When describing an abusive partner, it’s common to hear terms like “narcissist,” “psychopath,” or “sociopath” thrown around. These labels may seem to offer clarity, but they often serve to individualize harm, relying on medicalized frameworks that distract from the patterns of power and control at the heart of gender-based violence.
In reality, no diagnosis is required to understand abuse. Abusive partners are not dangerous because they have a personality disorder. They are dangerous because they choose to use tactics—manipulation, isolation, intimidation, humiliation, threats, and violence—to dominate and control others. These behaviours are not accidental. They are intentional, calculated, and often repeated over time with escalating harm.
Many public-facing articles attempt to distinguish between narcissism, psychopathy, and sociopathy. For example, they may describe narcissists as entitled and lacking empathy but still capable of shame; psychopaths as emotionally cold and lacking remorse; and sociopaths as shaped by environmental trauma. But these distinctions risk obscuring the fact that abusive behaviour does not require a clinical diagnosis. People who use violence can present as charming, remorseful, or emotionally intelligent—and still be dangerous.
It’s also important to consider that psychiatric labels have historically been used to excuse or explain abusive behaviour, especially when the abuser is male. Conversely, survivors—especially women—are often pathologized for their trauma responses. This double standard reinforces stigma, removes accountability from perpetrators, and undermines survivors’ credibility.
Instead of focusing on diagnostic categories, we can ask different questions:
- Does this person repeatedly ignore boundaries?
- Do they blame others for their actions?
- Do they isolate or control their partner?
- Do they escalate in response to accountability?
A trauma- and violence-informed approach does not require diagnostic confirmation to believe survivors, recognize harm, or intervene. It centers survivors’ experiences and shifts the focus from “what is wrong with him?” to “what is he doing—and why is he allowed to keep doing it?”
Understanding abuse requires looking beyond psychology and into systems of power—patriarchy, racism, capitalism, and colonialism—that enable and excuse violence. While clinical tools can offer insight, they should never replace political, social, and survivor-informed analysis of abuse.
If someone’s behaviour is causing fear, harm, or control—those are the receipts. You do not need a label to take it seriously or to take action.
