Post- abuse

Introduction

Recent Swedish studies indicate that the issue of men’s violence against women is extensive, and most women resort to multiple avenues of help in order to end the violence (Ekström, 2016). Women and children subjected to violence therefore often encounter several sectors of social work, such as child investigations, economic assistance, therapeutic services, and family law.

In my work as a practitioner with women and children exposed to violence, the violence occurring after separation is often a significant component. I, like Kjellberg (2023), have chosen to here designate this as “(post-)violence.” From my experience, there appears to be a lack of knowledge both about what (post-)violence actually is, general gaps in understanding violence, and—especially—deficiencies in the institutions that interact with these women and children. (Post-)violence continues over a long period after separation and within the framework of social work, which leads to considerable suffering for the women and children I encounter.

Purpose

The aim of this thesis assignment is, in an accessible manner, to describe what (post-)violence is, to examine the literature and theoretical explanatory models about why (post-)violence can occur within the field of social work, and to explore what consequences it has for women and children.

Research Questions

• What is (post-)violence?

• What does the literature and existing theoretical explanatory models say about the occurrence of (post-)violence within the realm of social work?

• What consequences does (post-)violence have for women?

What Is (Post-)Violence?

(Post-)violence appears to be a relatively new term in the Swedish context. In her dissertation, Kjellberg (2023) highlights two principal patterns of violence: intimate terrorism and situational partner violence.

Situational partner violence, as described by Kjellberg, is a form of violence that consists of isolated incidents. In this pattern, violence may be perpetrated by either a man or a woman, and no systematic control is present. The violence arises in conflict situations.

Intimate terrorism, also called coercive control, is described as another violence pattern in which the perpetrator is more often a man and the victim is a woman. Intimate terrorism is usually considered the most severe form of violence, as it inflicts the greatest psychological and physical harm on the victim. It differs from other types of partner violence in that it involves systematic exercise of power and control—through economic abuse, isolation, psychological and material violence.

Intimate terrorism does not always manifest as severe physical violence; often it takes the form of a pattern of lesser but degrading acts—threat, isolation, humiliation, control. It is precisely this type of violence that frequently persists post-separation, distinguishing it from situational violence (Kjellberg, 2023).

In other words, (post-)violence is, according to prevailing theory, a specific type of violence most often perpetrated by men with the aim of maintaining power and control over the woman. Perpetrators utilize economic abuse, isolation, psychological and material violence. (Post-)violence is especially evident when children are shared, as the perpetrator may manipulate the children or state systems to retain control over the life space of the survivor (Kjellberg, 2023).

What emerges from Kjellberg’s (2023) dissertation is that women in her study spoke of violence worsening around the time of separation. Violence associated with separation was characterised by escalation of all forms of violence. Acts that are criminal under the law reportedly increased in that period. If there was already physical or sexual violence, it increased; if none had occurred previously, such violence could arise when the woman expressed a desire to separate.

The women in Kjellberg’s (2023) study recounted how men “punished” them in various ways. The women described diverse forms of violence including economic and material abuse. For instance, men might refuse to move out of the shared home, forcing women to relocate or flee. Men might retain or appropriate the majority of material assets. They might misuse child support to continue controlling the woman. They might delay or complicate the property division process until the woman gives up everything to escape the psychological violence. There was also violence in the form of isolation, defamation, or degradation. Men would reach out to the woman’s network to label her mentally ill, unstable, or a poor partner/parent. Such forms of abuse could continue long after separation.

Moreover, men exploited authorities to perpetuate psychological violence and reduce the life space of the women. They used legal measures around custody, filed reports to social services concerning parenting capacity, and thereby continued to accuse and smear the women. Because the women were obligated to partake in such investigations, psychological abuse persisted (Kjellberg, 2023).

Men also employed children to continue harming the women. They could favour one child and pit siblings against one another. Children were punished if they did not comply or behave as expected. Men undermined the women’s parenting by instructing children not to listen to their mothers or by insulting them in front of the children. Men could even use children to spy on the women—asking them to record videos at home or interrogating them about the mother’s life.

The period following separation was described by the women as dominated by resistance to violence rather than liberation—a struggle to protect themselves and their children from post-violence. Many women felt they would never be free from violence.

What Do the Literature and Theoretical Explanatory Models Say About (Post-)Violence in Social Work?

The literature offers various explanations. One useful perspective is the historical shift in how violence in close relationships is conceptualised. Since the 1970s, what was once understood as a private, individual issue has come to be seen as a political and social phenomenon requiring structural change. The women’s movement—especially during the 1970s and 1980s—played a vital role in foregrounding the gendered power perspective, challenging earlier psychological explanations of violence.

Within the gender power perspective, violence is emphasised as an expression of power and control, rather than a failure of impulse control or individual fragility. It argues that violence reproduces structural inequality between genders.

During the 1980s and 1990s, the gender power perspective was integrated into UN declarations and Swedish legislation, prompting reforms that supported equality and protection for women exposed to violence. In the 1990s, the state began to absorb the work formerly conducted by voluntary organisations such as women’s shelters (Ekström, 2016).

In recent years, more gender-neutral perspectives on intimate violence have challenged the power perspective, particularly within social work and policy making. This shift has increased focus on conflict and relational dynamics rather than power and control. The concept “men’s violence against women” gradually gives way to “intimate partner violence,” which allows for recognition of broader forms of violence and more vulnerable groups. Yet, this shift also risks obscuring men’s violence against women and thereby undermining interventions against it (Kjellberg, 2023; Ekström, 2016). According to Ekström (2016), such gender-neutral descriptions can lead to men’s power and women’s subordination being marginalized.

These explanations are confirmed by the Swedish Gender Equality Agency’s report Uppgifter om våld är inget undantag (2022:1), which documents that courts differ in the extent to which they highlight violence in cases involving custody, residence, or visitation. Although reports of violence may be recorded in investigations, they are not always reflected in judicial outcomes. Courts tend to focus more on ‘cooperation difficulties’ than on the gravity and consequences of the violence during risk assessments and decisions. This leads to violence being diminished or rendered invisible, and children’s rights to protection from violence often being overshadowed by the principle of contact with both parents. The legislative intent to protect those exposed to violence is not always effectively implemented in judicial practice. Investigations into domestic homicides by the Swedish National Board of Health and Welfare reveal gaps in the social safety net for women murdered by intimate partners, suggesting that societal responses to violence often fall far short of addressing the problem sufficiently.

Beyond shifts in perspective on violence and the state’s increased role, professionals engaged in support for partner violence–exposed women operate in a field characterized by divergent understandings of violence and institutional cultures. The practices of the organisation in which one works influence how violence is perceived and addressed (Kjellberg, 2023).

Marianne Hester’s (2011) three-planet model illustrates this: she frames the approaches of different authorities and organisations—each with distinct histories, mandates, legislation, methods, and professional cultures—as separate “planets.” Each planet addresses the problem from its own perspective.

The first planet emphasises protection and legal intervention for survivors, regarding violence as a gender equality issue (e.g. police and women’s shelters). The second planet focuses on the child’s welfare, expecting the mother to shield the child, e.g. child protection services. Such interventions may be experienced as negative by survivors, which can lead them to avoid social services (Hester, 2011; Ekström, 2016). The third planet comprises family law entities and courts in custody disputes, where violence may be overlooked in favour of contact with both parents; the focus here is civil law rather than criminal law (Hester, 2011).

Ekström (2016) further suggests that challenges in social services extend beyond differing perspectives: economic security is often pivotal for women attempting to leave perpetrators. The administration of social assistance, frequently governed by conditionalities and disciplinary logic, may limit the support available to survivors. These constraints can produce dramatic consequences, placing women at risk of losing the economic support they require.

Hester (2011) argues that conflicting operational approaches across the planets may generate institutional tension, requiring integration and cooperation to effectively combat violence against women and children.

A lack of shared understanding of violence, rigid guidelines, and time constraints are additional factors social workers cite as obstacles to coordination between child protection and welfare assistance services. Some social workers even suggest that the cooperation issues stem from differing conceptualizations of how to support survivors, rather than from structural barriers. Moreover, social workers describe strategies to get women to “fit” available interventions rather than adapting interventions to women’s individual needs (Ekström, 2016). Among those interviewed, nearly all emphasised that understanding violence and its varied manifestations is crucial for effective cooperation.

Consequences of Violence and (Post-)Violence

What then are the consequences of violence and post-separation violence for women? Violence has substantial consequences for women’s health, both physical and psychological—especially in intimate relationships. A significant proportion of those exposed to partner violence report trauma symptoms for long periods, even after distancing themselves from the perpetrator.

Not only overt physical or sexual violence can result in persistent trauma, but also other forms of violence—albeit more subtle—may lead to PTSD. Those subjected to repeated and prolonged trauma may develop more complex symptoms, such as dissociation, difficulties in emotional regulation, somatization, and problems with attention, memory, identity, and interpersonal relations. These conditions may in turn lead to reduced work capacity, increased sick leave, and higher risk of premature mortality (Skoog Waller, 2022; Kjellberg, 2023).

The women in the studies also described that encounters with authorities, particularly in family law and courts, could feel more traumatising than the violence itself. Many felt questioned and silenced in those settings (Kjellberg, 2023).

Skoog Waller’s Utan mig är du helt ensam (2022) emphasises that societal responses to women’s vulnerability do not always support them. Rather, institutional reactions may enable continued male violence and power, leaving women isolated and compelled to manage consequences on their own. Authorities may even undermine resistance efforts, blame survivors, or diminish the seriousness of the abuse—rain to further traumatization. Reporting violence is often met with silence or mistrust, especially in cases where the abusive partner is a parent. This can complicate access to support and, in some instances, is experienced as more painful than the violence itself. Inadequate support, disbelief, and professional misjudgments can exacerbate trauma and negative outcomes.

Discussion

From the above it is apparent that (post-)violence is ongoing, and not always manifest in actions seen as criminal. Women and children may continue to endure economic or psychological abuse for years, with persistent suffering and diminished life space. These forms of violence are sometimes subtle, and survivors often feel questioned or unheard in encounters with social authorities.

The literature underscores the urgency of a shared understanding of violence. The shift toward gender-neutral perspectives risks erasing the structural power and control dynamics central to male violence. I concur with Hester’s (2011) proposition that integration and cooperation between the “planets” is essential—but to realize this, knowledge and consensus on definitions of violence and (post-)violence are needed. Particular attention must be paid to the specific pattern of intimate terrorism, which is frequently reframed or dismissed as situational conflict or cooperation issues. With clearer definitions and alignment across authorities, opportunities to protect survivors and children, and to prevent retraumatization through institutional response, would likely increase.

References

Ekström, V. (2016). Det besvärliga våldet: Socialtjänstens stöd till kvinnor som utsatts för våld i nära relationer. Linköping University.

Hester, M. (2011). The three planet model: Towards an understanding of contradictions in approaches to women and children's safety in contexts of domestic violence. British Journal of Social Work, 41(5), 837–853.

Swedish Gender Equality Agency. (2022). Uppgifter om våld är inget undantag: Redovisning av kartläggning av uppgifter om våld eller andra övergrepp i mål om vårdnad, boende och umgänge. (Report 2022:1). Available at: https://jamstalldhetsmyndigheten.se/media/wwrjf1il/rapport-2022-1-uppgifter-om-vald-ar-inget-undantag.pdf

Kjellberg, J. (2023). Fri från (efter)våldet? Om partnervåldsutsatta kvinnors motstånd, uppbrott och stödbehov. Jönköping University.

Skoog Waller, S. (2022). Utan mig är du helt ensam: kvinnors levda erfarenheter av omgivningens och samhällets ensamgörande i spåren av mäns våld och eftervåld. University of Gävle.