Thoughts and Encouragements for Wounded Helpers
Joined to a Healing God
|
Thoughts and Encouragements for Wounded Helpers
Joined to a Healing God |
Difficult emotions, social-psychological 'Games' and the Karpman Drama Triangle |
2010-07-18
Certain emotions can be difficult or even tough to experience.
Powerlessness and fear, for example, are such feelings for most of us.
We go to extremes not to feel these emotions.
All kinds of addictions are used for example to numb the experience
of these emotions.
Especially if we have not been guided well as children in experiencing
this kind of emotions, we may prefer to avoid them unconsciously.
The fact that many of us have learned early already to avoid their
feelings – no longer feeling what they feel – may have painful
consequences.
You may see people who avoid their feelings getting stuck in certain
dysfunctional interaction patterns with others, or repeatedly step into the
same traps.
One aspect of the way in which many have learned to avoid difficult emotions is by denying reality and constantly performing a sort of theater play. These people cannot act like themselves when they are with others, their behavior does not originate from who they really are or from their conscious choice. On the contrary, their behavior is strongly determined by what was suitable in their environment as a child, and on the basis of that they play a role that seems to originate from a fixed role pattern. In this way they avoid the difficult feelings that come with reality – especially those emotions that are caused by rejection by others (fear of abandonment and fear of rejection are the most intense ‘difficult emotions’). This behavior is also called ‘survival behavior’, because it is behavior that is caused by the necessity to survive as a child in the midst of dysfunctional or broken circumstances. Behavioral and reaction patterns from childhood have become fixed role patterns. This does not do any good to the people involved, nor to their environment. In fact often all parties end up being worse off.
In the 1960-s psychiatrist Eric Berne identified a number of these patterns. He called each of them a game that is played, to indicate that one avoids reality.
An example of such a ‘game’ that clearly demonstrates the loss for everyone involved is ‘Rapo’ as Berne called it. It is seen, among others, being played by women that have been wounded by men when they were young. As with all of these games it is hardly ever played consciously, but it develops as an unconscious pattern in the interaction of a woman with various men. The game develops as follows: a woman flirts with a man. When he pursuits her, she tries to seduce him to become more and more involved. As soon as he crosses a boundary of what she feels is acceptable, she cries rape (either verbally or non-verbally!). If he does not give in to her advances, she calls him prudish or something similar (again: either verbally or non-verbally!). Therefore her game inevitably implies he must lose and she then finds justification for her anger towards men. In this way she thinks – mostly completely unaware – she can revenge herself on men. In reality however, by adopting this social behavior pattern, she distances herself more and more from a healthy and satisfactory interaction with those men, who are often left bewildered as a result.
Although this may be obvious let me clearly remark that playing these kind of games, sometimes innocent, sometimes lethal, is not limited to women or any other group of people – it occurs wherever people try to avoid real contact (and the emotions that are possibly involved).
The above has become known as Eric Berne’s social-psychological
game theory.
His book Games people play contains many insights that can be useful
in a pastoral setting as well.1.
This game theory is considered to be a part of Transactional
Analysis, a concept he also developed.
See also my article: Inner Parent,
Adult and Inner Child: A brief review of Transactional Analysis
in a Biblical Pastoral context.
A special form of such a game that is often played unconsciously,
and that occurs frequently, has been identified and described first by
Stephen B. Karpman, an early student of Eric Berne.
His description clearly stands in the context of the above mentioned
Transactional Analysis and the social-psychological game theory.
The social behavior pattern as seen by Karpman consists of a role
pattern of three dysfunctional roles, where the players occasionally change
roles.
It has become known as the Karpman Drama Triangle (sometimes
also referred to as dysfunctional or trauma triangle).
Below I will elaborate this behavior pattern, using the original article
by Stephen B. Karpman as a basis.2
Let me first provide you with some background information.
Born from a Jewish mother and a Christian father, as a child Karpman barely escaped the persecution of Jews in Europe at the time of the Second World War. He was someone who studied the phenomena as briefly introduced here above in an early stage (1960s). It appeared to him that many old and internationally well known fairy tales follow a certain simplistic role pattern, and that he recognized the same pattern in many families. He thus distinguished that these stories can have a negative impact on children when they identify with these roles. That is what his article about the Drama Triangle, which later became much wider known, was all about.
Karpman observed, as did many care workers after him, that people during
and after situations of abuse and the like often fall into one
of the following three roles: ‘victim’,
‘persecutor’ (also ‘aggressor’ or
‘offender’) and ‘rescuer’.
Stephen Karpman refers among others to the fairy tale of
Little Red Riding Hood and the Pied Piper and he
demonstrates how people play these different roles consecutively.
In the story of the Pied Piper it could not be more obvious: first he is the
rescuer (who saves the city from the rat infestation), then
victim (he is betrayed by the townsmen) and finally he becomes the
persecutor (when he ‘bewitches’ all the children with
his musical pipe and takes them away).
Karpman puts the three roles in an upside-down triangle with
the victim role in the bottom angle and the two other roles on top.
In order to emphasize the dynamic character of this Drama Triangle,
I prefer to draw it as the diagram below.
 |
Someone in the victim-role seems to say
-unconsciously-: “I am so miserable and pityful, I am powerless,
I am badly treated always, others are much better off;”.
He or she will manipulate others via his/her helplessness and/or
passivity.
And someone in the rescuer-role: “I only wanted to help,
I only want to do good;”. He or she bends the other to his/her
will by ‘repairing’ (real or supposed) ‘faults’ or
‘shortcomings’ of the other, deriving a sense of satisfaction
or seeming dignity (or softening of a sense of unworthiness or shame).
And someone in the aggressor-role will think:
“I will care that I, too, get my share!”.
He/she controls the other via some mechanism of authority or power;
often involving anger and/or humiliation.
The original form of the aggressor-role (in Karpman's original
article) is the role of accuser or persecutor; we observe
this in someone who controls the situation (and the other(s))
by accusing others: “you do it all totally wrong!”.
From the above it becomes clear that the basic emotions that drive the triangle dramatology are: feelings of helplessness, unworthiness (shame), and anger. These appear relatively frequently (and are seldomly processed really well) in people who suffered as a child under neglect, abuse or other traumatic circumstances.
We see that the original article on the Drama Triangle deals with the phenomenon that wounded people are influenced as a child by the simplism of fairy tales that offer them an attractive role, as well as the role changes that help circumvent the negative sides of each role. Karpman mentions amongst others the fairy tale of Little Red Riding Hood, in which the main character first plays rescuer to grandma, and subsequently becomes victim to the wolf. That wolf, in turn, first is aggressor by eating grandma, subsequently plays grandma, so: poor victim towards Little Red Riding Hood in her role as rescuer, reverts to aggressor again towards Little Red Riding Hood, and at last victim again towards the forest keeper.
By the way: It strikes me that many comic books, television movies and series and PC-games for children feature the three roles as depicted here. There are helpless victims, mean aggressors and one or more courageous rescuers. Other roles, like that of a neighbor, brother, sister, friend, and the like, you encounter relatively seldomly. Children learn from the role-models they see around them. Currently TV and PC play a large role in that. If we give our children only models of these three pathological roles, they are prepared for pathology and not for normal functioning with others – outside the Drama Triangle! When I observe children, at playgrounds and the like, in their playing together and in their teamwork, it strikes me that a child that does not fit well in one of these roles, is often excluded from a group. The rotten apples in the basket spoil the good ones, as we say in Dutch. No wonder, that problems in families (such as what is labeled ‘domestic violence’, though I do not know what can be domestic in any kind of violence; sic) are on the increase!
It is time that we as parents, filmmakers and others in the entertainment industry, and politicians, take our responsibility and give everything to provide better role models for our children. There is certainly room for new, current family movies and series, in which healthy, well communicating role patterns are being portrayed.
Characteristic for the Drama Triangle is the drama; the
Drama Triangle hasn’t been named that way by
Stephen Karpman for no reason...
Karpman himself said of this: no Drama Triangle without role changes.
It is not realism, but it is playing a game3; a piece of drama,
with the goal of avoiding confrontation with painful or frightening aspects
of reality.
Without the support of our Creator end the encouragement of each other,
that broken reality is indeed often unbearable.
But just because of that, the Drama Triangle is so unproductive and
dysfunctional: in stead of bringing people together in their vulnerability,
fear and pain for mutual encouragement, the drama of the role-playing in the
triangle only increases their distance...
It is indeed striking that in the fairy tales that Karpman mentions,
the roles are rather hostile towards each other, and conflicts are settled
by role changes in combination with manipulation on the basis of power and
impotence (fear) and not by talking it out or something like that.
In that sense these fairy tales indeed contain what I call a
‘poisonous’ (unhealthy) message for growing (little) kids.
This shows that it is important to be critical towards the stories by
which we feed ourselves and our children.
It is good to observe that, in the Triangle, the roles are not fixed
like: “he or she is always the rescuer”, but are
comparable to dance patterns.
In it’s totality, it is kind of a macabre dance in which each reacts
to the other(s), but where there is no real contact and no true intimacy
with each other (see also the literature by Eric Berne).
Tragic experience teaches that someone who plays one of the roles,
will very likely play them all.
For example: the victim will at some moment point to someone as
being the aggressor(s), thereby themselves becoming the
accuser towards that other person.
One of the causes of this is the dynamics of fear and power, that I hope to
treat more extensively in a subsequent article.
The behavior is automatic and fear-driven.
In the underlying fear one is insufficiently conscious of the effect of
one’s behavior on others.
Another cause of playing all roles is that the victim
role seems pleasant (because of the pity and empathy invoked in others),
but eventually it is not pleasant at all, since it involves emotions of
pain, shame, powerlessness and fear.
The victim will therefore often try to rescue others in order
to maintain at least some sense of power and competence.
In this helping not the other is the goal but finding a good feeling for
oneself.
The other person thereby often becomes the victim while the
rescuer becomes the offender.
Victims and rescuers also become offender by what
Nagy’s contextual approach calls destructive entitlement
(the feeling: ‘they’ always picked on me, now it’s my
turn...), or by ‘identification with the offender’ as
survival mechanism.
Another way to look at the shift from victim to offender is
that victims often speak (explicitly or implicitly) angrily or
condescending about the ones they see as offenders.
By this view on the matter, they become accusers – a form
of offenders, as noted.
The offender often shifts to victim when the one so far
playing the rescuer or victim role, shifts to play the
offender role.
The various roles from the Drama Triangle differ in popularity. Many in public rather play the rescuer role. The victim role knows awkward emotions of impotence and the like, and the offender role is prone to public scrutiny and criticism. The rescuer role seems to have the most dignity. We find the rescuer role also labeled as codependency4. Jim Wilder relates something that closely resembles the rescuer role to never having been a (playful) kid, and calls it ‘flying upside down’5. Karpman himself saw how popular this role is in the fairy tales that he studied, where the rescuer always is the hero of the story.
Karpman later also discerned a personal, inner variant of the drama triangle, pertaining to the inner dialogue people can have with themselves.6 In this, the inside rescuer is self-protection, the inside persecutor is self-sabotage, and the inside victim is self-suffering, or variants of those. Sometimes he adds a tiny inner triangle, representing the script scene games of childhood: the persecutor takes on the script injunction for revenge on the parent, rescuer takes it on to help out the parent, and the victim is confused and accepts it all.
All three positions keep people emprisoned within the Triangle. You know that the Triangle keeps you emprisoned, when you would want to bring something up in a relationship, but you don’t mention it, because the other person:
The rapid changing of roles may make it almost impossible to deal
adequately with these roadblocks.
This section was largely adopted from: Stephen B. Karpman, Game-free communication for couples, Part
2, 2007, pag. 4.
On recovery and ‘coming loose from the triangle’ a lot has been written – entire books full!4 Therefore I hesitated a moment: can I add something unique in this article or make the material accessible in a unique way? Like you see, for myself I answered affirmative on this question. (of course I am curious whether you agree...). Among others that has to do with what I experienced in my own life and what I have observed in my pastoral practice – from which some insights emerged that I consider valuable enough to pass on.
The pattern has often been observed that nobody in any of the roles of
the triangle really takes responsibility.
The victim does not take responsibility for his/her own life,
but refers to others from whom (s)he thinks to be dependent and in relation
with whom (s)he feels powerless.
The aggressor or persecutor does not take responsibility for
the influence (s)he exerts over the life of others.
And the rescuer seems to take responsibility for others, but this
is only a show.
In addition (s)he takes no responsibility to look at his or her own life
and face and process the pain in it.
‘Take your responsibility’ often is the admonishing, with regard
to recovery and ‘coming loose from the triangle’.
And there is some truth in this.
However, for it sounds like: ‘Pull yourself out of the morass by
your own hairs!’
In Transactional Analysis another cause is distinguished as well,
one that can be explained by three ‘positions’ or
‘states of being’ (tha latter terminology is not my favorite)
that refer back to our (early) childhood experiences.
Experiences that we acquire as children, easily become patterns of
expectation, and our reactions easily become role patterns and
‘positions’.
Those ‘positions’ are pathways that we form in our thinking,
our feeling and our behavior.
Three main positions are discerned: those of (inner) Child, Adult,
and (inner) Parent.
In the article Inner
Parent, Adult and Inner Child: A brief review of Transactional
Analysis in a Biblical Pastoral context,
I treat this in more detail.
There I discuss a.o. the awkward situation that arises when someone
directs him/herself as adult to another as adult, and that person reacts
as a parent towards a child (diagram to the right).
For example: person A asks person B: ‘Did you happen to see my carkeys
somewhere?’, to which B answers: ‘No, of course not,
how many times did I tell you that you should put them in their proper
place!’
Here, B reacts as ‘critical parent’ and regards A as
‘child’.
The two interactions cross, they do not correspond to each other.
This is not respectful and is almost always experienced as unpleasant and
disturbing in the conversation.
Such a ‘crossed interaction’ we also observe when both
persons direct themselves as child to the other as parent.
For example: A says: ‘I have been treated very badly at work,
I feel very miserable!’.
In stead of meeting A’s request from some love and attention,
B reacts: ‘Well, what do you think I feel after...?!’
After this, both will probably feel even more frustrated and sad
than before this interaction.
Something similar occurs when A notices that there is a different kind
of bread than usual and curiously asks (A-A): ‘Where did you buy this
bread?’ and B interprets this incorrectly as a criticism like:
‘What kind of idiot bread is this?’ uttered by A as
‘critical Parent’, and from that interpretation reacts as
‘wounded/wronged Child’ facing that ‘critical
Parent’ (C-P): ‘What is wrong with it?’
In these last examples B does not react to the question of A, but
from an association that A’s question called forward in B’s
inner Child or inner Parent.
It is likely, that B’s reaction in the rest of the conversation
will call forward a kind of artificiality and a change in the
‘position’ of A.
In fact the conversation is no longer about the subject A raised, but
about what B felt, but did not say.
That causes these ‘crossed transactions’ to be so confusing
and unpleasant for those involved.
Often these ‘crossed transactions’ maintain a Drama
Triangle and cause the role changes.
In the last example with the bread, above, B’s reaction in fact
positions him/her in the victim position and A in the
aggressor position of the Triangle.
(That there can be crossed transactions that may be used to end a
dysfunctional ‘game’, is a different subject.)
With what I said that the further conversation was about ‘what
B felt, but not said’, we come to an important aspect.
In this context it is very enlightening to look at the dynamics of the
Drama Triangle from the perspective of the attachment theory of
John Bowlby.
(This is what e.g. Giovanni Liotti does in his article: ‘Attachment and metacognition in borderline
patients’.7)
A child that does not find consistent safety with his most significant
attachment figure (as he e.g. regularly sees anxiety in the eyes of his
attachment figure, possibly based on unresolved trauma in her),
gets involved in a most distressing and inescapable dilemma:
that between attachment and distancing, which both seem (life) threatening.
From the schism that arises this way (a form of what I call inner
disconnection) the child will alternatingly see himself and his attachment
figure as aggressor, victim and rescuer towards
each other.
This image is unconsciously transferred later to other relationships.
This vision shows also why a cognitive approach will not always
‘work’ for people caught in the triangle: an attachment
problem often cannot be solved purely cognitively.
Another aspect of the triangle is authenticity versus playing roles, in our reactions to the emotions the other calls forward in us. All drama of the triangle involves the avoiding of feelings. It is a game that people play; not a real life from the heart8. The motto is than: dare to be real; allow your real feelings and – very important – talk quietly about it at a fitting moment.
Getting out of the Triangle, according TA, involves that we learn to react as adult to what really was meant by the partner in our conversation and let our reactions ‘correspond’ as much as possible. This means that we have to become conscious of the feelings that the words of our conversation partner call forward in us. We may perhaps want to ask a question, when the background from which the other speaks and/or his/her position are unclear. In the example where A asks: ‘Did you happen to see my car keys?’, B might say: ‘No, unfortunately, I didn’t see them’. Now B finishes the conversation started by A well (the Adult reaction ‘corresponds’ with the Adult opening of A). At the same moment B can realize that she gets a feeling of powerlessness because her former advices have not been able to help B to put the keys every time at the same, proper place; her way of maintaining order. In a new sentence she might then communicate about this feeling. She might say: ‘I regret that you cannot find them – it gives me a feeling of powerlessness, that I wasn’t able to help you so far to put them in their proper place’. Even more clear it becomes, when B adds to that more clearly what she expects from A now. Is the remark about her feelings a question for support and sympathy from A and so a C-P transaction? Than it is more clear when she adds: ‘I really have difficulty in dealing with that powerlessness’. Is it a P-C transaction in which she denotes that she really wants A to change his habits, she might add: ‘I would appreciate it if you hang the keys on their proper place from now on’. Or is it an A-A transaction where she, as partner, seeks the best for both? In the latter case she will realize that this is not the moment to discuss this with A, while he is searching fervently for his keys because he is already late for work. She may then say (either aloud or to herself): ‘perhaps we can talk about it after dinner tonight how we can better deal with this together’. In this way, she remains in correspondence with A’s original (A-A) question. In the later conversation she may talk about her emotion and they may co-operate together towards a mutually satisfying real solution.
Someone who also has studied the Drama Triangle very constructively, is Roos Ikelaar9. She, like me, emphasizes that TA and the Drama Triangle in fact deal with emotions, reaction patterns etc. – so with our speaking and acting and the drives below that, and not with a state of ‘being’. It is not about who we are, but about how we act, think and feel. Next to or over the Drama Triangle of Karpman, she draws what she calls a Winner’s Triangle, where she replaces all designations by verbs, and consciously uses the colors red (stop, danger) for the Drama Triangle and green (safe, proceed) for the Winner’s Triangle:
 Drama Triangle |
 Winner’s Triangle |
So far the Winner’s Triangle by Ikelaar.
Hereby she gives an alternative, and gives a perspective how to do it
differently.
Some people may be helped by this.
For one it will be easier to realize this ‘switch’
than for another.
However, even in this approach it does not become clear to me,
where someone who never had the skill will find the resources to suddenly
switch to Winner’s Triangle behavior...
To treat the question how to escape the triangle from yet another angle, let us go back to the Source.
I wondered: what does God say about this in the Bible? It then occurred to me that the three roles can be seen as a kind of deteriorated caricature or polarization of three important aspects of our being human (see Genesis 1-3):
Acknowledgement and integration (in our consciousness) of these three aspects
is crucial for recovery and escape from the Drama Triangle.
I will cover all three of them briefly now.
By the way, this analysis comes close to what Acey Choy in 1990 called
the Winner’s Triangle: a positive reformulation of the
angles of the Drama Triangle into vulnerable, caring
and assertive.10
Sometimes we experience feelings of powerlessness and profound dependence.
But regularly – for example in the Psalms – we are called
not to be afraid for people but to look up to God only.
When, by the grace of God in Jesus Christ, we have become God’s
children, we can count on His protection.
In this context, people who became childhood victim to violence
(physical, sexual or emotional) are often – and in my view rightly
– taught to view him/herself no longer as victim, but much more as
survivor, and especially God as our Rescuer/Protector.
In God’s order we stand as equals towards each other and as
creatures in dependence towards Him as Creator.
It goes wrong, when we shift those proportions and view ourselves as
dependent victim towards others.
No wonder, that we then get nasty feelings that we find hard to handle!
Leanne Payne calls people in her Pastoral Care Ministry weeks
not to be bent to other people but only to God.
He is greater and more powerful, but He uses that power not to
belittle us, but instead He came towards us in the shape of a
helpless and dependent baby11.
We escape the Triangle by putting God above people and focus
ourselves, in our behavior, more on Him than on what people like.
What we discover then is that we find safety with God and become more
authentic (real).
We discover as well that we dare to take increasingly our own
responsibility.
In contact with God we also come in contact with what He sees in us:
our potency and our power.
These are perpendicular to the victim position.
By becoming more real and focused on the good of God – also in the
other person –, we can also mean more to that other person.
That brings me to the next point:
Genesis 1-2 speaks about God creating us as humans after His Image.
It also says that the second human being was created as help-mate for the
first.
What that being a help-mate involves, we can see when we look at God
(see the previous point!).
In the tri-une God the three: Father, Son and Spirit, are optimally
attuned to do each other good.
Sometimes – as in the path Jesus went to the cross – that is
hard.
‘Doing good to each other’ does not mean what the
rescuer in the Triangle does: avoid difficult feelings.
Here too, it involves that we attune ourselves in the first place to
what God indicates.
From the Fall, as described in Genesis 3, we learn three other important
aspects of being a help towards each other.
(1) Eve and Adam became estranged from each other, after doubting the love
behind God’s instructions and had gone against His advice.
We can only be a good help for each other when we remain focused
on God’s love.
(2) Eve omitted to share her deliberations to yet eat from the forbidden
fruit explicitly with Adam, but did incriminate him.
At that moment she changed from being a help for the better in a seducer
for the worse – reason for Adam to accuse her and reason for God to
impose a suffering on her (and in her all people, especially all women)
in the area of relationships.
(3) Adam omitted to ask critical questions and hold Eva back from her plan,
when she went to distrust God’s love. On the contrary, he hid
himself behind her choice and joined with her in eating from the forbidden
fruit.
Sometimes we (especially we men12) must rise up against a fellow
human being making the wrong choice, in stead of joining in with everything,
like the rescuer often is inclined to do.
Essential in the question what ‘a wrong choice’ is, is that
we start from God’s love and show respect when the other person yet
wants to go on with his or her choice (the rescuer often lacks that
respect – being focused to change the other in order to be less
bothered by difficult feelings!).
Lastly, it is clear, that in being a help towards each other we
are equal to each other in value.
Where the rescuer likes to lift him-/herself in a kind of pity and
compassion above the victim, and in anger above the irresponsible
aggressor, the real helper is conscious of his or her own humanness
and just stands with (next to) the other person.
Often it has been mentioned that the one who is attracted specifically
to the rescuer role, must be involved in the first place in his or
her own recovery, instead of focusing all attention to letting others
recover13.
Real care does not neglect oneself, and goes hand-in-hand with granting
the other his or her freedom.
As human beings we have been granted initiative, responsibility and
creativity as rulers over the rest of creation.
Essential is what the verb ‘to rule’ in this means.
By the Fall this notion has become quite damaged.
But again: by focusing on God, we see how things were meant to be.
He uses His power to serve and protect us – yes even to take the
suffering in our place.
So, it is not a license to seek our own gain only and use creation as we
please.
To rule, like God meant it to be, means: engaging oneself for growth and
development of creation.
I am talking here about men in relation to creation.
Like the victim puts others above him of her, and thereby putting
the human mutual measure lopsided or crooked and disturbing the balance, likewise it is when someone as aggressor or
persecutor puts him/herself above others, reckoning insufficiently
with them, their interests and their feelings.
Nobody will be willing to do this, when he or she really has given
and subjected him/herself to God and His instructions (not only in words
but also in deeds!).
We should not only avoid the aggressor role when it
makes us less popular.
Sometimes it does not, or not with some group (think of people like Adolf
Hitler).
Authenticity (being real) and openness about our own weaknesses can
help us in humility to remain focused on growth and refuse to play a
persecutor/aggressor role – neither towards others nor
towards oneself.
Concerning the latter: self-injury and other loveless behavior towards
oneself I regard as aggressor behavior towards oneself.
For me this affirms the coherence of the three roles from the Drama
Triangle; someone can even play all three roles at one moment, as in
self-injury.
Even when we have been granted a leadership task, the Bible calls us, not to rule over others, but to use our responsibility and authority to serve those involved. Servinf a vulnerable fellow human being can include: helping to set boundaries and providing protection.
Something similar counts for the ‘persecutor’ form of the
third role.
We are not called to accuse or persecute each other.
When we go against this and accuse each other, then we share in with
the enemy, who is indeed called ‘the big persecutor/accuser
from the beginning’.
When conflicts happen, or when another goes a way that is wrong in our
eyes, we do not need to swallow anything like a doormat.
The Bible calls us to confront each other in love: „Open rebuke
is better than secret love.”, says the poet of Proverbs (27:5)14.
Roos Ikelaar has a good point here: over and against to ‘accuse’
stands to ‘give and ask honest feedback’.
In an environment where there is good and clear communication with each
other, the drama of the triangle gets far less opportunity.
Lastly there still is the silent form of the third role, where we try to manipulate others, or at least protect ourselves, by withdrawing. We then come in a state that is called passive-aggressive, and where anger and judgment are ‘kept inside’. Here too, the above counts as well as the citation from Proverbs. That may feel vulnerable, and that brings me to another important issue: how do we feel sufficiently safe/secure to live from the Winner’s Triangle?
What I observe in my own life as well as in that of others around me, is
that all these aspects and skills need that we learn to feel secure.
So in pastoral care I will focus especially on that: that someone can start
to feel secure and at home as God’s child.
I say here: feel secure; thereby I do not mean a superficial
feelings that goes up and down like our emotions often do, but much more
a deep heart knowledge: God is there and He loves me –
what can happen then (cf. Romans 8)?
Only by feeling so secure, we can allow difficult feelings, and resist
the temptation to flee from those hard feelings by playing a role or other
avoidant behavior.
That basic security gives us also a sound basis to learn to
cope with our emotions in a better and more healthy, mature way.
Essential in the whole story appears to be to learn to deal well
with our emotions.
Claude Steiner15, also a student
and colleague of Eric Berne, gives some useful instructions on how
we can learn that.
It starts with learning to know and name our feelings.
For this, I sometimes use an overview of feeling words, categorized in
seven groups.16
A second and third step are formed by approaching others' feelings with
empathy and learning to control the expression of our own emotions wisely.
A key in this is to seriously ask ourselves the question: how do I
influence the other person with the expression of my emotions?
A fourth and also important step in the process Steiner points us to
is repairing done damage.
We do so by taking our responsibility, admitting our failures and asking
forgiveness.
It can help a lot when we involve God in learning to know and deal with our
emotions.
After all, God Himself is the inventor or author of us as human beings with
such a rich variety of emotions and feelings.
The Bible describes Him also as Someone Who experiences emotions
(a.o. joy, anger, disappointment, ...).
One of the aspects of our emotions is that we can use them in our walk
with God.
Worship ‘in spirit and truth’ like Jesus taught us (see John 4)
is something in which emotion can clearly provide an extra dimension.
And in fact every emotion can help us to direct ourselves in worship to God.
That counts both for feelings like those of powerlessness and anxiety
(“God, I need You, as The Mighty Protector!”) and for joy
(“God, I am so glad with You!”), peace (“Lovely,
to experience Your peace this way!”) or anger (“Great God,
You know how something could be done about this!”).
In worship we confirm God as our Creator and ourselves as creatures loved
intensely by Him.
That gets us away from the artificial roles of the Drama Triangle.
In the resulting community with Him, He can lead us to more healthy
patterns of living together.
It will be clear, that healthy friends and also a good pastoral worker
(male or female) can play an important coaching and stimulating role 17.
When people have not been taught as children how to deal well with difficult emotions, they will unconsciously choose a way of dealing with themselves and others in which they try to avoid difficult emotions. This can lead to artificiality and subconsciously playing a game or theatre play. Social structures in which people play the roles as described by Karpman in his article on the Drama Triangle are ubiquitous. In this, people regularly switch between the roles: victim, rescuer and persecutor or aggressor. Many advices given by secular cognitive behavioral therapists – like ‘take your responsibility’ – sound for those involved often like ‘pull yourself out of the morass by your own hairs’. Often this ‘sounding’ is well justified.
As a Christian counselor I see another way.
By realizing ourselves that the three roles are misformed caricatures of
how God has meant us to be, we can embrace His solution –
a solution that does right to our being created for connection with God
and each other.
This includes that the person who at any moment plays the victim
role, finds in God’s safety the room or peace to face his or her
vulnerability as creature.
Not other people are to be looked up to, but to God we may look up in
worship.
By turning away from crooked bentness to people and confessing it, we open
ourselves for God’s presence in our lives.
In God’s cherishing embrace and protection we can face reality,
being no longer powerless and there also our need to be seen as pitifull
is ended as well as the need to play this dysfunctional role.
Similarly the one who sometimes – actively or passively –
played the aggressor or persecutor role can turn form his or
her manipulation of, or dominance over, others.
Then here too arises the security to abandon fake role behavior and to opt
for the real life.
Accusing another is then replaced by accepting the other
(as also imperfect fellow creature, loved by God) and by giving
and asking honest feedback (we may both grow!).
The rescuer can see that ONE is Rescuer: Jesus.
From there, he/she can learn that the fate of the other is not dependent
on him or her, but that God is available for everyone who wants to meet
Him in Jesus.
He or she can, as victim, learn to know God’s safety and from that
secure base offer him/herself humbly to God to cooperate in
dependence with Him where needed and and be a help to the other.
This way there is hope in any situation in Christ Jesus, our Redeemer!
He wants to help us out of the morass – it is up to us to invite Him
to do so and seek and follow His instructions.
In all this it helps practically when we really listen to each other and react to what the other means within the ‘positions’ implicitly (or explicitly) given by the other. The well known position: ‘I am o.k., you are o.k.’ from Transactional Analysis, or in this context rather the Christian starting position: ‘We are both creatures of the same God and loved by Him’, can help in that. I then rather choose for that Christian position, because it leaves room for the loving confrontation when for example the other does things that go against God’s goal with our life (the G- opposite the Z-position in my essay on TA). Then the ‘I am o.k., you are o.k.’ remains standing with regard to ourselves and the other as a person, also where things are being done that are not o.k..
Significant in Karpman’s original article on the Drama Triangle
is the influence of the stories – especially the stories and fairy
tales that we got dished up as children.
Karpman especially treated the negative influence of fairy tales with the
role switches as described.
However, the influence of stories goes much further than a few fairy tales
from our childhood.
If we want to live healthily, we have to feed ourselves with healthy stories.
One of the best books with healthy stories to me is the Bible.
Here we read on every page about real, vulnerable people; people that made
good, but often also wrong choices.
And we read about their walk with God – the God Who helped them,
through all kind of difficulties.
Also the God, kept seeking for us, people (as He still does)
from His great love and grace fro us.
The God, Who considers us valuable, whatever we have made of it so far.
I believe that the Bible isn’t such a wonderful book of
stories for no reason!
We can also help ourselves and each other by actively set ourselves to
learn how we can together with God deal with difficult emotions.
Ideas like those brought up by Stephen B. Karpman and Claude Steiner
can help us practically in that.
Spiritually and emotionally it helps to see emotions in a context
of worshipping God.
| 1 |
Eric Berne, Games People Play, Grove Press, New York.
Eric Berne, Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy – A Systematic Individual and Social Psychiatry, Ballantine Books (Grove Press), New York, 1961.
Claude M. Steiner, Scripts People Live – Transactional Analysis
of Life Scripts, Grove Press, New York, 1974 / Bantam Books, London /
New York / Toronto, 1975).
Claude M. Steiner, Emotional Literacy – Intelligence with a Heart, web-document, 2002 (extensive revision and update of: Claude Steiner & Paul Perry, Achieving Emotional Literacy: A Personal Program to Increase your Emotional Intelligence, Avon Books, 1979). Jut Meininger, Success through Transactional Analysis, Signet - New American Library, New York, 1973; ISBN: 0451126378 / 0451058984. |
| 2 | Stephen B. Karpman, Fairy Tales and Script Drama Analysis
 ,
Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 1968, 39-43.This is the original article on the Drama Triangle, here reproduced at www.karpmandramatriangle.com (also available in html-format on the site of the ITAA). (See also what the Wikipedia says on the Drama Triangle and a brief piece on the Drama Triangle on the Canadian Soulselfhelp.) I encountered the concept of the Drama Triangle at first in a book by Melody Beattie on the theme of codependency and Sandra Wilson also refers to Karpman via Beattie. Only later I discovered that Karpman was one of Eric Berne’s students (see note 1) and that his original article on the Drama Triangle must be seen in the context of the Transactional Analysis and Berne’s Game Theory. See a.o.: Melody Beattie, Codependent no more – how to stop controlling others and start caring for yourself and Beyond codependency, Hazelden, USA, 1987 and 1989 respectively, combined edition: MJF Books - Fine Creative Media, New York USA, 1998. Sandra D. Wilson, Hurt people hurt people – When your pain causes you to hurt those you love / Hope and healing for yourself and your relationships, Thomas Nelson, Nashville TN, USA, 1993. Marsha Utain, with Barbara Oliver, ‘Stepping out of Chaos’ (also online as an appendix in this document), monograph, no date; later adapted and published in: Barbara Oliver & Marsha Utain, The Healing Relationship: A Gifted Therapist Answers the Plea for Help from a Survivor of Childhood Abuse, Health Publications (HCI), 1991; ISBN 1558741879 or 1558740198. |
| 3 | Here I especially refer to the literature by Eric Berne and Claude Steiner from note 1. |
| 4 | See the references by Beattie and Wilson in
note 2 and:
Anne Wilson Schaef, Co-Dependence, Misunderstood-Mistreated, Harper & Row, San Francisco, 1986. Angelyn Miller, TheEnabler: When helping harms the ones you love, Hunter House, Claremont, Ca., 1988. Valerie J. McIntyre, Sheep in Wolves’ Clothes – How unseen need destroys friendship and community and what to do about it, Pastoral Care Ministries / Hamewith Books - Baker Book House, Grand Rapids MI USA, 1996/1999. Nancy Groom, From bondage to bonding, escaping codependency, embracing Biblical love, Navpress, Colorado Springs, USA, 1991. Someone once asked me whether there is a relationship between choosing a helping profession and proneness to playing a role from the triangle (in particular the rescuer role). In my reply I noted that I suspect a relationship between the styles from the triangle and attachment styles (see e.g. my Dutch article Verbondenheid als rode draad... door het hele leven heen (Attachment as a main line all through life)). I suspect that triangle behavior appears more with insecure attachment (both are the result of an unsafe situation in early life). Insecure attachment can lead to caring behavior and codependency. The rescuer-syndrom I see represented in two variants in helpers and mental health workers: the ‘sweet rescuer’ who suffers from anxious-ambivalent attachment (and has abundant empathy for broken people, often working from approaches that have much eye for emotional woundedness etc.), and the ‘hard rescuer’ suffering from avoidant (also: dismissive) attachment (and who will help the other to the healthy path with a strong hand; relatively often in cognitive-behaviorist approaches). This is reflected in the counter-transference inclinations (overly caring, and: under-caring plus afraid of dependence, respectively; the former is the typical codependent style, the latter style is also called counter-dependent, a.o. by Barry K. Weinhold). Representatives of both styles are bound in a childish (read: unhealthy for an adult) way to the other(s) and avoid their own problems and difficult emotions. The former do that by intensely engaging themselves in the problems and emotions of others, the latter by shutting all emotions out. |
| 5 | See: E. James Wilder, (The Complete Guide to) Living with Men – Keep Growing and Stay Lovable, Shepherd’s House Publishing, Pasadena CA, USA, 1993/2004; ISBN 0 9674357 5 7. |
| 6 | See Stephen Karpman, Blog notes: There are some other uses I’ve added to the Drama Triangle concept, Karpman’s website, 2006. |
| 7 | Giovanni Liotti, ‘Attachment and metacognition in borderline patients’, Associazione di Psicoterapia Cognitiva (APC), Rome, Italië, no date (especially the section: ‘Disorganisation of attachment and psychopathology’). See also the powerpoint presentation by the same Giovanni Liotti: ‘Disorganized attachment, trauma-related disorders and the therapeutic relationship’). |
| 8 | By ‘living from the heart’ I mean what is described in: E. James Wilder, James G. Friesen, Anne M. Bierling, Rick Koepcke, Maribeth Poole, The Life Model – Living from the Heart Jesus Gave You – The Essentials of Christian Living, and: Bringing the Life Model to Life – The LIFE Model Study Guide for Individuals and Small Groups, Shepherd’s House, Pasadena, CA, USA, 1999 resp. 2000. See also note 5. |
| 9 | See: Roos Ikelaar, ‘Werkwijze met de Dramadriehoek en de Winnaarsdriehoek’ (Working with the Drama Triangle and the Winner’s Triangle), Gids voor Personeelsmanagement, Dec. 2002; also in the Dutch TA magazine Strook, 25 (1), 2003, p.12-13. |
| 10 | Acey Choy, ‘The winners triangle’,
Transactional Analysis Journal, 20 (1), Jan. 1990; p.40-46. See also: Acey Choy, ‘Karpman Drama Triangle (Roles and interactions involved in a psychological game)’, Dynamic Leadership, Sydney, no date. Section 9.3 ‘Drama and Winners Triangles’ in: ‘A Guide to Effective Mentoring – A Flexible Learning Workbook’, © Integration, April 2002, p.33-36. Robin C. Burgess, ‘A Model for Enhancing Individual and Organisational Learning of ‘Emotional Intelligence’: The Drama and Winner’s Triangles’, Social Work Education, Vol.24, No.1, February 2005; pp. 97–112. |
| 11 | See: Henri Nouwen, Finding my way home,
Crossroad, New York; especially the first part in this: ‘The way of
the power’. Nouwen says there a.o. (p.27-28 in the Dutch translation;
my translation back to English):People with power do not motivate us to confidentiality. We are afraid of them. They can play the boss over us and let us do things that we do not want. We look up to people with power. They have what we do not have and can give or refuse to give something as they please. ... But God’s power works just the other way around. God does not want us to be afraid, or feel inferior or be envious. God want to come close, very close, so close that we feel so at home in the intimate fellowship with Him as a child in the arms of his [good; AHR] mother. What I found striking as well, is that big changes in the lives of people with whom Jesus had contact when He walked here on earth, often started with a token of dependence from Jesus. I am reminded of the Samaritan woman, whom He asked a glass of water; and of Zacheus, whom He asked for an opportunity to have dinner with him. |
| 12 | Larry Crabb connects with the story from
Genesis 3 and refers to this saying that we as men must dare to ‘speak
in the darkness’ (namely to drive it away, like God did in Genesis 1).
See: Larry Crabb (with Al Andrews & Don Hudson), The Silence of Adam: Becoming Men of Courage in a World of Chaos, Zondervan, 1994; ISBN 978 0310219392. |
| 13 | It is no accident that many rescuers
themselves end up in helping professions.
See a.o. the references in notes 1 and 4, and: Babette Rothschild, ‘Understanding Dangers of Empathy’, Psychotherapy Networker, July/August 2002 (on vicarious traumatization). The same author also illustrates to what extend the rescuer is embedded in our genes (not as a caricatural rescuer role but as someone who really can come ‘alongside’ as an equal and stand with a fellow person): ‘Mirror, Mirror: Our Brains are Hardwired for Empathy’, Psychotherapy Networker, Sept/Oct 2004. |
| 14 | For more on this see the warmly recommended book: David Augsburger, Caring Enough to Confront – Learning to speak the truth in love, Herald Press, USA / Marshall Pickering, Basingstoke Hants UK, 1973 / 1980; see also my Dutch article: ‘Communiceren vanuit verbondenheid – over hoe we kunnen en mogen leren te leven en met anderen om te gaan vanuit verbondenheid’ (Communicating from attachment – on how we can and may learn to live and interact with others from connection), on my Dutch site www.12accede.nl . |
| 15 | Claude M. Steiner, Emotional Literacy –
Intelligence with a Heart, web-document, 2002 (extensive revision and update of: Claude Steiner &
Paul Perry, Achieving Emotional Literacy: A Personal Program to Increase
your Emotional Intelligence, Avon Books, 1979).
See also:
|
| 16 | In my psycho-pastoral practice I use a two-page
overview of feeling words in Dutch: een overzicht van gevoelswoorden, ingedeeld in zeven categorieën
.
My article Attachment: Key to Healthy Living through
Adequate Affect Regulation, here on www.12accede.org , contains an
English translation of the diagram and a summary. |
| 17 | From the vision that the Drama Triangle arises
from attachment problems (see note 7), relational safety/security and an
attitude of unfretting availability and emotional attunement will be more
conducive to healing than that of anxiety or professional distance.
Trauma-counselor Téo van der Weele emphasizes
in this context also the power of blessing each other with the presence
and peace (shalom) of Jesus. For more information about his approach
see e.g.: the articles around the theme
‘Blessing’, here on www.12accede.org .
It is important for all involved not to let themselves
be pulled into the Drama Triangle. For more about this, elucidated from
Berne’s Game theory (see the first reference in note 1) and the
Object Relations theory, see Jeannette D. Bakker, ‘Verwerven van autonomie – Een
zoektocht via de objectrelatietheorie naar het stoppen van het Spel en de
Dramadriehoek’ (Acquiring autonomy – A quest via Object
Relations theory to stopping the Game and the Drama Triangle),
Strook, Vol.28, Nr.4, 2005, p.19-22. |
I thank Martien Jan de Haan of Archippus for his very constructive
feedback on an earlier Dutch version of this article, and Johan Verdouw for
some assistance in translating this article.
The most important references have been given already in the notes above. Below some additional ones.
Arno Gruen, Der Verrat am Selbst, Causa Verlag, München, 1984 / Deutscher Taschenbuch Verlag, München, 1986; ISBN 10: 3 423 35000 8; Eglish translation by Hunter & Hildegarde Hannum, The Betrayal of the Self: The Fear of Autonomy in Men and Women, Grove Press, 1988; ASIN: 0802110177.
Arno Gruen, ‘The need to punish’, web article.
Mandy Lacy (of Star Potential Ltd), ‘How to avoid being the queen of drama’, Mental Wellbeing section of: Beauty NZ, January 2010, p.74-75.
Brennan Manning, Abba’s Child – the cry
of the heart for intimate belonging, NavPress, Colorado USA, 1994).
See also the article: Living as God’s beloved – an interview
with Brennan Manning, on how we can experience God’s love; from the
on-line library of the Discipleship Jl (Navigators USA).
Josh McDowell, with Ed Stewart, The Disconnected Generation – Saving Our Youth from Self Destruction, Word (Thomas Nelson), Nashville, 2000; ISBN 0 8499 4077 X (see an impression of this book, at the publisher).
Henri Nouwen, The inner voice of love; especially the chapter on living patiently with the ‘not yet’ (p.62-63 in the Dutch version).
André H. Roosma, ‘We geven door hoe verbonden we zijn’ (We pass on how attached we are), web article on attachment and connection as key factor in intergenerational transference of mental (ill) health), Promise 20 (3), July 2004; and also on www.12accede.nl .
André H. Roosma, ‘Attachment: Key to Healthy Living through Adequate Affect Regulation’, on how all kinds of psychopathology can be traced back to a lack of affect regulation skills that arise from insecure or broken attachments, web article here on www.12accede.org (Dutch version also in: Promise 20 (4), Oct.2004, pp.1-13).
André H. Roosma, ‘(On)Verbondenheid en misbruik of verwaarlozing’ (Detached or belonging in relation to abuse and neglect), article on how we can help those who suffered under abuse or neglect from parents or other significant caretakers, Promise 22 (4), Oct.2006, pp.2-11; and also as web-article on www.12accede.nl .
André H. Roosma, ‘Life Renewal – by renewed thinking or...?, web article her on www.12accede.org
André H. Roosma, ‘Living as Children of the King’, web article on pastoral counseling from Romans 14: 17, here on www.12accede.org .
André H. Roosma, ‘True Worship’, web article on what worship is all about, here on www.12accede.org .
André H. Roosma, ‘Mary’s Amazing
Story’ (about her experiences with Jesus) , web article here on
www.12accede.org .
This article gives a good illustration on how Jesus wants to stand
besides us in our emotions and how we can use our emotions under all
circumstances to worship God.
Anna A.A. Terruwe, Geef mij je hand – over bevestiging, sleutel van
menselijk geluk (Give me your hand – on affirmation, key to human
happiness), De Tijdstroom, Lochem NL, 1972 (for an impression of the
teaching of Anna Terruwe, see p.18-31
from this book on-line at www.12accede.nl (
PDF document)).
Anna A.A. Terruwe, Geloven zonder angst en vrees (Believing without anxiety and fear), Romen, Roermond NL, 1971; ISBN 90 228 5203 2.
Anna A.A. Terruwe, De Frustratieneurose (The
Frustration Neurosis), 1st printing: J.J. Romen & Zonen, Roermond NL,
1962 / 6th printing: De Tijdstroom, Lochem NL, 1988; last printing: Bosch
& Keunig NL, 1993.
Note: Terruwe’s concept of the frustration
neurosis shows some overlap with that of codependency, in my view.
With Anna Terruwe like to refer as well to the following articles:
S. van de Berkt, ‘Relatie als instrument van genezing’ (Relationship as instrument of healing), very extensive (literature) study of the concept of the affirming, restrained love and its significance in pastoral counseling, Kerkrade (NL), January 2000 (also here in a version on a few less pages).
Nico van Hal, Met Weerhoudende Liefde – Het belang van de bevestigingstheorie van dr. A.A.A. Terruwe voor het Humanistisch Raadswerk (With Restrained Love – The relevance of the teaching on affirmation by dr. A.A.A. Terruwe for the Humanistic Counseling work; once on the web; now attached at the end the study by Van de Berkt, above).
16 juni 2004 Tempora has published an article by Bill Banning on the teaching on affirmation of Anna Terruwe: Bevestiging als Opdracht in het Onderwijs (Affirmation as Assignment in Education) (this version is a copy; the original version is available via Tempora -> teksten -> scroll down till you see the title; it refers to the book on Anna Terruwe that appeared in 2004: Bevestiging, erfdeel en opdracht (Affirmation, heritage and assignment), under red. of H. Vekeman, publisher: Damon; ISBN 90 5573 5248.).
The Magazine Nieuwe Revu of 2 april 1971 featured a good interview with Anna Terruwe as well, entitled: ‘In mijn spreekkamer heb ik de liefde geleerd’ (In my consulting room I learned what love is). In 4 parts (4 pages) this is scanned at the site of the Catholic University of Nijmegen (NL): page 1, page 2, page 3, page 4.
Bruce Thompson, Walls of my heart, Crown
Ministries Itnl, USA 1989.
Note: This book clearly depicts that crooked
walls (like we erect them e.g. in codependency) cannot protect our heart.
To be able to live healthily and safely the walls we build have to be
straight, in accordance with God’s Word.
John Townsend, Hiding from Love (We all long
to be cared for, but we prevent it by –) – How to change
the withdrawal patterns that isolate and imprison you, NavPress,
USA, 1991 / Scripture Press, Amersham-on-the-Hill Bucks England,
1992; ISBN 1 872059 68 6.
Lin Button of Pastoral Care Ministries wrote about this book:
„A life changing book for everyone who experiences problems in
relationships. It points the way for a spiritual journey to the place
where you can receive love from God and others and where you learn to
accept yourself.”
E. James (Jim) Wilder, ‘Fear Bonds and Love
Bonds In Families and Cults’; web article with an example of
application of the Life Model, file Fear Love Bonds and
cults.pdf at
www.lifemodel.org.
For more information, or your reaction to the above, you can contact me via e-mail: andre.roosma@12accede.nl.
| home |  | of back to the article index |
, Accede!, Zoetermeer NL,
2007-03-10 (NL) / 2010-07-14 (EN) / 2016-06-20;
all rights reserved.
Nederlandse versie