Primary Victim or Victim-Survivor? Context Matters
- Braden Clark
- Apr 8
- 8 min read
Language profoundly shapes our understanding and responses to the world around us, particularly in complex fields like family violence. In this blog series, we will delve into the terminology often used in family violence practice to describe individuals' experiences.
Understanding the terms victim-survivor and primary victim within their proper context is crucial. In this post, we will unpack these terms through a resistance lens. We will also explore how context can help or hinder our understanding and therefore our response to and support of those affected by family violence.
Let's begin by exploring these two terms and their implications. We’ll look at Debbs Murray, a victim-survivor of family violence, founder of ECLIPSE, and whose experiences provide a powerful insight into the complexities of labelling in family violence contexts. You can learn more about Debbs' story here.
Using a Resistance Lens
Incorporating a resistance lens in our understanding of family violence is essential. A resistance lens acknowledges that primary victims do not exist passively when experiencing family violence. They continuously analyse their environment for risk and then actively strategise their safety.
Sometimes, resistance can mean engaging in behaviours that others could view as acts of intentional aggression and/or violence. But they are actually forms of resistance against the abuse and control they are enduring. It is important to remember, “There is never an excuse for aggressive behaviour, but sometimes there is an explanation” (Debbs Murray).
Understanding these actions through a resistance lens helps prevent the mislabelling and mispositioning of victims as the predominant aggressors of intentional violence within the relationship (we’ll come back to this point later). Looking for patterns of resistance and safety strategies used by primary victims provides a more appropriately informed view of responses to the violence and abuse being experienced.
Debbs Murray, founder of ECLIPSE, illustrates this concept in her book, One Soul, One Survivor (you can purchase a copy here). Debbs was subjected to coercive control in the context of family violence, which consisted of both physical and non-physical acts of violence, perpetrated by her ex-partner Max (not his real name) in order to gain control over and entrap her. To explain the concept of resistance, Debbs shares:
“There were a couple of times when I could no longer continue to exist in the all-consuming fear of what was coming next, that I did something to Max in order to trigger an aggressive response from him, simply to get the exhausting hypervigilance and living in fear over and done with. Physical assaults hurt, there is no question about that, but so does psychological and emotional pain. I dreaded the pain of physical assault, and of course without question I lived in fear of being killed. But there were moments when I just needed whatever was coming to come, and to be over and done with, and a couple of times I am ashamed to say that I did something to trigger that. I know that primary victims and victim-survivors who read this will understand exactly what I am saying…
Max had subjected me to weeks of elevated psychological and emotional abuse. Every moment of every day, I was living in fear, walking on eggshells, the tension was building. I knew what was coming, and I just needed this to be over one way or the other… At that moment, I took what little control I could. I needed this to come to a head, I knew it wouldn’t be over until something really serious happened, and I just needed the ‘big episode’ to occur, so I decided to trigger him, to get the crisis, the assault over and done with. I knew that once this had happened, he would feel bad, the remorse would kick in, he would be kind and gentle with me, and it would be over; well, over until the next time…
I entered the house and saw Max sitting at the kitchen table, with a steaming hot cup of tea on the table in front of him. What happened next, very much happened in slow motion. I remember thinking to myself, pick it up and throw it at him, and in that moment of what felt like absolute clarity, I picked up the hot tea and threw it straight into his face.
I recall hearing a roar; then everything went black until I woke up approximately 10 minutes later on the floor of the lounge”.
In this situation, Debbs resisted the ongoing psychological and emotional abuse that was destroying her mind, her heart and her soul. Max’s actions were also pushing her to suicidal thoughts and she resisted Max’s ongoing psychological and emotional abuse in the only way she could by doing something to trigger the assault. I know this may sound confusing, and I encourage you to read more about Debbs’ story in her book (this story is located on pages 135 onwards).
We will now explore Debbs’ resistance and how this relates to the terms victim-survivor and primary victim.
Victim-Survivor
The term victim-survivor is used to recognise the journey from experiencing family violence to living violence free, finding a pathway to safety and healing, and no longer living in fear and risk.
However, it's important to note that using the term for victim survivor for those who are still experiencing family violence, and are not safe, does not appropriately position them as still at risk. While we always need to recognise the strength and resilience of our primary victims, using the terminology victim-survivor implicitly suggests safety and recovery, and the reality of family violence is that tragically not all individuals survive. Many primary victims of family violence are killed by their abusers and many take their own lives.
It is important to remember the highest time of risk to a primary victim is just before, during, and after the victim separates from their predominant aggressor. Primary victims are at significant risk of serious violence or death for up to two years (and sometimes longer) after separation. The majority of homicides of primary victims of family violence occur after the primary victim has left the predominant aggressor. Using the term victim-survivor post-separation, while still in this period of increased risk, may inadvertently cause professionals to minimise the increased level of risk.
Whilst Debbs now identifies as a victim-survivor of family violence, this is because she escaped her relationship with Max and has had the opportunity to engage in substantial supports to assist her healing journey and reclaiming of herself. If, in Debbs’ situation, she was killed by Max in response to her throwing a cup of tea at him, she cannot be considered a victim-survivor.
Similarly, for some time after Debbs separated from Max, there was ongoing coercive control and ongoing threats of extreme violence. Max still had control over Debbs and her life. Debbs did not and still does not consider herself a victim-survivor during this time.
In ECLIPSE’s view, the term victim-survivor should be used to describe people who have left family violence, are no longer at risk of violence, and where they feel they have survived are on a healing journey.
So, how do we describe those currently experiencing family violence?
Primary Victim
The term primary victim is used to distinguish the main target of violent and controlling behaviour within a complex web of family dynamics where multiple family members (including children) experience harmful behaviours. Children are also usually considered primary victims of family violence as they too can resist violence through analysing their risk and strategising their safety, and acting to protect themselves and/or those they love.
The term primary victim is particularly useful to help us explore resistance to violence which might sometimes present as perpetration. For instance, a person might resist abuse by retaliating or defending themselves or someone they love or acting in self-defence. When we look at these actions through the lens of resistance, we can understand the possible reasons and context of the action (although remembering this does not excuse these actions).
A resistance lens encourages us to look at the patterns of behaviour over the course of the relationship, exploring who is using power and control the majority of the time. The primary victim is the person experiencing the majority of the violence and control and who engages in acts of violence as resistance and survival strategies.
Recognising someone as a primary victim emphasises their position within the abusive and controlling dynamic, and it highlights their primary position in needing protection and support. At the same time, it indicates who is the predominant perpetrator of the violence.
In Debbs’ situation, when we explore the context of the whole relationship and the patterns of harm, Debbs was the person who was primarily the victim of the violence and control that Max perpetrated. However, as Debbs’ retaliation highlights, she was in one instance the aggressor and Max was the victim. Had the Police been called, Debbs would have owned her behaviour and she would have taken the consequences as required by law. But Debbs would have also hoped that someone would have explored more than this one experience of her as a perpetrator to see that, with the exception of this one time, she was always primarily the victim.
By exploring acts of resistance within relationships where there is family violence, we can recognise that primary victims are already engaging strategies to keep themselves safe. It also supports us to develop a greater understanding of primary victims’ ability to analyse the risk and act in ways that may not make sense without an analysis of the context of the whole relationship. It will also lead to a more informed analysis of the risk the primary victims’ experiences.
When we can correctly identify primary victims and predominant aggressors within their core positions, we can then understand and respond in a way that is more likely to create safety for the person at most risk.
Therefore, correctly identifying who predominantly holds and abuses the power and control within the relationship means we can have more informed and appropriate responses to both the primary victim and the predominant aggressor.
Summary
As we've explored the terms victim-survivor and primary victim, it's clear that language plays a critical role in how we perceive and respond to family violence. Choosing the right words isn't just about being politically correct; it's about understanding the profound impact that family violence can have on people, and also how we then position and respond to those people. Through a resistance lens, we can appreciate the nuances of each individual's experience, acknowledging both their struggle and their strength.
Reflective Questions
We encourage you to reflect on these questions:
How do you currently describe individuals experiencing family violence in your professional or personal conversations? Reflect on the potential impacts of the language and terms you use.
Think about a situation where understanding the full context as mentioned above changed your perception of a person's actions. Such as a primary victim that was charged for an act of violence that was the result of them protecting themselves? How does this influence your thoughts on the use of terms like victim, victim-survivor, and primary victim?
Can you recall instances where you may have observed behaviours that could be interpreted as resistance? How might viewing these actions through a resistance lens change your response or support?
What Next?
If understanding resistance and how the terms victim-survivor and primary victim have influenced your analysis of family violence, we suggest you take some next steps:
Educate Others: Share this blog post within your network to spread awareness about the importance of context-specific language in discussions about family violence. Encourage a dialogue about how language can shape our understanding and treatment of victim-survivors.
Professional Development: If you are a professional working with people affected by family violence, seek out training that includes understanding the use of language and its impacts. Consider how integrating a resistance lens could enhance your practice. We cover this in our Practitioner-Victim Insight Concept workshop.
Policy Review: For those in organisational roles, review your policies and communications to ensure they reflect an informed and sensitive use of language that respects the complexities of family violence. Propose updates where necessary to better support the dignity of those you serve.
By engaging with these reflection questions and following through on these calls to action, we can all contribute to a more nuanced and supportive environment for those experiencing family violence. Your efforts in rethinking and discussing these terms can lead to profound changes in both perception and practice. Let us move forward with a commitment to empathetic communication and informed advocacy, where every word we choose can make a difference.
Comments