Report on Intimate Partner Violence in the Context of the Sustainable Development Goals

This report analyzes the psychological dynamics of intimate partner violence (IPV), with a specific focus on its implications for achieving the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The persistence of IPV represents a significant barrier to progress, particularly concerning SDG 5 (Gender Equality), SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Analysis of Factors Perpetuating Intimate Partner Violence

Socio-Economic and Systemic Barriers

Economic dependency is a primary factor preventing individuals, predominantly women, from leaving abusive relationships. This directly undermines key SDG targets aimed at fostering equality and well-being.

• Financial Dependence: A lack of personal savings or independent income severely limits an individual’s options, creating a cycle of dependency that is antithetical to SDG 5 (Gender Equality) and SDG 1 (No Poverty).
• Parental Responsibility: The presence of children, combined with financial instability, further complicates the decision to leave, impacting the health and safety of both the parent and child, which is a core concern of SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being).

Psychological Mechanisms and Cycles of Abuse

An Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapeutic perspective provides a framework for understanding the internal psychological processes that contribute to violent behavior. This model posits that an individual’s psyche is composed of various subpersonalities or “parts” that develop in response to life experiences, particularly childhood trauma and shame.

• Protective Parts: In response to feelings of hurt or shame, protective parts emerge. Proactive “manager” parts attempt to control situations to prevent further harm, while reactive “firefighter” parts engage in impulsive or extreme behaviors (e.g., rage, addiction) to distract from emotional pain.
• The Cycle of Violence: In the context of IPV, a perpetrator’s vulnerable part may feel shame or inadequacy. This triggers a “manager” part that reinforces these negative self-beliefs, leading a “firefighter” part to react with externalized rage and violence against their partner to regain a sense of control.

Escalation of Violence: A Threat to Health and Peace

The Role of Retaliatory Shaming

The dynamic often escalates when the victim, in response to abuse, engages in retaliatory shaming. While intended as a defense mechanism, this can provoke more extreme violence from the perpetrator’s reactive “firefighter” part. This escalating cycle of conflict directly contravenes the objective of SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), which seeks to significantly reduce all forms of violence.

Critical Health Indicators and Mortality Risks

The progression from verbal and physical abuse to more lethal forms of violence is a critical public health concern. Strangulation has been identified as a significant predictor of future homicide, highlighting a severe failure to protect life and ensure well-being as mandated by SDG 3.

1. Initial Violence: An argument escalates to physical violence, such as a punch.
2. Escalation: Subsequent conflicts become more frequent and desperate, often involving mutual shaming.
3. Lethal Threat: The perpetrator’s violence shifts to strangulation as a method of silencing and control.
4. Homicide Risk: Research indicates that a history of non-fatal strangulation increases the odds of a completed homicide by over seven-fold. This statistic underscores the urgent need for interventions that align with Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls.

Conclusion: Harm Reduction and Alignment with SDG Objectives

Addressing the deeply ingrained psychological patterns of both perpetrators and victims is essential for effective harm reduction and the realization of the SDGs. While perpetrators are responsible for their actions, an awareness of these dynamics can empower individuals to make safer choices. Lasting change requires addressing the root causes of violence, including the emotional attachments and trauma responses that perpetuate these cycles.

• Individual Empowerment: Understanding that shaming can be a dangerous catalyst and that strangulation is a precursor to homicide can help individuals disengage from life-threatening dynamics.
• Integrated Approach: Achieving SDG 3, SDG 5, and SDG 16 requires a multi-faceted approach that combines economic empowerment, legal protection, and psychological interventions to dismantle the shame-fueled dynamics of intimate partner violence and build safer, more equitable communities.

Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

1. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   This is the most prominent SDG in the article. The text focuses on intimate partner violence predominantly perpetrated by men against women (“I limit this discussion to heterosexuals… strangling – is most likely to occur in heterosexual couples.”). It also highlights the economic disempowerment that traps women in these violent situations (“If she has no savings and no income, she may feel that she has few choices.”), which is a core issue of gender inequality.

2. SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   The article directly addresses severe health outcomes of violence. It discusses physical harm (“threatened/beaten her physically,” “punches her in the face,” “strangles her”) and the ultimate negative health outcome, death (“she is likely to die,” “completed homicide”). Furthermore, the entire psychological analysis of shame, trauma, and emotional attachment (“shame-fueled dynamics,” “befriend our protectors and rescue the parts they protect”) relates to the promotion of mental health and well-being.

3. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   This goal aims to “significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.” The article’s central theme is the reduction of intimate partner violence. It analyzes the mechanics of this violence and discusses its lethal potential, directly aligning with the goal of promoting peaceful societies free from violence, particularly in the private sphere of the home.

4. SDG 1: No Poverty

   The article makes a clear connection between a woman’s financial status and her vulnerability to staying in a violent relationship. The phrase “If she has no savings and no income, she may feel that she has few choices” directly links economic poverty and lack of financial independence to a woman’s inability to escape violence, making poverty reduction a relevant preventive measure.

What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

SDG 5: Gender Equality

• Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres.

  The article is entirely focused on this target. It describes physical violence (“beaten her physically,” “strangles her”), psychological violence (“shamed her in highly personal ways”), and the risk of homicide within an intimate partner relationship, which occurs in the private sphere.

• Target 5.1: End all forms of discrimination against all women and girls everywhere.

  The economic vulnerability described (“no savings and no income”) is a result of systemic disadvantages that can be considered a form of discrimination, trapping women in dangerous situations and limiting their life choices.

SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

• Target 3.4: Promote mental health and well-being.

  The article’s use of the Internal Family Systems (IFS) therapy model to explain the psychological dynamics of shame and trauma is a direct effort to understand and address the mental health aspects of both perpetrators and victims to achieve “harm reduction.”

• Target 3.D: Strengthen the capacity for early warning, risk reduction and management of national and global health risks.

  The article highlights a critical risk factor for homicide by citing a study: “Prior non-fatal strangulation was associated with… over seven-fold odds… of becoming a completed homicide.” This information serves as an early warning and risk reduction tool for women in violent relationships, a key public health concern.

SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

• Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.

  The article’s discussion of physical violence (“punches her,” “strangles her”) and the explicit mention of “completed homicide” as a likely outcome directly relate to reducing violence and its associated death rates.

SDG 1: No Poverty

• Target 1.2: Reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions.

  The article implies that a woman’s lack of financial independence (“no savings and no income”) is a key dimension of poverty that increases her vulnerability. Addressing this economic dimension is crucial for allowing women to leave abusive environments.

Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

For SDG 5 (Target 5.2) and SDG 16 (Target 16.1)

• Proportion of women subjected to physical and psychological violence by an intimate partner.

  This is directly implied throughout the article. The text describes acts of physical violence (“beaten,” “punches,” “strangles”) and psychological violence (“shamed her in highly personal ways”), which are the core components of this indicator.

• Number of victims of intentional homicide, by sex.

  The article explicitly mentions the risk of “completed homicide” for women in these relationships, directly linking intimate partner violence to this indicator.

For SDG 3 (Target 3.D)

• Incidence of non-fatal strangulation in intimate partner violence cases.

  The article implies this as a critical indicator for predicting future homicide. It cites a study showing that “Prior non-fatal strangulation was associated with greater than six-fold odds… of becoming an attempted homicide, and over seven-fold odds… of becoming a completed homicide.” This statistic itself serves as a risk assessment indicator.

For SDG 1 (Target 1.2) and SDG 5 (Target 5.1)

• Proportion of women with no savings or independent income.

  This is implied as a key vulnerability indicator. The article states, “If she has no savings and no income, she may feel that she has few choices.” Measuring women’s economic independence is therefore an implied metric for assessing their ability to escape violence.

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Analysis

Source: psychologytoday.com