Reactive Abuse and the Direction of Power
- Elle Dee
- 12 hours ago
- 4 min read
Abuse is not a feeling or a judgment.
It has a definition.
The definition matters because without a shared standard, language becomes moral posturing rather than a tool for understanding what’s true.
Across disciplines, abuse is defined very consistently:
In legal contexts, abuse refers to conduct that establishes or maintains power or control over another person through harm or credible threat of harm, resulting in reduced agency, safety or standing.
In victim-advocacy frameworks, abuse is defined as a pattern of behavior in which one person uses power, control or coercion to destabilize another, producing fear, diminished autonomy and reduced ability to protect oneself or leave.
Clinically, abuse is understood as a sustained pattern of boundary violations that undermine another person’s sense of safety, agency and self-trust, while stabilizing or relieving distress for the person enacting the behavior.
This piece examines what is commonly labeled “reactive abuse” by applying these definitions directly.
Patterns, Not Moments
When people talk about “reactive abuse,” attention is usually placed on moments of escalation: raised voices, sharp words, visible loss of control.
But abuse is not identified by moments.
It's identified by patterns.
Across legal, advocacy and clinical definitions, four factors determine whether abuse is present and in what direction it flows:
Power.
Directionality.
Outcome.
Benefit.
These are not moral determinations.
They are observational questions with measurable answers.
What matters in determining abuse is not whether harm occurred, but how that harm functioned, with what effects and toward what ends.
Because harm and abuse are not interchangeable.
Not legally.
Not clinically.
Not in advocacy frameworks.
Not in practice.
Applying the Criteria to Reactive Abuse
Abuse is identified by what a pattern produces over time.
When the questions of power, direction, outcome and benefit are applied to situations labeled as “reactive abuse,” the answers are not ambiguous.
Power does not consolidate toward the person reacting.
There is no durable gain in leverage, safety, credibility or control.
No expansion of authority.
No widening of options.
Instead, the opposite occurs.
The person reacting typically experiences loss of standing.
Reduced credibility.
Constrained agency.
By contrast, the other party’s position stabilizes or strengthens.
Their account carries greater authority.
Their framing of events becomes dominant.
The relational terms shift in their favor.
This is the decisive measure.
When abuse occurs, power consolidates toward the person enacting it.
Advantage accumulates.
The other party’s agency contracts.
In cases described as "reactive abuse," power does not move in that direction.
It moves away from the person reacting.
Harm may be present.
Escalation may be visible.
But without consolidation of power, advantage and control, the pattern does not meet the functional criteria of abuse.
The Label as the Primary Harm
The consequences of misclassifying reactive behavior as abuse do not end with the incident.
They begin there.
In these situations, the lasting damage is not produced by the moment itself, but by the classification that comes on its heels.
Once the abuse label is applied, it reorganizes the entire field.
Credibility is reassigned.
Context collapses.
Prior behavior is reread through a single frame.
One person becomes labeled as volatile and unsteady.
The other as harmed, reasonable, and restrained.
The incident passes.
But the fallout shows up in countless ways again and again.
Ethical Integrity as Vulnerability
Abuse labels are so devastating in situations of "reactive abuse" because they very often get attached to people who are ill-equipped to fight against them.
Those most susceptible to "reactive abuse" are often deeply resistant to blaming others for their own behavior.
Accountability matters to them.
Ownership of their actions matters to them.
They accept the label not because it fits, but because questioning it feels like betraying their own values.
In systems where labels shift credibility, people with strict rules for themselves are often the easiest to pin down.
Not because they're confused or passive.
Because they're consistent.
They won't argue their way out of wrongdoing.
They don't soften the language of their actions.
They won't redirect blame.
That reliability is what allows the abuse labels to hold.
And why they're so devastating to the lives of those carrying them.
Holding the Line on Meaning
What ultimately creates clarity around "reactive abuse" is not insight, causation or self-forgiveness.
It is definition.
When the criteria for abuse are applied, the label either fits or it does not.
When it does fit, the same criteria also answer the question of which way the abuse flows.
Continuing to use abuse as a label when it no longer describes reality requires changing the meaning of the word itself.
Treating reaction as domination.
Collapse as control.
Loss as gain.
Vulnerability as power.
That's not an attempt to know or understand.
It's distortion.
It's not the job of accuracy to create a particular storyline.
Accuracy is for holding facts accountable.
It preserves meaning.
Setting down a label that doesn't define the reality of your experiences is not denial.
It's discipline. It's honesty. It's courage.
And it is the refusal to keep repairing what was never the source of the damage.
🤎Elle
This post is part 5 of a 7-part companion series to The Narcissism Files.
This piece is part of a larger documented project called The Narcissism Files, which explores the aftermath of unequal rules in narcissistic relationships, normalizing asymmetry and all the came after.
I write more about "reactive abuse" and how it furthers our isolation and dependence on them.
← Previous | Blog Home | Next →
Want to keep exploring how "reactive abuse" can impact both physical and mental health over time?
A Related Project Some of the themes explored here - narcissistic relationship dynamics, gaslighting, and the slow erosion of trust - are examined more fully in The Narcissism Files, an ongoing written project about narcissistic abuse and neurodivergent vulnerability. It’s not a guide or a recovery plan. It’s an attempt to name what happened clearly, without fixing or reframing it. You can explore the project here: |
Process Statement
This post was written entirely by the author, without AI involvement. Every word, structural decision, formatting choice, and punctuation mark reflects the author’s own process and intent.
The formatting on this site is intentional. Short lines, generous spacing, and visual breaks are used to reduce cognitive load and reading fatigue, especially for autistic and neurodivergent readers.
| Back to Top |