About Violence, Responsibility, Karpman Triangle And Social Media

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

Despite the fact that there are already a lot of posts and articles about violence and the work of a psychologist with it, and it is unlikely that something unique can be said, since the thoughts described here have already sounded: from my colleagues, mentors, and, accordingly, in primary sources, but, once a thought is torn to paper, it is necessary to write (repetition is the mother of learning!).

It has been written countless times about victim blaming and “victim responsibility” in the context of discussions about violence, this issue is becoming the subject of heated debate in blogs, groups, social networks, and, according to my observations, is one of the most “emotionally charged”. Despite the fact that it is in this topic that the splitting mechanism manifests itself so clearly and massively: "right" and "wrong", "professionals" and "amateurs", "the victims themselves" and "you yourself are rapists" - for everyone who is looking for and finds the wrong on different "border" sides. Those. in whole groups people slip into one of the primary forms of organizing experience, and apparently resort to this protective mechanism when they fail to bring their disparate, contradictory inner experience into a single whole.

My thoughts, in this case, are not directed in the direction of victim-blaming, which has set the teeth on edge, everything is clear here. And, I would like to focus on the professional position, ideas and methods of work of psychologists in this context.

What is the first stumbling block in discussions and even disputes between colleagues, on which we grasp tightly:

These are broadcasted misconceptions about the identity of the “victim of violence” and the “role of the victim” from the well-known Karpman Triangle, respectively, one can assume an erroneous therapeutic strategy, in general, destructive for the injured party

What is the fundamental difference between the approaches:

"Karpman's triangle" is a model describing the interaction between people in the framework of transactional analysis (Transaction is a unit of communication), based on mutual manipulations.

Karpman's model describes three habitual psychological roles (or role plays) that people most often take in situations:

The character who plays the role of the victim

The character who plays the role of the stalker - pressure, coerce or harass the victim

The character who plays the role of the rescuer intervenes, as it seems, out of a desire to help the weak.

Here are the guidelines for getting out of the triangle, replicated on many psychological sites:

Dramatic Triangle Exit Strategy:

1. The first step is the same for all roles: become aware of the specifics of your communication. What role do you choose? What does it give you? Why is this feeling important to you? What other way can you fulfill this need?
2. Stop playing your part.

Recommendations for the victim:

• Do not blame others and circumstances for your troubles. Moreover, you must abandon this not only in conversations, but also in thoughts. Look for where you are responsible for the results and what exactly you must do to solve the problem.
• Don't ask for or expect help from others. Nobody owes you anything. As training for new behavior, try to give more to others, to help family and friends.
• Take responsibility for your life.

Every such advice aimed at getting out of the Triangle blames and traumatizes the victim of real violence.

Why it is impossible to identify Karpman's “victim role” with a victim of violence: Karpman is about manipulative games, communication of equal people, each of whom can change his role at any time (moving from victim to pursuer, from savior to victim), and really stop running in the circle of this destructive scenario, you can only open your own game, realizing your own role, subject to taking responsibility for this process.

Everything that is associated with the manifestation of real violence does not imply equality and dynamism (changing roles and positions). Here - hierarchy, inequality, power imbalance. Those. power is concentrated in the hands of one person. And he knows this very well. And he uses this power to the fullest.

Perpetrators of violence share the following general characteristics:

- minimizing the consequences of committed violence

- denial of one's own responsibility for the violence

- a sense of the legitimacy of violence

Therefore, the position of specialists about "awareness of their sacrificial position", and work aimed at accepting "responsibility" for this position, which in turn should contribute to the exit from the Triangle (in their understanding of a violent environment) is erroneous and not professional from the point of view of the approach based on methods and programs for the rehabilitation of victims of domestic violence (mainly foreign experience).

2. The next stumbling block in discussions regarding work with victims is the position under the conventional wording “not to spare the victim”. This concept sounds something like this: “those psychologists who for years listen to the whining of the victim - support her infantilism, do not allow to take responsibility, to grow up - our professional task is to say -“open your eyes, get up and go”, etc. in different variations, often quite rudely authoritarian and categorical. The bottom line is obvious - not to indulge "helplessness", "not to feed the victim", and again, about "taking responsibility."

Here, I think, different approaches are also mixed in a bunch, and the specialists here are probably based on the strategy of working with a masochistic client, because supporting the client's masochism does indeed lead to his regression.

As a result of this misconception, and the choice of the wrong strategy, the psychologist denies support to the victim of violence as much and for a long time.

Here, one must understand that women who fall into violence can have completely different character traits, not be masochistic, weak and helpless initially, but become traumatized, weakened as a result of being in violence. Which requires a lot of patient support.

(a small remark - of course, there are certain reasons that increase the chance of getting into a cycle of violence. This is mainly due to the dysfunctionality of the family, or the environment in which the woman was brought up, with learned behavior and reactions, the habit of a violent environment, etc. that increase the risk of becoming a victim violence, but this is a completely different topic, like the form of work, and it is also not about "responsibility").

In general, the word “responsibility” itself, in the context of discussing violence, has a different meaning (I specifically clarified with my colleagues what exactly they mean):

The option - “to take responsibility” means to evaluate your own contribution to this relationship and to take your share of this responsibility in terms of: your own choice of a partner, the choice to stay in this relationship, as well as for your own behavior that leads to violence (meaning that a victim of violence, has some specific characteristics, initially set and provoking violence, which need to be corrected by changing oneself)

(Well, this can be completely left without comment, pure victim-blaming, a lot has been written about this, I will not repeat myself, but it is very sad to hear this position from colleagues).

2. Option - “to take responsibility” means to be the author of your life, to take responsibility for changes, for your own future life, for getting out of the environment of violence.

It means taking back control and a sense of control over your own life.

Based on these beliefs of the specialist, in this case, the method of "reality therapy" is used: the desire to induce the victim to take responsibility for various real life situations and achieve the goals set, which is effective in the final stages of therapy, but is contraindicated in the initial stages, because it aggravates condition of women experiencing violence.

It must be borne in mind that a woman who seeks help from a psychologist may still be in a violent relationship, leave and return, and this can last for a long time.

Women who regularly endure humiliation, social isolation, sexism and beatings come to terms with their situation, showing signs of learned helplessness. The powerlessness that a woman experiences in a relationship with a rapist paralyzes her ability to act, taking the form of passivity, unwillingness to do anything, etc.

And, it can take a long time, sometimes years, to regain control over your own life.

Moreover, domestic violence is a more complex and multifaceted problem than social violence. And here, we are faced not only with the facts of violence itself, but also with a real social and economic situation that requires an integrated approach, with the involvement of social and legal, support and social work. That, frankly speaking, in our country, is very, very poorly organized.

The psychologist, working, in general, with the emotional state and the behavioral aspect, does not always take into account the socio-economic situation of the victim.

In other words, can we offer the victim to “take responsibility for her life and get out of the violent relationship,” without being able to offer the woman options for how she can simply survive, if there is a total, not only emotional dependence, but also economic, as well as to guarantee elementary physical safety when a woman reasonably fears for her own life, or for maternal rights.

Those. I'm now talking about the fact that it is necessary, when choosing a mode, a rhythm of work, to objectively take into account the real social situation in which a woman is.

In short, what psychologists are taught in the framework of work with victims of domestic violence:

1. To work on solving a specific problem (request) of a woman, with which she turned to a psychologist. Provide emotional support by avoiding subjective interpretations of her behavior.
2. Not to offer “leaving” as a solution to the problem, not to push her towards it, but to provide support and training in skills - “how to live in what is now”, inside a situation of violence, until the moment of leaving.

I foresee the resistance of this position, but, in fact, in the framework of training on this topic, this approach is indeed proposed. And he has a completely logical rationale, confirmed by practice: a woman has probably already been told many times what she needs to do and where to run. (There is also a mass of sources, literature and opinions on the topic “why they don’t leave”, ie the search for an answer to this question should not be in the psychologist's belief system).

There is no point in trying to “save” a woman by pushing her to leave the rapist until her internal contradictions are resolved. Violent relations exist within the framework of a very stable system that can only be destroyed from the inside, but not from the outside, so it is unlikely that we, as specialists, should prematurely initiate an external process.

And, even in spite of the fact that the decision can be made, it can take a very long time to the stage of its implementation.

And, just a psychologist is the person who, without joining a huge number of "experts" who open their eyes and recommend to run where they look, is able to provide REAL support, which is initially in the counseling process: informing a woman about all aspects of domestic violence, training in safety skills and risk assessment at every moment, joint creation of a safety plan, training in social skills, support in gradually building a socio-economic base on which to rely, in helping to find and recruit the necessary resources to cope with domestic violence. And only then, it is necessary to build up therapeutic tasks for dealing with trauma and its consequences for the victim's personality.

And, already at this stage of work, when the victim is safe, has the necessary amount of resources, is able to rely on herself, it is important to process the traumatic experience, go further, and not make the situation of violence and the experiences associated with it the center of her life and a defining experience, on the basis of which further life will be formed. At this stage (and only at this stage) a confrontation with the helpless, sacrificial behavior and beliefs of a woman is possible.

A short summary of everything written is:

• The cycle of violence differs from interaction in the model of codependency - there are completely different processes, therefore, working with a victim of violence as a “codependent” is wrong.
• Of course, it is important, and even necessary, to come to the topic of responsibility (in the context of the authorship of life - “stop enduring” to start taking care of yourself) in psychotherapeutic work. But! The essential aspect here is not to jump over the important stages of the formation of the very possibility of this responsibility to see, take and bear.
• It is important for specialists to separate, primarily in the field of public discussions, the contexts in which the word "responsibility" is mentioned, to make it clearer what is meant (the word "responsibility" is a trigger for discussion participants, which divides them into two camps, actually supporting this polarity and splitting). Often, just omitting in the discussion, comments, the description of the stages of its gradual formation, and safe terms when it is possible to talk about this with the victim.

Because, nevertheless, the majority of colleagues accused of "victimblaming", running into angry comments, or even harassment, in fact show literacy, professionalism and care in dealing with violence, they simply, apparently, choose not quite the "correct" language to describe processes that I want to convey, which is not a very good reason for a split in the professional community. (although, returning to the beginning of the article, I can recall that incompetence happens, unfortunately).