Religious coercive control refers to the use of religious beliefs and doctrine as means to coercively control intimate partners. Scholars have shown that some abusive partners use the Christian doctrine of submission as a means of religious coercive control. I explore how victims who experience the doctrine of submission qua religious coercive control actively resist it. I argue that victims’ successful resistance of the doctrine is contingent on their religious capital—that is, the knowledge and mastery that people have of a particular religious culture—and interpretive confidence—that is, people’s subjective confidence in their interpretations of religious culture—related to the doctrine.
BartkowskiJ. P. (1997). Debating patriarchy: Discursive disputes over spousal authority among evangelical family commentators. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 36, 393-410.
2.
BartkowskiJ. P. (2001). Remaking the godly marriage: Gender negotiation in evangelical families. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
3.
BartkowskiJ. P.ReedJ. G. (2003). Veiled submission: Gender, power, and identity among evangelical and Muslim women in the United States. Qualitative Sociology, 26, 71-92.
4.
BowkerL. H. (1983). Beating wife-beating. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
5.
BrownJ. (1997). Working toward freedom from violence: The process of change in battered women. Violence Against Women, 3, 5-26.
6.
CaputoR. K. (2009). Religious capital and intergenerational transmission of volunteering as correlates of civic engagement. Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly, 38, 983-1002.
7.
ColemanJ. S. (1988). Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95-S120.
8.
DobashR. E.DobashR. P. (1979). Violence against wives: The case against patriarchy. New York: Free Press.
9.
DuttonM. A.GoodmanL. A. (2005). Coercion in intimate partner violence: Toward a new conceptualization. Sex Roles, 52, 743-757.
10.
GallagherS. K.SmithC. (1999). Symbolic traditionalism and pragmatic egalitarianism: Contemporary evangelicals, families, and gender. Gender & Society, 13, 211-233.
11.
GiesbrechtN.SevcikI. (2000). The process of recovery and rebuilding among abused women in the conservative evangelical subculture. Journal of Family Violence, 15, 229-250.
12.
GondolfE. W.FisherE. R. (1988). Battered women as survivors: An alternative meaning to treating learned helplessness. Lexington, MA: DC Health.
13.
GoodmanL.DuttonM. A.WeinfurtK.CookS. (2003). The intimate partner violence strategies index: Development and application. Violence Against Women, 18, 163-186.
14.
IannacconeL. R. (1990). Religious practice: A human capital approach. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 29, 297-314.
15.
JohnsonM. P. (2008). A typology of domestic violence: Intimate terrorism, violent resistance, and situational couple violence. Boston, MA: Northeastern University Press.
16.
LempertL. B. (1996). Women’s strategies for survival: Developing agency in abusive relationships. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 269-289.
17.
LoflandJ.SnowD.AndersonL.LoflandL. H. (2006). Analyzing social settings: A guide to qualitative observation and analysis (4th ed.). Belmont, CA: Thomson Wadsworth.
18.
MilesM. B.HubermanM. (1994). Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
19.
MyersS. M. (1995). An interactive model of religiosity inheritance: The importance of family context. American Sociological Review, 61, 858-866.
20.
MyersS. M. (2000). The impact of religious involvement on migration. Social Forces, 79, 755-783.
21.
NashS. T. (2006). The changing of the gods: Abused Christian wives and their hermeneutic revision of gender, power, and spousal conduct. Qualitative Sociology, 29, 195-209.
22.
Nason-ClarkN. (1997). The battered wife: How Christians confront family violence. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press.
23.
ParkJ. Z.BakerJ. (2007). What would Jesus buy: American consumption of religious and spiritual material goods. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 46, 501-517.
24.
ParkJ. Z.SmithC. (2000). “To whom much has been given . . .”: Religious capital and community voluntarism among churchgoing Protestants. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion, 39, 272-286.
25.
Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life. (2008). U.S. Religious Landscape Survey. Washington, DC. Available from http://religions.pewforum.org
26.
SenterK. E.CaldwellK. (2002). Spirituality and the maintenance of change: A phenomenological study of women who leave abusive relationships. Contemporary Family Therapy, 24, 543-564.
27.
SharpS. (2009). Escaping symbolic entrapment, maintaining social identities. Social Problems, 56, 267-284.
28.
SherkatD. E.WilsonJ. (1995). Preferences, constraints, and choices in religious markets: An examination of religious switching and apostasy. Social Forces, 73, 993-1026.
29.
SmithC. (2000). Christian America? What evangelicals really want. Berkeley: University of California Press.
30.
StarkE. (2007). Coercive control: The entrapment of women in personal life. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
StarkR.FinkeR. (2000). Acts of faith: Explaining the human side of religion. Berkeley: University of California Press.
32.
SteenslandB.ParkJ. Z.RegnerusM. D.RobinsonL. D.WilcoxW. B.WoodberryR. D. (2000). The measure of American religion: Toward improving the state of the art. Social Forces, 79, 291-318.
33.
StolzenbergR. M.Blair-LoyM.WaiteL. J. (1995). Religious participation in early adulthood: Age and family life-cycle effects on church membership. American Sociological Review, 60, 84-103.
34.
StotlandN. L. (2000). Tug of war: Domestic abuse and the misuse of religion. American Journal of Psychiatry, 157, 696-702.
35.
StraussA.CorbinJ. (1998). Basics of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
36.
SugarmanD. B.FrankelS. L. (1996). Patriarchal ideology and wife-assault: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Family Violence, 11, 13-40.
37.
SwidlerA. (1986). Culture in action: Symbols and strategies. American Sociological Review, 51, 273-286.
38.
SwidlerA. (2001). Talk of love: How culture matters. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
39.
ZlotnickC.JohnsonD. M.KohnR. (2006). Intimate partner violence and long-term psychosocial functioning in a national sample of American women. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 21, 262-275.
