Social Sciences

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.

This theoretical opinion article critiques person-centered dementia care (PCDC) for overlooking the structural dimensions of Othering and stigma. In response to these limitations, we propose three key conceptual shifts essential to overcoming Othering and stigma experienced by people with dementia. First, although PCDC emphasizes individual agency, it is constrained by institutional priorities and professional perspectives, which can unintentionally reinforce structural inequalities. Centering the lived experiences of people with dementia as essential knowledge can rebalance power and validate their expertise. Second, reducing stigma means moving beyond PCDC’s individualized focus to recognize the social conditions that perpetuate Othering. This requires inclusive interactions and professional reflection that challenge biomedical assumptions. Third, PCDC is often limited to formal care settings, neglecting how people with dementia maintain social roles and a sense of community belonging. Addressing stigma, therefore, requires extending support into everyday life through contextual, strengths-based approaches that sustain social roles.

In the original publication (Vázquez et al [...]