Is Reactive Abuse Real and Excusable?

Reactive abuse is understandable for those who have been or are being abused, but it is still not an excuse.

Anita and John sought marriage counseling because their relationship was fraught with conflict. John admitted that he previously had been controlling and emotionally abusive to Anita. He worked hard to change his behavior, and his conduct is much better now—a description Anita agrees with. His complaint is that Anita’s recent actions are like the abusive manners he needed to address a few years ago.

Anita admitted to yelling, name calling, put-downs, and, occasionally, throwing dishes when she got upset. She did not see her deeds as abuse, however. Instead, she termed what she was doing as “reactive abuse.”

What is reactive abuse?

Reactive abuse is when someone who is being abused reaches a breaking point and lashes out at their abuser. We also use the term when someone who was abused by a current or former partner acts out abusively--they become aggressive toward their abuser or current partner with physical or verbal attacks. Devoid of context, these behaviors are considered abuse.

However, victim advocates attribute these reactions to being a remnant of that individual’s past abuse. The person was triggered, and their response was simply a fight-or-flight attempt to protect themselves. A more accurate term to describe this behavior is “self-defense,” not abuse, they say.

When evaluating abusive behavior, does the concept of reactive abuse make sense and serve as a valid reason to excuse harmful conduct? Yes, and no.

Is reactive abuse real?

Based on what we know about how the brain records traumas, then later reacts to similar stimuli, the notion of reactive abuse makes sense. A formerly traumatized military veteran may respond strongly to loud noises in civilian life due to PTSD. Reactions due to past damage suffered by an abuse victim are also logical.

Is reactive abuse excusable?

The question about this brain reaction phenomenon making abusive behavior excusable, however, merits deeper consideration. Proponents of reactive abuse divide those acting abusively into two categories: reactive abusers and “regular” abusers. But are there really two distinct categories?

Here are some characteristics used to support their viewpoint:

Motivation

The reactive abuser is acting in self-defense to protect themselves against abuse. Their behavior is understandable and justified. In contrast, it’s incorrectly assumed that the “real” perpetrators choose to be abusive. They use abuse to maintain power and control over their partner. In this way, they realize their sense of entitlement, the thinking goes.

As covered above, traumatized people often perceive situations to be far more threatening and far scarier than they are. For the person who suffered abuse in their childhood or a previous relationship, they are now reacting to “perceived” abuse—not necessarily an imminent threat.

However, the research shows that previous trauma and emotional wounds are the root cause of nearly everyone’s abusive actions—not just a select few. Therefore, if we allow past traumas to justify abusive behavior, we’ll hold almost no one accountable.

Uncharacteristic behavior

The reactive abuser’s behavior is not characteristic of their nature. They don’t act abusively toward other people and in other situations.

Ironically, we make this same claim about “regular” abusers to prove they possess the capacity to act normal around others. It’s hypothesized they become violent and controlling around their partners because they want to dominate that relationship.

The truth is, our propensity to hand our partner the power to reflect on our lovability makes us far more vulnerable and reactive in intimate relationships than in other associations. Someone acting differently with their partner differentiates nothing.

Provocation

Reactive abusers are simply countering difficult situations like humiliation, shame, name-calling, put-downs, or lies created by the real abuser. The real abuser plots to get their partner to snap and become physically or emotionally abusive so they can cover their own abuse.

The premeditated theory of domestic violence—a very sinister motivation—probably happens but is statistically rare. The number one reason studies find for abuse is to get back at a partner for emotionally hurting them. Stress or jealousy follows this reason, with expressing anger and other feelings they struggle to put into words and attempting to get their partner’s attention rounding out the top four.

What we tell "regular" abusers in their mandated batterers intervention programs is that it doesn’t matter what their partners do—they are responsible for how they respond. On this point I agree (more on that later). It creates, however, a confusing double standard. Some acting abusively are excused for reacting poorly when provoked, but others are not because we ignore the provocation or dismiss it as irrelevant.

Confusion

A telltale sign, champions of reactive abuse say, is that the reactive abuser feels confused about their actions. “It’s not like me,” they say. “I don’t know why I reacted that way,” is a common refrain. Regular abusers are, presumably, nasty to everyone all the time, and they know it.

However, these confused declarations are exactly the same ones I hear from people who join our groups. They are feeling guilty, confused, and afraid of who they really are. Cognitive dissonance dominates their thoughts as they attempt to reconcile the good and decent person they thought they were with their harmful and abusive actions.

Of course, it’s confusing to anyone who reacts when flooded by their remotions. They have acted out of character because they were not using their rational brains in the moment. Because emotional flooding happens to reactive abusers and traditional abusers alike, this criterion does not help us differentiate the two types—as if we could.

Application by gender

If you haven’t noticed, there is a strong gender component to the use of the term “reactive abuse.” It starts with the (incorrect) assumption that men commit nearly all domestic violence on their female partners. Then, when a woman’s actions clearly fit the definition of abuse, we explain the aberration as reactive abuse. The original gender assumption about violence holds and we exclude the incident to maintain the narrative.

The real abuser (the man) is using the reactor’s harmful actions as leverage against them, victim advocates say. Their claim of abuse is simply a manipulation tactic to justify their own abuse, control their victim (the reactive abuser), or keep their victim from leaving or speaking about their abuse. Never mind the evidence or the damage being done—the traditional abuser coerces the reactive abuser into behaving that way.

One can see how this approach quickly collapses into a “he said/she said” finger pointing session. At this point, the “believe women” card is played and the gender-based violence story line is preserved.

An explanation, but not an excuse

What, if anything, can we take away from this evaluation of reactive abuse?

First is to recognize that abusive actions usually happen as a reaction to emotional triggers. And those emotionally sensitive spots aren’t there by choice, but because of traumatic past experiences that left us wounded and with gaps in our emotional control stockpile. There aren’t two classifications of abusers—one with evil motives and the other with more understandable and acceptable ones. Nearly all domestic violence comes from people in the second group.

Second, while reactions to emotional triggers explain harmful conduct, it can’t excuse it. As adults, we're responsible for discovering and overcoming our buttons. We can’t careen down life’s highway crashing into our fellow travelers. It's our duty to make sure our brakes and steering operate properly.

“My partner caused me to react” is blame. Even if our partner is difficult, and even if they are abusive, we have an obligation to respond in a non-abusive way. Unless they have kidnapped you or are holding a gun to your head, you always have the option to leave the relationship as soon as it is safe for you to do so.

A well-agreed upon principle of abuse is, “there is no excuse for abuse.” If true and we apply this standard consistently, then no excuse means no excuse.