The presentation adresses what we call Dimensional Theories of Abuse, that set of feminist theories which point out the interlinkages between normative and abusive gender relations. Through concepts such as ‘grey area’, ‘continuum’ and ‘dimensional view’ feminist scholars in the field of violence research have analysed how gendered normalcy and abuse often meet/co-mingle/overlap in ways that obscure the boundary between them. For example, whereas love and violence are commonly seen as radically different experiences, possessiveness may be part as much of a passionate love dynamic as of intimate partner violence. Similarly, it is not always easy to neatly distinguish conventional relationships based on economic dependence from prostitution. Further, as scholars in the field of sexual violence have pointed out, normative heterosexual scripts are organized in line with a gendered logic of conquering which has much in common with the dynamics of sexual violence.
In the presentation we compare different ways of conceptualizing gendered abuse in dimensional terms, analysing some tensions among and within different approaches. One key tension revolves around the fact that dimensional thinking affirms the similarities between the normative and the abusive, while at the same time taking their difference as their point of departure. Some theories tend to emphasize the similarities – ‘it’s all abuse but to different degrees’ – whereas some affirm that there is a divide between the abusive and non-abusive but that this divide is more of a murky grey area than a clear line. We identify potentials and problems with both tendencies and suggest ways forward in feminist dimensional thinking.