Partner Aggression Versus Partner Abuse Terminology: Moving the Field Forward and Resolving Controversies

This special issue has three goals: first to recognize Dr. Murray Straus and his legacy in the family violence field; second, to attempt to move the field of family violence forward with new research that focuses on key issues in perpetration of physical partner aggression; and third, to help resolve issues of terminology, definitions, and constructs that have led to controversy and disagreements among those trying to understand and reduce intimate partner violence (IPV) and abuse. Some of the controversies have been occurring for at least 30 years. I am deeply honored to have been chosen by Drs. Murray Straus andZeevWinstok to edit this special issue. I knewMurray for over 30 years, and he was the key person who set into motion the elements that has led to my long career and work in this field. In the early 1980’s, when I was just beginning to think about starting a family violence institute that would act as a clearinghouse for current information about research, programs, and prevention of family violence, I sent letters to leaders in the field inviting their input, feedback, and participation. At that time, I was an unknown Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas at Tyler. I did not receive many responses, but one I received within a few weeks was a handwritten letter from Murray encouraging me to move forward, providing some feedback, and offering to help in any way he could. That personal letter enabled me to contact others again, noting we were going to move forward, and indicating that Murray and a few other key people were on our advisory board. That was the beginning of the nonprofit Family Violence & Sexual Assault Institute that continues today in San Diego, CA. It was also the beginning of a warm, collegial friendship in which Murray and I would exchange articles and ideas, have discussions and sometimes disagreements, and also attend each other’s conferences. It was clear when this special issue was initiated, Murray knew he would not be alive to see its completion, but as was his style, that did not deter him. He wanted to make one last attempt to resolve some key issues, and to do it in an innovative manner. This special issue has twice as many articles as is usual for the journal, but each article was planned to be about half the number of pages usually allowed. The response to Murray and Zeev’s Call for Manuscripts was amazing. Through the usual peer review process, those submissions have been narrowed to the articles in this special issue. Zeev has done an admirable job of guiding this special issue to its completion, editing articles, and ensuring the high quality of the material. We are all indebted to Zeev for his excellent work and persistence. Emily Douglas’ Introduction in this issue presents the history in brief of Murray’s many contributions and life work. I won’t repeat them here. However, one of the main issues that Murray and I disagreed about in our past discussions, gender symmetry versus asymmetry in the perpetration of IPV and abuse, has been a source of much disagreement and contentious debate in the field. This disagreement has led to loud and sometimes angry arguments for 30 years by those who are involved in research, policy, advocacy, and/or treatment of intimate partner violence (IPV). Murray and other researchers have been vilified for suggesting that women were as violent as men in relationships (i.e., gender symmetry). Although the debate over gender symmetry continues, there has been no disagreement that in IPV situations, women are much more likely to be injured and also more severely than men. * Robert Geffner bgeffner@alliant.edu