This conceptual analysis explores theories of IPV, integrating gender-based and attachment perspectives, suggesting a multifaceted understanding.
The field of study on intimate partner violence has long been characterized by a bitter debate between the following two opposing theoretical and ideological positions on the nature of the phenomenon: the first is typical of the feminist perspective and considers IPV as an expression of gender-based violence; the second is typical—among others—of the attachment-based perspective and maintains that IPV would be a neutral form of violence with respect to gender. The aim of this contribution is to try to show how it is possible to make a more heuristically fruitful comparison between these two antagonistic perspectives, shifting the focus on the conceptual frameworks that underlie them and on their two different corresponding key explanatory concepts as follows: on the one hand, gender-based power on which the feminist perspective hinges, and on the other, love and love-related emotional dynamics on which the attachment-based perspective focuses. Finally, we will argue how these two key explanatory concepts can be kept combined in a sort of binocular vision and integrated into a more complex “power-and-love” explanatory framework. To this end, we will refer to a systemic approach to IPV, in particular to the contribution of Virginia Goldner, who proposes a model based on the close interconnection between power dynamics and love-related dynamics in the genesis and perpetuation of male violence in heterosexual intimate relationships.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pasquale et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: