What does the language of emotional abuse sound like?
Leaving off the threats and physicality found in language of domestic violence, which require a deeper and more speculative (latency) analysis, there are signals in which discernment can be called upon. Here I touch upon the "classic", or common elements found in emotional abusers' language, including how this extends outside the home.
Common to human nature is saying the wrong thing, at the wrong time, in the wrong tone, and later regretting it. Anyone can, in a moment, feel panic, aggravation or insecurity and silence another. This does not mean it is a personality trait; but rather, a mistake. This article is about personality traits that are ongoing; not event restricted.
Emotional abusers generally come from a position of anxiety.
This is evidenced in their need to control. Psychotropic drugs can influence language, including irritability and sedation. This may be seen in the increase (irritability) in pace and volume, or in its declination (sedation), which can include "the silent treatment" weaponized against the target. It can be personal and it can be societal.
This short article seeks only basic patterns within a personality given to controlling others.
1. Narrative Protection
2. Filibuster
3. Dismissal of disagreement as a form of devaluation
These patterns of speech are within the abuser's personality.
They are not simply reserved for the victim, but often show themselves in settings at work, with family and with society in general. This is not a sample of high escalation as often found in criminal statements, but of a norm.
Male abusers are more likely to resort to threats of violence and physical violence, particularly where the perception of control is lost. Female abusers rely more heavily upon emotional abuse to control, with signals of anxiety more pronounced in articulation. As cultural shifts take place, we see more examples of changes in norms, over time.
1. Narrative Protection.
The abuser has something to protect. Whether it is an opinion (this is heightened culturally) or an ideal, the abuser may perceive disagreement as a threat. The abuser, himself or herself, may use the pronoun "we" frequently, and then move to "you and I" where it is perceived that unity is in doubt. This can, in language, precede escalation and threat.
"We know that..." assumes unity with "we" used.
"We both know..." Here we have the perceived unity of "we", yet with emphasis added with "both"
If body language does not show agreement, it may move to "you and I know that..." in whatever the topic may be. This represents a psychological break that may be subtle, at least initially.
We then can see a move to a need to garner strength by enjoining the idea to a psychological crowd:
"Everyone knows that..."
"We all agree that..."
"Since we are all on the same page..."
This is where the victim (spouse/partner) or audience (public setting) senses a bit of a panic upon the abuser (this is often seen in emotional abusers) where the subject (speaker) anticipates divergent views and wishes to preempt them. It is a strong signal that the subject desires to silence different opinions.
This is something that can show up in business meetings, for example. It is an indication of anxiety. In the home, it can be heightened, recognizing that the subject may possess self awareness in the work place, to a certain extent. This restraint is not necessary in the home, which may then show itself in a more stark verbose manner to the spouse.
2. Filibuster
A "filibuster" subject is one most law enforcement investigators have encountered. They talk through an interview, believing they can avoid the topic at hand (usually an allegation) by using many words. In using many words, they seek to wear down (mental fatigue) the investigator with a form of diversion. Well trained investigators recognize that the incessant talking yields a great deal of information, particularly about personality traits.
"Filibuster" is a common way to "talk over or through" another, so that the narrative (opinion, view point) goes unchallenged. This can include various methods, often dependent upon the setting. The victim may say, "You did not let me get in a word, edgewise" or "You don't let me answer you!"
The emotional frustration can lead to silence, just as self preservation (including physically) can lead to habitual silence.
The need to control the narrative is sometimes seen in teachers and professors who now use popular or trendy means to silence discussion, including shouting down opposition, as well as ridicule. This is a form of emotional abuse.
If the narrative is financial gain, those with influence may possess the means to silence, censor or minimize opposition. They "filibuster" via other methods than just over-talking.
Where does this leave the victim?
3. Dismissal and Devaluation
"It's not even worth discussing!"
Dismissed opinions take a toll on the victim. Consider the woman who has been, for years, ridiculed and made to believe she is of inferior intelligence or worth due to the silencing she has experienced. The public may further add insult to injury by seeing her as "mousey" or overly timid. She can be recognized as "beat down" in life. After a lengthy time spent with the emotional and/or physical abuser (including threats of violence), she may no longer consider her opinion of value not only to her husband, but to society in general.
We may see attempts to devalue others in "credentialism" where one is to be silenced by comparing external credentials or experiences.
It is a signal of weakness to avoid an argument by ridiculing (devaluing) another by boasting of one's credentials.
This can be an insult, for example, for disagreeing with someone who has many experiences in the topic at hand. Rather than hear an opposing view, the emotional bully may resort to his or her own life experiences. "Well, I have for many years..." as a means to silence, rather than discuss.
Instead of giving an explanation, the emotional bully may feel personally slighted or even insulted. This fragility can give way to the desire to silence, rather than listen with respect, and respond with reason.
There are areas in which one may not wish to engage; such as topics of absurdity, or when one party has obvious mental illness or may even become destabilized upon challenge.
This can become an exercise of folly, or even dangerous. Wisdom may choose what to answer and what not to. This can highlight a position of strength in restraint.
It is not the personality of an emotional abuser or bully that we see in such cases.
The emotional abuser comes from a position of weakness.
The trend of culture is to claim moral high ground (even in non-moral topics) and brow beat others into silence or agreement has highlighted this further. Particular personality types, especially with chronic anxiety, have readily embraced this method to protect themselves from perceived threats. Those of anxiety are drawn to censoring others, whether through scolding, insulting or through supporting societal coerced silence.
As this has become accepted and then embraced, we may see, for example, traits in public that will be predictably magnified in the privacy of the home. This could stand as a warning for the thoughtful to consider.
In criminal analysis, debate is essential. In discerning deception within a statement, team analysis is the most productive means of accuracy. It thrives upon disagreement and the incessant posing of questions, of which a constellation of possible answers can be explored openly.
As such, some personalities do not enjoy the rigorous methodology of this atmosphere. Others learn to embrace it, particularly when exercising patience. This leads them from embracing to relishing, as the goal accuracy is repeatedly obtained.
Recognizing a dominant personality trait of needing to control can be of great value in discernment, whether in professional settings (law enforcement hiring where lethal force may be used), or in interpersonal relationships.
Decisions may be made on when to engage, how to engage and, when to avoid. Those skilled in deescalation are often instinctive in their ability to know when to challenge, and when not to. They know when gentle words are best, when silence is to be employed and when minimizing risk is needed.
After having been on the receiving end of the filibuster, the person or persons may, very much feel like they have been abused. Silence taken as acquiescence, this person may, if in repeated context, find himself or herself practicing avoidance.
