and
emphasizing women’s passivity. Although this new understanding tends to
recognize women’s active attempts to avoid abuse, the argument is still a mul-
tiple victimization argument in that women continue to be seen as victims of
their abusers, society, the system, and psychological problems. But this turn
away from the battered woman syndrome suggests that Walker’s theory may
not be able to maintain the authority it has enjoyed before in years to come.
Despite these critiques, it would be premature to discount the battered
woman syndrome. Walker’s argument still is able to resonate with larger cul-
tural patterns and its retrievability, rhetorical force, and resolution have not
been lost. Most importantly, it still has institutional retention. Despite the
1997 federal report that moved away from the syndrome terminology, many
states still recognize the battered woman syndrome by name as a legitimate
argument admissible in courtrooms. Those arguments that are best in the po-
sition to vie for cultural authority are also multiple victimization arguments
that recognize the ways that innocent women are trapped in abusive rela-
tionships. Beginning with the federal report, some of those arguments have
begun the process of gaining institutional retention. But without the rhetor-
ical force that the battered woman syndrome has through its medicalizing
and individualizing of the issue—both of which make it especially conducive
to use in the courtrooms—it remains to be seen whether they can achieve the
same level of cultural authority. The syndrome may be facing criticism that
could ultimately topple its power but, for now, it is still the most recognized,
cited-by-name explanation for why abusive relationships continue.
22 These criticisms have gained greater momentum since Walker worked for the defense team
in the O. J. Simpson trial. This instance serves as a particularly strong example of how a
knowledge professional can not only make shrewd political moves that bring greater cultural
success, but also strategic missteps that take authority away from her claims.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002 16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

100 Rothenberg

This case study serves as an example of how a cultural argument can

gain cultural authority over competing arguments. Even “valence issues”
(Nelson, 1984) that are not typically though of as contested issues can be
subject to numerous interpretations. No matter how straightforward and
matter of fact a cultural argument may seem, other less probable interpre-
tations are possible for explaining the same issue. By examining those avail-
able arguments that do not find cultural resonance or authority, we come to
understand why certain arguments do gain authority. The strengths of one
claim only become apparent by examining the weaknesses of others. Further
research in this area thus requires an acute awareness of what is overlooked
as a means of understanding what is taken for granted.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I thank Sharon Hays, Karin Peterson, Erin Calhoun Davis, John

Steadman Rice, Michèle Lamont, Craig Calhoun, Neil McLaughlin, Richard
Hall, and the anonymous reviewers for their comments and advice through-
out the evolution of this paper.

REFERENCES

Baker, Phyllis L. Bordo, Susan

1996 “Doing what it takes to survive: Bat-
tered women and the consequences of
compliance to a cultural script.” Stud-
ies in Symbolic Interaction 20:73–90.
1997 “And I went back: Battered women’s
negotiation of choice.” Journal of Con-
temporary Ethnography 26:55–74.
Beckett, Katherine
1996 “Culture and the politics of significa-
tion: The case of child sexual abuse.”
Social Problems 43:57–76.
Bellah, Robert N., Richard Madsen, William
M. Sullivan, Ann Swidler, and Steven M.
Tipton
1985 Habits of the Heart: Individualism and
Commitment in American Life. New
York: Harper and Row.
Berger, Bennett
1995 An Essay on Culture: 14–55. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Best, Joel
1990 Threatened Children: Rhetoric
and Concern About Child-Victims.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
1993 Unbearable Weight: Feminism, West-
ern Culture, and the Body. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Bowker, Lee H.
1983 Beating Wife-Beating. Lexington,
MA: Lexington Books.
Browne, Angela
1987 When Battered Women Kill. New
York: The Free Press.
Campbell, Bonnie J.
1996 “The validity and use of evidence con-
cerning battering and its effects in
criminal trials.” National Institute of
Justice Research Report.
Chodorow, Nancy
1978 The Reproduction of Mothering:
Psychoanalysis and the Sociology
of Gender. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
Christie, Nils
1986 “The ideal victim.” In Ezzat A. Fattah
(ed.), Crime Policy to Victim Policy:
Reorienting the Justice System: 17–29.
New York: St. Martins Press.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002
The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome
Conrad, Peter, and Joseph W. Schneider
1985 Deviance and Medicalization: From
Badness to Sickness. Columbus:
Merill.
Coontz, Stephanie
1991 The Way We Never Were: American
Families and the Nostalgia Trap. New
York: Basic Books.
Dobash, R. Emerson, and Russell Dobash
1979 Violence Against Wives: A Case
Against Patriarchy. New York: The
Free Press.
Faludi, Susan
1991 Backlash: The Undeclared War
Against Women. New York: Crown.
Feeley, Malcolm
1978 The Process is the Punishment. New
York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Ferraro, Kathleen J.
1998 “Battered women: Strategies for sur-
vival.” In Andrew J. Cherlin (ed.), Pub-
lic and Private Families: A Reader:
243–256. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Fraser, Nancy
1997 Justice Interruptus: Critical Reflec-
tions on the “Postsocialist” Condition.
New York: Routledge.
Friedman, Lawrence M.
1994 Total Justice. New York: Russell Sage
Foundation.
Furstenberg, Frank F., Jr., and Andrew J.
Cherlin
1991 “Divorce, the law, and public policy.”
Divided Families: 96–119. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Garland, David.
1990 Punishment and Modern Society: A
Study in Social Theory. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Gelles, Richard J.
1977 “No place to go: The social dynamics of
marital violence.” In Maria Roy (ed.),
Battered Women: A Psychosociologi-
cal Study of Domestic Violence: 44–62.
New York: Van Reinhold.
1987 “Abused wives: Why do they stay?”
In Family Violence: 108–125. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Gitlin, Todd (ed.)
1986 Watching Television. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Glass, Dee Dee
1995 “All My Fault.” In Why Women Don’t
Leave Abusive Men. London: Virago
Press.
16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
101
Gondolf, Edward W. (with Ellen R. Fisher)
1988 Battered Women as Survivors: An
Alternative to Learned Helplessness.
Massachusetts: Lexington Books.
Gordon, Linda
1988 Heroes of Their Own Lives: The Pol-
itics and History of Family Violence.
New York: Penguin.
Graham, Dee L. R., Edna Rawlings,
and Nelly Rimini
1988 “Survivors of terror: Battered women,
hostages and the Stockholm Syn-
drome.” In Kersti Yllo and Michele
Bograd (eds.), Feminist Perspectives
on Wife Abuse: 217–233. Newbury
Park, CA: Sage.
Griffin, Susan
1979 Rape: The Power of Consciousness.
New York: Harper & Row.
Gusfield, Joseph
1981 The Culture of Public Problems.
Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
Hawkins, Darnell F.
1986 “Black and white homicide differen-
tials: Alternatives to an inadequate
theory.” In Darnell Hawkins (ed.),
Homicide Among Black Americans.
New York: University Press of
America.
Hays, Sharon
1996 The Cultural Contradictions of Moth-
erhood. New Haven: Yale University
Press.
Hochschild, Arlie (with Anne Machung)
1989 The Second Shift. New York: Avon
Books.
Kaminer, Wendy
1992 I’m Dysfunctional, You’re Dysfunc-
tional: The Recovery Movement and
Other Self-Help Fashions. Reading,
MA: Addison-Wesley.
Lamont, Michele
1987 “How to become a dominant French
philosopher: The case of Jacques
Derrida.” American Journal of Sociol-
ogy 93:584–622.
Loseke, Donileen R.
1992 The Battered Woman and Shelters.
New York: State University of New
York Press.
Luker, Kristin
1984 Abortion and the Politics of Moth-
erhood. Berkeley: University of
California Press.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002
102
Lukes, Steven
1974 Power: A Radical View. London:
Macmillan Press.
Macaulay, Stewart, Lawrence Friedman, and
John Stookey (eds.)
1995 Law and Society: Readings on the So-
cial Study of Law. New York: W.W.
Norton and Co.
MacKinnon, Catharine A.
1989 Toward a Feminist Theory of the State.
Cambridge: Harvard University Press.
Manoff, Robert Karl, and Michael Schudson
(eds.)
1986 Reading the News. New York:
Pantheon Books.
Martin, Del
1976 Battered Wives: 72–86. California:
Volcano Press.
Matsuda, Mari, Charles R. Lawrence III,
Richard Delgado, and Kimberle Williams
Crenshaw
1993 Words that Wound: Critical Race
Theory, Assaultive Speech, and the
First Amendment. Boulder: Westview
Press.
McLaughlin, Neil
1998 “How to become a forgotten intellec-
tual: Intellectual movements and the
rise and fall of Erich Fromm.” Socio-
logical Forum 13:215–246.
McLuhan, Marshall, and Quentin Fiore
1967 The Medium is the Message. New
York: Bantam Books.
National Clearinghouse for the Defense of
Battered Women
1997 Legislative update. Philadelphia.
Nelson, Barbara J.
1984 Making an Issue of Child Abuse.
Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press.
NiCarthy, Ginny
1982 Getting Free: A Handbook for Women
in Abusive Relationships. United
States: The Seal Press.
Okun, Lewis
1986 Woman Abuse: Facts Replacing
Myths. New York: State University
of New York.
Pagelow, Mildred Daley
1981 Woman Battering: Victims and Their
Experiences. California: Sage.
Polakow, Valerie
1993 Lives on the Edge: Single Mothers and
their Children in the Other America.
Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
Rothenberg
Postman, Neil.
1985 Amusing Ourselves to Death. New
York: Penguin Books.
Reiman, Jeffrey H.
1990 The Rich Get Richer and the Poor Get
Prison. New York: Macmillan.
Rice, John Steadman
1996 A Disease of One’s Own: Psychother-
apy, Addiction, and the Emergence of
Co-Dependency. New Brunswick, NJ:
Transaction.
Rose, Vicki McNickle
1977 “Rape as a social problem: A byprod-
uct of the feminist movement.” Social
Problems 25:75–89.
Rothenberg, Bess
Submitted “We don’t have time for so-
cial change: Cultural compro-
mise and the battered woman
syndrome.”
2001 “Movement advocates as battered
women’s story-tellers: From var-
ied experiences, one message.” In
Joseph E. Davis (ed.), Stories of
Change: Narrative and Transforma-
tive Movements. New York: SUNY
Press.
Ryan, William
1971 Blaming the Victim. New York:
Vintage Books.
Schudson, Michael
1989 “How culture works: Perspectives
from media studies on the efficacy of
symbols.” Theory and Society 18:153–
180.
Sidel, Ruth
1986 Women and Children Last: The Plight
of Porr Women in Affluent America.
New York: Viking Press.
Smart, Carol
1989 Feminism and the Power of Law.
London: Routledge.
Snell, John E., Richard J. Rosenwald, and
Ames Robey
1964 “The wifebeater’s wife: A study of fam-
ily interaction.” Archives of General
Psychiatry 11:107–12.
Steinmetz, Suzanne K.
1977 “Wifebeating, husbandbeating—a
comparison of the use of physical vi-
olence between spouses to resolve
marital fights.” In Maria Roy (ed.),
Battered Women: A Psychosociologi-
cal Study of Domestic Violence: 63–96.
New York: Reinhold.
P1: GVM/GDX
Sociological Forum [sofo] PP393-sofo-368155 February 13, 2002
The Success of the Battered Woman Syndrome
Straus, Murray A., Richard J. Gelles, and
Suzanne K. Steinmetz
1980 “The marriage license as a hitting li-
cense.” In Behind Closed Doors: Vio-
lence in the American Family: 31–50.
New York: Anchor Books.
Sykes, Charles J.
1992 A Nation of Victims: The Decay of
the American Character. New York:
St. Martin’s Press.
Tavris, Carol
1993 The Mismeasure of Woman. New
York: Simon and Schuster.
Tierney, Kathleen J.
1982 “The battered women movement and
the creation of the wife beating prob-
lem.” Social Problems 29:207–219.
Todd, Andrea
1995 “When he was good.” New York Times
Magazine. May 21:32.
16:1 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999
103
Walker, Lenore
1979 The Battered Woman. New York:
Harper & Row.
1984 The Battered Woman Syndrome.
New York: Springer.
1989 Terrifying Love: Why Battered Wo-
men Kill and How Society Responds.
New York: Harper & Row.
Weitzman, Lenore J., and Ruth B. Dixon
1994 “The transformation of marriage
through no-fault divorce.” In Arlene
S. Skolnick and Jerome H. Skolnick
(eds.), Family in Transition, 8th edn.:
216–229. New York: Harper Collins.
Wuthnow, Robert
1987 Meaning and Moral Order. Berkeley:
University of California Press.
Yllo, Kersti, and Michele Bograd (eds.)
1988 Feminist Perspectives on Wife Abuse.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Copyright of Sociological Forum is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or
emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission.
However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.