It is probably a term close to many people. Knowledge of this issue is very important in order to quickly recognize the nature of the relationship and the extent of influence, especially between the dyad, which I will describe below. The third element does not have to be directly involved, at least not always.
While writing this short article, I stick to a few assumptions:
- violence can be explained to some extent and can be useful,
- aggression is the basis to be able to survive, develop and protect,
- assertiveness built on the basis of experience and knowledge, creates the basis for the scope of the experienced influence on one’s own life and quick reactions, including defensive ones,
- The triangle of violence is common, but it depends on the extent, just like the Stockholm syndrome.
The elements that make up the triangle of violence are: the Executioner or the Perpetrator, then the Victim and the Mediator or Observer or Deliverer (depending on the assumptions and background for the paradigm behind the triangle of violence).
Usually, what we see first is the dyad in which violence occurs, and we also see the extent of this violence. So we observe the interaction between → Perpetrator and the Victim.
Violence can be expressed in the way they articulate their needs, forms of communication, lack of empathy and compassion, the nature of the goals of each element of this dyad, their attitude towards each other, the way they set boundaries. We can also often witness how the people in this observed dyad change, and then how they act in others. In this example, we can see that we are ordinary observers of this dyad, who only reflect on these changes and their behaviour (the elements that make up the dyad and the interactions between these elements).
If we perceive an extremely unambiguous act of violence that brings destruction or self-destruction, then the Observer changes his attitude and role (the scope of conscious influence and actions), he becomes a Savior, because he intervenes directly and changes the system, at least for a moment. He can also become a Mediator, that is, he uses communication so that the dyad 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 that is important and destroyed by the dyad or one of its elements. It can be a witness, the police, a lawyer, the law. A psychotherapist or a doctor are more like Mediators, and sometimes Saviors after some time, if they manage to help in a more direct way. The third element is also an external structure, also an institution. It can be a child or someone close to him, who is a direct witness of the events between the dyad and partly, while he is vulnerable, he is simply an Observer, but also a Victim at the same time. He can also join this triangle as the Perpetrator. Sometimes he seeks help in external structures or tries to escape because he is invited to a permanent role that is not compatible with him.
The obvious place that can be taken in this triangle as a victim occurs in really extreme cases. This is associated with experiencing learned helplessness, lack of appropriate communication tools or adopting a certain attitude. Even by the tone of voice, we can assume that a given person is an unambiguous victim. They are often very tearful people, reacting to many things in a strange way. They use communication based on blackmail or emotions. They can also be emotionally and financially entangling from the perspective of others, rarely able to defend themselves physically. A naturally aggressive person is easier in a situation of violence because they have different mental and physical resources, which makes it easier for them to leave and it is easier for them to say no, even despite fear.
The Perpetrator, on the other hand, is a type of person who extorts in an obvious way through violence. He is characterized by a lack of scruples and a desire to change. Already at the level of communication, he is limited in terms of seeing the perspective of the other person. You have to be very vigilant and understand the motives. It may happen 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 a typical scheme, the Perpetrator avoids responsibility, is often addicted and cannot be planned with him. He is also totally destructive in his pursuits, which concern only his whims (the typical Perpetrator does not bring or protect value – this is an absolute guideline to distinguish the Perpetrator, who was the Victim or Observer, from the real Executioner/Perpetrator). There is one order in the world of the Agent, created by him and the other Agents, who are around the system to which the particular Agent belongs.
In order to understand and support the Perpetrator, it is worth recommending therapy with people with pedagogical training, preferably also with a rehabilitation drive or specialty. The perpetrator can then learn a lot, for example, taking on new roles and ways of communicating, as well as fighting addiction. Sometimes he needs support from the police or a doctor. Violence also appears due to the lack of another example.
Remember that in less extreme cases, most people move smoothly along this dyad and there is no risk of damage.
The most important things in working with violence are clear boundaries, learning to communicate, taking into account the needs of each party and taking care to maintain the new proposed structure (we create new habits). In therapy, we fight for space for pro-health and pro-social development, as well as the well-being of each element! We should also talk a lot about respect, functions and social roles. We try to increase knowledge about the responsibility of each family member.
We are creating a certain map of a new structure, also of mental quality as psychotherapists – i.e. knowledge about oneself, a chance to rest for each person and learn to help each other, respect for work, respect for relationships and setting clear boundaries.
We explain what empathy and compassion are all about, strengthen responsibility, allow you to specify realistic expectations, avoid destruction and self-destruction in the system. We teach our patients that pleasure, which is understood as pro-health, brings relief. We try to prolong the endurance of frustration and tension without damage (typical violence is deviation – I just can’t cope with the situation, I can handle it as it is normal or good).
It is imperative that we call for taking up roles and functions in the system based on pro-health norms and stubbornly exclude all factors that affect the system relationally and negatively (addictions, tendency to risky, destructive and self-destructive behaviors, immature behaviors towards the roles and functions assumed in a given system).
This is where family therapy with the use of the systemic method provides support. The IPSK method itself, promoted by me, is useful in the field of creating a database, background in the field of consultations and diagnosis of problems (including through supervision using this method). On the other hand, obviously violent family systems or couples, I encourage you to also use the help of psychotherapists in pedagogy, rehabilitation, forensic psychology, addiction therapy and sexology, who also work with couples and families. Similarly, in the case of a clinical picture of personality, mood or sexual disorders (such as paraphilias or suspicions of paraphilias, → in the IPSK method they are immediately diagnosed as deviations).
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 act by helping, understanding, increasing the area for assertive action and communication. We also cultivate compassion and empathy, which can be lost when exposed to the use of conscious and intentional violence. We also increase the scope of influence and also indicate the boundaries.
Rescuers and Mediators should also be able to benefit from support and understanding, confirmation that they understand and support the psychotherapeutic processes carried out well, opportunities to talk in a group (e.g. supervisions, team meetings, Balint groups).
For the Perpetrator, it is necessary to intervene quickly and make a good diagnosis of whether he is reacting with violence in the right way. If it is evidently so, the Perpetrator must know the limits and consequences and how he can protect himself.
It is good for the unambiguously seen Victim to quickly receive support and discernment as to who can help him. It is often necessary to separate it from the Perpetrator. They also need support in learning to communicate and increase their range of influence.
However, in the psychotherapy of a couple or a family, I check how smoothly communication takes place in a dyad, triangle or the whole system and what violence consists of. If we see suffering, victimhood, illness in the system, for a systemic psychotherapist it means that violence is definitely there.
All this is clear when we see suffering evidently. It is a problem if we see such a mechanism in the system as seduction by the Perpetrator/seduction by the Perpetrator. What does this mean? It is not easy to leave the Perpetrator or the system in which violence is suspected. Paradoxically, it may turn out that the victim profits from being part of such interactions. She experiences herself as part of the system or part of the Author. Such people also formulate their messages differently. Even if they are Victims, they experience themselves as Victims, they do not leave this system, but try to profit from it. They become Perpetrators for other elements of the system, because they actually start to think like the Perpetrator, and they communicate like the Victim.
People of this type are the most difficult in therapy, because they are not able to confront responsibility. They are a constant element of the system, centered in a triangle, as if they were connecting the Perpetrator-Victim dyad constantly in their understanding. They are closest to Stockholm Syndrome, which consists in taking advantage of the Perpetrator’s presence in the system to be able to deny one’s own violence.
A classic example of Stockholm Syndrome is when the Victim falls in love with the Executioner. It can be a person who is unable to move away from the Executioner, begins to experience himself as an extension of it (because there is a strong sexual arousal, PTSD, dissociation, perversion, denial of one’s own violence). Thanks to the Syndrome, the Victim or Witness can survive the violence they experience, mainly by being dissociated, stimulated, and redirected attention.
On the other hand, Kat can also have this Syndrome. Instead of killing or destroying the victim, he begins to desire it and then love it. He feels seduced by it for some reason and builds himself in the presence of his victims in this way – they are of great importance to him, a certain clinch is created between them.
Colloquially, we can observe Stockholm Syndrome by the fact that, despite violence, one still remains in many relationships or structures. Even at work, also if harm is done, and fully consciously. You stay because there are some benefits there. That’s why it’s worth making conscious choices, naming the perks, because changes are not always possible. Being aware of the nature of the interaction can protect you for many years from the effects of PTSD.
Observing and listening to my patients, I think that most people with PTSD, after traumas and relationship crises, can recognize such mechanisms as dissociation, derealization, depersonalization 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.
However, back to the beginning of the text about the main assumptions of the Triangle of Violence. How to work with violence best? In my opinion, it should be recognized that it exists in the first place. Then we learn to set boundaries, increase aggression in a healthy and defensive way, and then, as if through a skilfully set boundary, increase the degree of assertiveness.
Assertiveness, in my understanding, stands out from other forms of communication already at the level of communication, beliefs and attitudes. In short, 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.”
In assertiveness, good intentions are always assumed. Built on just saying “no”, it can become a form of violence if it does not take into account the understanding of the situation or is not built on the expectation of mutual empathy (understanding the reasons for actions).
Aggression, on the other hand, I treat as a basic drive to live, also self-preservation, introducing a certain dynamic, conducive to achieving success and increasing access to defensive behavior.
Thus, wise and properly targeted 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. We need tools to fight. And this is the understanding to keep in mind when signing up for psychotherapy.
It is important how a given psychotherapist and his method approaches these topics and what he focuses on during his work. In the IPSK method, we check the base, resources, scope of capabilities and satisfaction, as well as the degree of external threats. Only then do we deal with emotions, the effects of trauma or the violence we experience. That is why it is a method that is also interventional.
You are cordially invited,
Paulina Kubś, MA
Son Lux — “Easy” with Woodkid (Live at Montreux Jazz Festival 2016)
Source: youtube.com
