Staying or Leaving: The Dialectics of Reconstructing Couple Relationships Following Intimate Partner Violence.

The current discourse in the field of intimate partner violence is based mostly on the expectation that violence terminates the relationship and the partners separate to reconstruct their lives. This expectation is based on an either/or paradigm, which appears problematic given the reality of couples struggling with staying or leaving. This article examined the meanings couples attributed to remaining in their marital relationship following intimate partner violence and the efforts invested in rehabilitating the relationship. The study is based on 24 interviews with 12 couples who stayed together and had been free of physical violence for at least one year. Each partner was interviewed separately, which allowed them the freedom to develop their narrative. Descriptive phenomenological analysis revealed three key stages of the decision-making process: (a) a separation and reassessment stage, when personal identities were reexamined and a decision was made to attempt to reconstruct the marriage; (b) a new contract for the relationship was negotiated based on taking responsibility and undergoing mutually agreed-upon individual changes through therapy; and (c) resumption of living together, implementing and evaluating the contract negotiated about the joint life. The process is not linear and involves contradictions and paradoxes. The discussion conceptualizes staying together as a dialectic process between opposing forces: fear vs. hope, connectedness vs. individuality, and couple identity ("we-ness") vs. the need for selfhood. The issue of the legitimacy of couples with IPV history to live together needs to be considered. Intervention must balance between empowering the couple by providing choices and examining possible risks arising from the process.