definition of verbal abuse - notes — Brown’s Dictionary of Relationship Terms

Notes

by J. E. Brown

Foreword

This is a compilation and synthesis of other people’s definitions, an attempt to find the common thread running through the definitions. The author made a survey of the definitions in use by many fields, including the mental health community.

As I searched books and web pages for a definition, it seemed that no one had created a comprehensive definition: completeness kept getting sacrificed for readability, dumbing down the definitions. What was needed was a complete scholarly definition, simple to understand but with nothing missing, and objective enough that even a non-expert can use it to diagnose verbal abuse. In order to assist with the diagnosis of verbal abuse and the positive identification of verbal abusers, the author offers the above definitions.

Color Key

Blue links go off-page or to other websites,
green links scroll the definitions window (above), and
red links scroll the notes window (this window).

Notes

deserved, undeserved

Notes on the definition of “deserve”. Compare the international Convention Against Torture, which states:

For the purposes of this Convention, the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as ..., when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
-- Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CAT), Dec. 10, 1984, S. Treaty Doc. No. 100-20, 1465 U.N.T.S. 85, Article 1(1), p. 4.

This is somewhat echoed in United States law, which states:

(1) "torture" means an act committed by a person acting under color of law specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering (other than pain or suffering incidental to lawful sanctions) upon another person within his custody or physical control; ...
-- Title 18, United States Code, § 2340 (18 U.S.C. § 2340) (as amended by Pub. L. No. 108-375, 118 Stat. 1811 (2004)).

personal worth

Notes on the definition of personal worth. These attributes seem to be the targets which abusive people home in on.

scars

Notes on the definition of scars. In late December 2004, the United States Department of Justice (USDOJ) clarified the United States position on torture, notably stating that mental anguish need not last for months in order to qualify as severe under torture laws. This is encouragingly similar to the above definition of scars. For details, see the DOJ memo, p. 14, esp. footnote 24.

tends to

Notice the phrase “tends to” in “disapproval which ... tends to cause lasting scars.” This is a tacit acknowledgement that the target of the verbal abuse may fail to feel offended, but this failure does not mitigate the abuse. Some definers have pointed out that most victims are perceptive and of at least average intelligence, but that these are not necessary conditions for counting the words as verbal abuse, and verbal abuse directed at patients in comas and the mentally retarded (see also here, here) is still abuse.

As of January 2005, “tendency” language was in the news. The DOJ memo (see above) explains:

[Footnote] 28: In the August 2002 Memorandum, this Office indicated that an element of the offense of torture was that the act in question actually result in the infliction of severe physical or mental pain or suffering. See id. at 3. That conclusion rested on a comparison of the statute with the CAT, which has a different definition of "torture" that requires the actual infliction of pain or suffering, and we do not believe that the statute requires that the defendant actually inflict (as opposed to act with the specific intent to inflict) severe physical or mental pain or suffering. Compare CAT art. 1(1) ("the term 'torture' means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted*) (emphasis added) with 18 U.S.C. § 2340 ("'torture' means an act .. . specifically intended to inflict severe physical or mental pain or suffering") (emphasis added). It is unlikely that any such requirement would make any practical difference, however, since the statute also criminalizes attempts to commit torture. Id. § 2340A(a).
-- U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Legal Counsel, Office of the Assistant Attorney General, December 30,2004, MEMORANDUM FOR JAMES B. COMEY, DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL, Re: Legal Standards Applicable Under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2340-2340A, http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/dagmemo.pdf, p. 17

Actions, not effects, are abusive. Therefore abuse is measured by its actions, not by effects. So, the fact that a given victim seems not to be scarred by a given act of verbal abuse does not mitigate the abuse. Nor does a given victim’s delayed reaction mitigate the abuse or relieve the abuser of responsibility. An act of abuse is not mitigated simply because a given victim is socially naive and so fails to feel insulted. Nor is abuse excused just because a given victim has become desensitized to abuse by long or repeated exposure to it.

Because of phenomena like Stockholm Syndrome, brainwashing, and delayed reactions, we cannot use the victim’s self-report of “I do not feel injured” as proof against any charge of abuse.

Why Abuse Is Measured by Actions: While abusers are well aware of what they’ve said and done, many and perhaps most verbal abusers are in denial about the effect of their words. Therefore, defining abuse solely in terms of its invisible effects on the victim will not be helpful. When dealing with abusers, victims need objective evidence which they can point to, and to provide this, we must define abuse in terms of the concrete, identifiable actions which compose it.

A perfectly well written definition will enable either of two things: (1) Either it will allow the victim to show the abuser “Here is what you did, and here’s why it’s hurtful” and thereby convince the abuser of the need to change, or (2) it will allow the victim the comfort of knowing that even the perfect definition isn’t enough to convince his or her abuser, and instead it’s time to end the relationship.

Position 121604-A: Abuse is measured by actions, but an abuser is measured by actions plus refusal to stop (the “can’t stop or won’t stop” attitude). For the reasoning behind this, see Note 121504-A.

The specific patterns of actions which make an abuser are:

The perpetrator refuses to stop committing the offensive action even after being made aware of its hurtful effects. Or
The perpetrator denies and/or refuses any component in the chain of accountability leading from perpetrator to victim and back to the perpetrator. Examples:
1. The perpetrator denies committing the act, or
2. denies that the victim was really hurt by the act,
3. denies that that act has that effect,
4. denies responsibility for the act (specifically, denies responsibility to change his/her ways), for example by claiming that no harm was intended, or by claiming the victim overreacted, or
5. denies that the victim deserves an apology. In short, the actor becomes an abuser when he or she displays a disregard for the victim. This condition is necessary to guarantee/to protect the principle that a person who commits isolated, unintended accidents is not an abuser. But this principle has been misused too, making it necessary that we add:
6. The actor varies the act, substituting various kinds of harmful actions, each committed only once, in order to make use of/hide behind the defense that each action was an isolated accident/incident. Thus the actor denies that the overall pattern of abuse should earn him people’s distrust. A behavior pattern often seen in the mischievous and the socially inept.
Undeserved words which communicate personal disapproval are, in themselves, proof of disregard for the target’s feelings and boundaries and this, as explained above, constitutes abuse.

Position 122304-A: Of all the excuses offered by people who have committed abuse, there is really only one excuse that stands up. That excuse is not in the form of words, but rather in the form of real behavioral change. We are what we do, however much we may wish otherwise; and when there is no change, all the best words, all the repeated protestations of “But I didn’t mean to do that”/“I was just kidding” only grow less believable each time they have to be repeated.

Abusers naturally want to be judged by their intentions. But to accept intentions as an excuse means nothing less than to allow abusers to define what abuse is. No court of law allows the criminal to define the crime; the average citizen and the victim shouldn’t allow it either.

Note 121504-A. Actually, I was tempted to allow an exception for an isolated statement of disapproval which is corrected and followed by a sincere about-face and apology. Even good people do make mistakes and learn from them. But that doesn’t mean the act isn’t abuse, just that the actor isn’t an abuser. Remember, a person can get away with only so many “isolated” abusive acts before being rightly called an abuser / before his behavior pattern earns him the title of “abuser”. So this exception is better made under the definition of “verbal abuser”.

So I’m asserting that under some circumstances you can commit an act of abuse without becoming an abuser. This might at first seem to indicate a grey area in the concept of abuse. But in truth the grey area has more to do with the confusion that results in any situation in which evidence is lacking. A diagnosis of “abuser” (meaning “person likely to abuse”) can only be made whenever there is sufficient evidence that recurring abuse is likely — in other words, when the abuser either won’t stop or can’t stop. {Codified in Position 121604-A.}

So abuse is measured by actions, but an abuser is measured by a pattern of actions.

Division of Labor: Under these definitions, the difference between intent and action appears in the difference between the abuser and the abuse. In particular, the concept of measuring unseen intent (attitude) is covered solely by the definition of “verbal abuser”, while notions of visible, undeniable action are covered by the definition of “verbal abuse”.

Future Directions

It seems likely that some wording based on “the use of words to cause fear/intimidation” will become part of the definition of “verbal abuse”. Suggested wordings are welcomed.
It seems likely that some wording based on “the use of words to cause someone to feel unsafe” will become part of the definition of “verbal abuse”. Suggested wordings are welcomed.

Of course, any new verbiage must be in keeping with the guidelines and principles listed herein, esp. those under Why Abuse Is Measured by Actions.

Rationale

How should we define verbal abuse? Many authors, even experts on verbal abuse, have puzzled over this. The definitions differ, but they all seem to have these elements in common:

Abuse causes lasting scars.
The definition of abuse is complex; many different actions can be categorized as abuse.

Some definitions are amusingly vague, subjective, or glib, like this one:

Verbal abuse is defined by [our soccer league] as a verbal attack of a sustained, excessive, obscene or offensive nature. It is not intended to include mere dialogue or questions by or among coaches and/or referees.
-- name withheld to prevent embarrassment

This only raises more questions than it answers: How long is “sustained”? How much is “excessive”? What’s “obscene”? “Offensive” to whom?

Some of the better, more detailed definitions of “verbal abuse” were trying to define it by enumeration: by listing all the examples, or types of examples. Which is an excellent way to start, but doesn’t really explain for the novice what all the examples have in common. Without that explanation tying the examples together, an abuser could easily look at such a list and say “This list is totally arbitrary. I don’t see why some of these are listed as wrong.” Another problem with enumerative definitions: Extrapolation to new unlisted examples will also be difficult or uncertain, especially for the non-expert.

Even worse, I’ve seen definitions of abuse that were overly inclusive and panoramic. The authors of those definitions apparently had no grasp on the essence of the problem, and included examples that were not even abusive. For example, a few crackpot Internet authors defined “abuse” by apparently compiling a list of all the personal characteristics of all the people who had ever abused them — I saw ridiculous statements almost like “Abusive people ... have moles on their left cheeks.” More seriously, I was surprised to see some authors claiming that “the silent treatment” and “withholding information” are somehow verbal abuse. My objection was the obvious one: silence is not verbal, nor is it abuse (since silence attacks no one’s personal worth). Moreover, as I think we all have seen, silence is often a reaction to verbal abuse, by the victim — and any complete, careful definition must allow for this. Also, while the withholding of promised information is certainly rude, we must remember that abuse and rudeness are two different (if partly overlapping) things:

“rudeness” is (loosely) that which tends to cause distance in relationships;
“abuse” is (loosely) that which damages someone’s self-confidence/self-worth.

Certainly all abuse is rudeness, but not all rudeness rises to the level of abuse.

Here’s an example of a too-inclusive definition, in the form of a questionnaire that asks “Are you being abused?”:

Has your partner burdened you with shameful, embarrassing, or criminal secrets that only you know about?
-- “Verbal Abuse Checklist”, Kansas State University, www.oznet.ksu.edu/library/FAMLF2/GT346D.PDF

While such secrets might be distasteful, distasteful confessions do not constitute abuse. If they did, we would all be scarred by the nightly news and the tabloids ;^) .

A careful definition must convict all of the guilty parties, without falsely accusing the innocent.

Complexity and Definitions

Complexity deserves further comment. One popular method among linguists and philosophers, a method which I like too, is to embrace the complexity of a phenomenon by describing it in language that can handle complexity. By giving a definition that is somewhat mathematical, or legalese. (The DSM-IV for example does this rather well.) The basic procedure is:

Present the definition in outline form, making your major points in a list,
with numbered parts for easy reference.
First define the thing being defined,
and then carefully examine that definition for terms which could be misunderstood, and carefully define those too.
And of course use ands and ors to clearly indicate which parts of the definition are required or optional or which may be substituted for one another.
Make the definition exactly broad enough to cover all the bases, without accidentally including what doesn’t fit. Catch all the guilty without snaring anyone innocent.
Use examples only as an aid to understanding and refining the definition, not as a substitute for one.

A definition in this form is quite easy to understand if one stares at it patiently. While I’m sure some people will object that there must be a better way to give definitions, I must say I’m not a big fan of the “better way” style of reasoning, since most people who talk about “a better way” don’t offer one. ;^) So, complaints about the length of this definition will be dead on arrival. Ignored.

The complexity of a definition doesn’t necessarily mean that the definition is wrong; rather, it generally means that the phenomenon being defined has many parts.

Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.
--Albert Einstein

Feedback

Could my definition use some tweaking? I’ll be happy to consider feedback from readers. Of course, I recognize that abusive people and their apologists will try to nitpick and quibble with the definition, and so, I won’t accept all changes blindly; I will protect the integrity of the process by regarding skeptically anyone who shows signs of Stockholm Syndrome or other abuser-centric belief systems. In other words, victims and their defenders are the most welcome to respond. ;^) We don’t let rapists water down the definition of rape nor define it away, and a similar discipline will serve well here. Persons who seem to be identifying with an aggressor, i.e., persons seeming to have a vested interest in protecting anyone other than victims, will not be allowed to participate.

Here are two ways to suggest an addition to the definition:

If you find an example of abuse which is not covered by the definition, please send it, and I will try to extract a general rule from it.
If you’re good with words, please feel free to divine the rule yourself. And please send it! :^) Thank you.

Also:

If you find an example of non-abuse which is wrongly made criminal by the definition, please send it, and I will try to use it to correct the definition.
If you’re good with words, please feel free to send a rewrite.

2^nd edition 09 Jan 2005
1^st edition 01 Jan 2005

about the author

J. E. Brown, relationship activist and writer, has decided that verbal abuse will be wiped off the planet.

While writing a book on relationships, he occasionally designs online surveys and writes materials for this relationship education website.