It’s important to acknowledge that many people who work within institutions—whether they be in social services, healthcare, or legal frameworks—do so with good intentions, aiming to support and protect those under their care. However, even well-meaning individuals can find themselves contributing to systems that, by their very nature, impose coercive control. This control is often justified by institutional processes, procedures, or regulations that, while not designed with malicious intent, can nonetheless lead to restrictive and, at times, abusive practices.

Coercive control within institutions is not always a matter of outright abuse; sometimes, it manifests as a rigid adherence to policy that prioritises order and efficiency over individual autonomy. When these processes become overly restrictive, they risk disempowering the very people they are meant to serve, blurring the line between support and subjugation. While this control may not always be recognised as abusive at first, the cumulative effect of such processes can lead to harm, leaving individuals feeling trapped, powerless, and dependent.

In the landscape of human rights and social justice, coercive control is often framed in terms of domestic violence or interpersonal manipulation. However, this form of psychological and emotional dominance can also manifest within institutional settings, creating environments where those trapped under such control find it difficult—if not impossible—to escape. Coercive control within institutions is insidious. It rarely shows its full face in a single interaction, instead creeping in through policies, regulations, and subtle power dynamics.

The concept of coercive control in this context stretches beyond the individual and takes on a systemic role, becoming part of the structure of organisations designed, in theory, to help or protect. This article will explore how coercive control operates as an institutional sandtrap, where systems of support or care transform into systems of entrapment. It will highlight how individuals can recognise coercive control within institutions, navigate the complexities, and use their understanding to seek a way out or at least minimize harm. We will also acknowledge that those who perpetuate coercive control may not always do so with malice, but the effect remains damaging nonetheless.

Understanding Coercive Control in Institutional Settings

Coercive control, at its core, is the exercise of power through domination and manipulation, usually aimed at limiting the autonomy of another. While it’s often associated with personal relationships, the term is equally applicable when power dynamics shift in institutions, whether they be legal, educational, welfare, or health-related. In institutional contexts, coercive control manifests in rules, restrictions, and structures that systematically strip individuals of their decision-making abilities, forcing them into compliance through fear, dependence, or overwhelming bureaucracy.

Take, for instance, a state-run guardianship program where a vulnerable person is placed under the control of an appointed guardian. Theoretically, this system is designed to protect. However, when the guardian makes unilateral decisions without consulting the ward or acts in ways that stifle the individual’s autonomy—such as restricting their access to resources, deciding where they live, or controlling their personal interactions—this can become a form of coercive control.

What makes this form of control particularly insidious is that it hides behind the veil of institutional legitimacy. Unlike domestic coercive control, where the aggressor’s intentions are typically more personal, institutional coercive control is often justified by rules, procedures, and the need for efficiency or order. But for the individual subjected to these constraints, the impact is much the same: a loss of agency, an increase in fear, and the growing sense that escape is impossible.

How Institutional Coercive Control Becomes a Sandtrap

Institutions often have the dual function of offering support while also maintaining order. In an ideal world, these roles would be balanced, but in reality, the need for control often overtakes the intention to support. Coercive control becomes institutionalised when policies or norms are enforced in such a way that they systematically strip individuals of their ability to challenge or exit the system.

In many cases, this happens without overtly malicious intent. A well-meaning welfare system, for instance, may require recipients to adhere to stringent rules and invasive monitoring to receive assistance. These rules—such as regular mandatory appointments, constant proof of financial hardship, or restrictions on where individuals can live—may not be designed to harm, but they create an environment where individuals are under constant surveillance and have little control over their lives. Over time, these policies create a system where individuals feel trapped, unable to escape the cycle of dependence.

Similarly, in healthcare institutions, particularly mental health facilities, coercive control can take the form of enforced medication, strict routines, and the restriction of movement. These practices are often justified under the banner of care and safety, but they can lead to a sense of imprisonment, with individuals unable to advocate for their own preferences or well-being. When decisions are consistently made for rather than with the individual, control is effectively stripped away.

Recognising Coercive Control in Institutional Environments

For individuals navigating these institutional sandtraps, recognising the signs of coercive control is the first step towards reclaiming some measure of autonomy. Some of the hallmarks of coercive control in institutional settings include:

• Micro-management of day-to-day activities: Individuals have little to no say in their daily routines, where they live, who they can contact, or how they spend their time. These decisions are made by the institution or its representatives, often without proper consultation.
• Constant surveillance and reporting requirements: Whether it’s in welfare, guardianship, or health institutions, the individual is placed under excessive scrutiny, with regular check-ins, paperwork, and invasive monitoring used to enforce compliance.
• Fear of retribution for non-compliance: Individuals who challenge the system or attempt to assert their autonomy are often met with punitive measures, such as reduced services, restricted access to benefits, or increased scrutiny.
• Isolation from support networks: Coercive control often involves isolating individuals from their personal support systems. In institutions, this can mean limited access to legal representation, restricted visitation rights, or the discouragement of outside advocacy.

These signs are not always easy to spot because they often blend into the institutional structure, appearing as “standard operating procedures.” However, the cumulative effect on the individual can be devastating—leading to a sense of powerlessness, anxiety, and, ultimately, despair.

How to Use Institutional Knowledge to Counteract Coercive Control

While coercive control can create an environment where individuals feel trapped, it’s important to remember that knowledge is a powerful tool for fighting back. Individuals who find themselves in these situations must first educate themselves about their rights within the system. Every institution operates within a legal and ethical framework, and while these frameworks can be bent, they can also be leveraged.

• Know Your Rights: Every institution, whether it’s a hospital, welfare agency, or legal guardianship, is bound by laws and regulations that define the limits of their power. Individuals must seek to understand the specific rights afforded to them within these settings. In many cases, this means having access to legal representation or advocacy groups that can provide guidance.

• Document and Report Abuses: One of the key strategies for those under institutional coercive control is to create a paper trail. Documentation of every decision, every action taken by the institution or its representatives, provides leverage in challenging coercive policies or actions. Many institutions are aware of their public image and can be pressured into acting more ethically when they know that their actions are being scrutinised.

• Engage with Allies Inside the System: Not everyone within a coercive institution is an active participant in the control mechanisms. There are often individuals—whether they are healthcare professionals, social workers, or administrators—who recognise the damage being done by coercive policies and procedures. Building relationships with these individuals can create opportunities for advocacy from within.

• Push for External Oversight: Institutions are often resistant to change from within, but external oversight can force them to adhere to higher ethical standards. By engaging with advocacy groups, ombudsman offices, or legal teams, individuals can bring attention to the coercive nature of the institution and push for reforms. Public pressure, particularly when amplified by media or social justice movements, can force institutions to reconsider their practices.

The Role of Well-Intentioned Actors in Coercive Systems

It is important to acknowledge that not all individuals working within these institutions are malicious. In fact, many believe they are doing the right thing. The nurse who enforces medication schedules may genuinely believe that she is ensuring the patient’s health, or the welfare officer who denies assistance to someone for failing to fill out a form might feel that they are simply following policy.

However, good intentions do not absolve responsibility. Those working within institutions must remain vigilant to the ways in which their actions may be contributing to a broader system of coercive control. Ethical responsibility means acknowledging when policies are causing harm and working to mitigate that harm, even when the system as a whole may resist change.

This requires a degree of moral courage. It’s easy to go along with institutional norms, especially when those norms are couched in the language of care or protection. But individuals working within these systems must be willing to challenge harmful practices, whether by advocating for less restrictive policies, reporting abuses, or simply treating those in their care with the dignity and respect they deserve.

Creating Pathways for Change

Ultimately, the goal for individuals caught in institutional sandtraps is not just survival, but transformation. Coercive control thrives on power imbalances, and the way to break those imbalances is through systemic change. While this may seem like a monumental task, even small shifts can have a profound impact.

One of the most effective ways to create change is by reframing the narrative around institutional practices. Institutions often rely on the language of protection, care, or efficiency to justify coercive control. By highlighting the ways in which these practices harm rather than help, individuals and advocates can begin to shift the conversation toward more ethical, humane alternatives.

A Way Forward

Navigating the maze of coercive control within institutions is no easy task, but it is not without hope. By recognising the signs of coercive control, educating themselves on their rights, and engaging with allies both inside and outside the system, individuals can find ways to mitigate harm and reclaim some measure of autonomy.

Moreover, by shining a light on the coercive practices of institutions, whether through legal action, media exposure, or advocacy, individuals can contribute to a larger movement that seeks to reform these systems. Change may be slow, and the road may be difficult, but each step toward greater transparency, accountability, and ethical care brings us closer to dismantling the coercive sandtraps that entangle so many.