The triangle of violence: a systemic-cultural perspective in psychotherapy

It is probably a term close to many people. Familiarity with it is very important to quickly recognize the nature of the relationship and the extent of influence mainly between the diad, which I will describe below. The third element need not be directly involved, or at least not always. In writing this short article, I’m sticking to a few assumptions:

• Violence  can be explained to some extent and can be  useful,
• aggression is the base to be able to survive, thrive and protect,
• Assertiveness built on the basis of experience and knowledge, forms the basis for the extent of experienced influence on one’s own life and quick reactions, including defensive ones,

• The triangle of violence is common, it just depends to what extent, as is Stockholm Syndrome.

The elements that make up the violence triangle are: Executioner or Perpetrator, then Victim, and Mediator or Observer or Deliverer (depends on the assumptions and background for the paradigm behind a given violence triangle).

Usually what we see first is the diad in which the violence happens, and we also see the extent of this violence. So we observe the interaction between → Perpetrator and Victim.

Violence can express itself in the way they articulate their needs, their forms of communication, their lack of empathy and compassion, the nature of the goals of each element of this diad, their attitudes toward each other, the way they set boundaries. We can also often witness how the individuals in this observed diad change, and then – how they act in others. In this example, we can see that we are mere observers of this diad, who only reflect these changes and their behavior (of the elements that make up the diad and the interactions between these elements).

If we perceive some extreme unambiguous act of violence that brings destruction or self- destruction, then the Observer changes his attitude and role (the extent of conscious influence and action), he becomes a Deliverer, because he intervenes directly and changes the system, at least for a while. He can also become a Mediator, that is, he uses communication so that the diad or its element can change and protect itself.

The third element of the triangle can also be violent and extreme, if it has to protect something important that is being destroyed by the diad or one of its elements. This could be a witness, the police, a lawyer, the law. A psychotherapist or doctor is more like a Mediator, and sometimes a Deliverer after a while, if they manage to help in a more direct way. The third element is also some external structure, also an institution. It may be a child or someone close to him who is a direct witness to the events between the diad and in part, while he is vulnerable, is simply an Observer, but also a Victim at the same time. He may also join the triangle as a Perpetrator. Sometimes he seeks help from external structures or tries to escape because he is invited into a permanent role that is not compatible with him.

The obvious place to occupy in this triangle as a victim occurs in truly extreme cases. It involves experiencing learned helplessness, lacking the right tools for communication or adopting a certain attitude. Even by the tone of voice we can surmise that the person is an unequivocal victim. They are often very tearful people, reacting to many things xobically. They use communication based on extortion through blackmail or emotion. They themselves can also be emotionally and financially meddlesome from the perspective of others, rarely able to defend themselves physically. A naturally aggressive person is easier in a violent situation because they have other mental and physical resources, making them quicker to walk away and easier to say no, even despite their fear.

The Perpetrator, on the other hand, is the type of person who extorts obviously through violence. He is characterized by a lack of scruples and willingness to change. Even at the level of communication, he is limited in seeing the other person’s perspective. One must then be very vigilant and understand the motives. It may be that the Perpetrator is also a Victim or someone who has been a Victim for a long time and has begun to defend himself. However, based on the typical pattern, the Perpetrator avoids responsibility, is often addicted and it is impossible to plan anything with him. He’s also totally destructive in his pursuits, which are only about his vision (the typical Perpetrator doesn’t bring or protect value – this is an absolute guideline to distinguish the Perpetrator, who was a Victim or an Observer, from the real Executioner/Perpetrator). There is one order in the world of the Perpetrator, created by him and other Perpetrators, being around the system to which a particular Perpetrator belongs.

To understand and support the Abuser, it is worth recommending therapy with people with pedagogical training, preferably also with a rehabilitation jam or specialty. The abuser can then learn a lot, such as how to take on new roles and how to communicate, including how to fight addiction. Sometimes he needs the support of the police or a doctor. Violence also occurs due to the lack of another example.

Keep in mind that in less extreme cases, most people move smoothly through this diad and there is no risk of damage.

The most important in working with violence are clear boundaries, learning to communicate, acknowledging the needs of each party, and taking care to sustain the new proposed structure (we create new habits). We fight in therapy for space for development, understanding pro-health and pro-social and the well-being of each element! It is also necessary to talk a lot about respect, functions and social roles. We try to increase knowledge regarding the responsibility of each family member.

We are creating a certain map of a new structure, including psychological quality as psychotherapists – that is, self-knowledge, a chance for each person to relax and learn how to help each other, respect each other’s work, respect each other’s relationships and set clear boundaries.

We explain what empathy and compassion are, reinforce responsibility, allow us to clarify realistic expectations, avoid destruction and self-destruction in the system. We teach our patients that pleasure, which is understood to be health-promoting, brings solace. We try to prolong enduring frustrations and tensions without damage (typical violence is deviant – I just can’t handle the situation, I’ll manage as normal or fine).

It is imperative that we call for taking up roles and functions in the system based on health- promoting norms, and persistently exclude all factors that affect the system relationally, negatively (addictions, tendency to risky, destructive and self-destructive behavior, immature behavior in relation to the roles and functions taken up in the system).

This is where family therapy using the systemic method gives a foothold. The ISCP method itself, which I promote, is useful in terms of establishing a base, background in the sphere of consultation and diagnosis of problems (including through supervision with this method). On the other hand, clearly violent family systems or couples, I also encourage the use of psychotherapists after pedagogy, rehabilitation, forensic psychology, addiction therapy and sexology, who also work with couples and families. Likewise for clinical presentations of personality, mood, or sexual disorders (such as paraphilias, or suspected paraphilias → in the ISCP method, these are diagnosed immediately as deviant).

And further explaining, each element of the system is worked with differently. After all, Observers (children, relatives, witnesses, people involved from external structures such as teachers or even priests) are also supported. We work by helping, understanding, increasing the area for assertive action and communication. We also nurture compassion and empathy, which can be lost by being exposed to witnessing the use of conscious and deliberate violence. We also increase the scope of influence and indicate boundaries as well.

Deliverers and Mediators should also be able to benefit from support and understanding, confirmation that they have a good understanding and support of the psychotherapeutic processes carried out, opportunities to talk in a group (e.g., supervisions, team meetings, Balint groups).

For the Perpetrator, there is a need for quick intervention and a good diagnosis of whether he is rightly responding with violence. If clearly yes, the Perpetrator needs to know the limits and consequences and how he can protect himself.

It is good for the unequivocally seen Victim to quickly receive support and discern who can help her. It is often necessary to separate her from the Perpetrator. She also needs support in learning to communicate and increasing the scope of influence.

However, in the psychotherapy of the couple or family itself, I check how smoothly in the diad, triangle or the whole system the communication goes and what the violence is. If we see suffering, victimization, illness in the system, for the systemic psychotherapist it means that violence is definitely present.

This is all clear, in the case where we clearly see suffering. The trouble if we see such a mechanism in the system as seduction by the Perpetrator/being seduced by the Perpetrator. What does this mean? One does not easily walk away from the Perpetrator or the system where violence is suspected. Paradoxically, it may be that the victim profits from being part of such interactions. She experiences herself as part of the system or part of the Perpetrator. Such people also formulate their messages differently. Even if they are Victims, they experience themselves as

Victims, then they don’t leave the system, they just try to reap some profits from it. They become Perpetrators for other elements of the system, because they actually start to think like a Perpetrator, and communicate like a Victim.

People of this type are the most difficult to treat because they cannot confront responsibility. They are a permanent fixture in the system, centering themselves in a triangle, quite as if they were uniting the Perpetrator-Victim diad constantly in their understanding. They are closest to Stockholm Syndrome, which i n v o l v e s taking advantage of the Perpetrator’s presence in the system to be able to deny their own violence.

A classic example of Stockholm Syndrome is the Victim falling in love with the Hangman. This can be a person who is unable to leave the Hangman, begins to experience himself as an extension of him (because there is strong sexual arousal, PTSD, dissociation, perversion, denial of his own violence). Thanks to the Syndrome, the Victim or Witness can survive the violence experienced, mainly by undergoing dissociation, arousal, attention diversion.

On the other hand, Kat can also have this Syndrome. Instead of killing or destroying his victim, he starts lusting after her and then loving her. He feels seduced by her for some reason, and that’s how he builds himself up in the presence of his victims – they are of great importance to him, a certain clinch is formed between them.

Colloquially, we can observe Stockholm Syndrome by the fact that despite the violence, one remains in many relationships or structures anyway. Even at work, including if harm is being done, and in full consciousness. One stays due to the fact that there are certain benefits there. That’s why it’s worth making conscious choices, calling the profiteers because change is not always possible. Awareness of the nature of interactions can protect for years to come from the effects of PTSD.

Observing and listening to my patients, I think that most people with PTSD, after traumas, relationship crises themselves can recognize in themselves such mechanisms as dissociations, derealizations, depersonalizations in stressful or anxious situations or their own anger. In their accounts, there is information indicating the coexistence of memory disorders, dissociative fugue, etc., but without a self-destructive feature.

But back to the beginning of the text about the main principles of the Triangle of Violence. How to work with violence best? In my opinion, the first step is to recognize that it exists. Then learn how to set its boundaries, increase aggression in a healthy and defensive way, and then how to increase the degree of assertiveness through skillfully set boundaries.

Assertiveness, as I understand it, is already distinguished at the level of communication, beliefs and attitude from other forms of communication. Briefly, what is behind assertive communication: “I know that there are other solutions, that I am not alone, that there is help. I know how to communicate and I’m not afraid of the consequences.”

Assertiveness always assumes good intentions. Built on just saying no, it can become a form of violence if it does not include understanding the situation or is not built on the expectation of mutual empathy (understanding the reasons for actions).

Aggression, on the other hand, I regard as a basic drive for life, including self-preservation, introducing a certain dynamic, promoting success and increasing access to defensive behavior.

So, smart and properly directed aggression can lead to very good results, but it can also turn into violence when extreme self-defense occurs. We fight violence, especially violence that cannot be explained. To fight, we need tools. And it is this understanding that should be kept in mind when signing up for psychotherapy.

What matters is how a particular psychotherapist and his method approaches these themes and what he focuses on during his work. In the ISCP method, we look at the base, the resources, the range of possibilities and satisfaction, and the degree of external threats. Only then do we deal with emotions, the effects of trauma or the violence experienced. That’s why it’s a method that is also interventionist.

Warmly inviting you,

Paulina Kubś, M.A. 

Cabinet of Interventional Systemic-Cultural Psychotherapy

Son Lux ⁠— “Easy” with Woodkid (Live at Montreux Jazz Festival 2016) (youtube.com)