The Drama Triangle

Do you ever think about the power dynamics within your relationship? Who leads and who follows? Who’s ship’s captain, who’s first mate? Perhaps you are adamant that everything is split down the middle and there is a perfect balance of power. And, perhaps for you two, it is in which case this article isn’t relevant. But perhaps it’s not but you think it is or you pretend it is, in which case this series of three articles may help.

Power in romantic relationships is a slippery business. It’s not like in One Million Years B.C., all fur bikinis and the caveman with the biggest stick wins. In romance, we have lots of tools: love, guilt, sex, duty, tenderness. Furthermore, it can be difficult to tell who’s on top, who’s in control or who’s being controlled. We have all these games we play. Of course, they don’t feel like games. It feels real, the pain is real, the upset, the fear, the sense of being over-whelmed and feelings of rejection are real. But is there something more? Is there a willingness to participate that you refuse to see or even deny you saw? If you think back clearly, was there something in your future partner that you knew wasn’t right, but you ignored? Red flags that didn’t repel but actually made you move in closer?

Over the years, psychologists have looked at these issues in numerous ways, but the two models that couple therapists reach for the most, both have three roles and involve two players. They are the drama triangle created by Stephen Karpman which this article explores, and the Parent Adult Child (PAC) model of Eric Berne's Transactional Analysis (TA) which is explored in the next article. Also note, this series of articles are just brief overviews of some quite complicated dynamics, yet they will try to answer the most obvious questions:

• What are these models?
• What’s the difference between them?
• Which one am I in?
• Can I be in both?
• How do I get out?

It is also important to note these articles implies a clear difference between these two models which often does equate with the real world. There is no clear reason why one party enters into one model over the other, but generally speaking PAC positions tend to be formed by parents who basically love each other but the home environment is messed-up, whereas drama triangle positions tend to be taken when the parents are messed-up. Again, this is not a hard and fast rule, but broadly speaking PAC positions are one of strategy, the drama triangle is one of modelling.

We have irresponsible parents or a micro-managed home-life, we then calculate to embrace or react; we either become the Parent to escape the chaos, or become the Child in defiance of the constant control. With the drama triangle, in contrast, we are essentially modelling the dysfunctional dynamic of your own parents. So, if they were in the drama triangle, then you’re in the drama triangle, and the only question was which point you picked.

 

The Drama Triangle

Of all the theories and concepts within couple therapy the drama triangle is perhaps the one therapists see the most. This theory came out from exploration of codependency within alcoholic relationships. Therapists wanted a non-Freudian explanation as to why spouses of alcoholics remained in these relationships. And even if they left, why would they go back or start a similar relationship with another alcoholic. Karpman, a student of Eric Berne, framed this dynamic as a social exchange, a game with three players: the Rescuer, Victim and Persecutor.

This theory argues that individuals take up one of three roles, the rescuer, victim and persecutor and, surprise, surprise, each of those three roles is about gaining power. Also just like rock, paper, scissors, in which everyone thinks rock is the best but isn’t, these three positions all have their powers and plus-points. 

The Rescuer

‘I’m one of the good guys, I like to help people out. If someone has a problem, they know they can talk to me. What's so wrong with that?’

If that’s the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth then there’s nothing wrong with that. But sometimes it’s a little more complicated. Maybe there’s a people pleasing sub-text, a history of poor personal boundaries, of putting what others want above what you want. Maybe this is driven by a quiet yet persistent inner voice that says if you ask for what you want, if you don’t help out others, make yourself useful, then people won’t want you around. In more extreme examples, maybe you grew up in an abusive childhood and making others happy made them less likely to make you unhappy.

From there it’s a short step to rescuing, which like all these roles, is all about holding on to the connection. They’re just not helping you, they're feeding their sense of importance, their need to be needed. You can’t be left if they need you. It can start off innocently enough, but slowly you get into the groove, the more you help, means the more you need to help. To get power you need to take power, to be a rescuer you need a victim, which you either find or you have to create via enabling.

But invariably the circle turns and some may find they spend so much time looking after others their own life is in chaos. Or you need to spend so much time looking after others to avoid looking at your own chaos. Either way soon you are in over your head and feel at times over-whelmed, over-stretched and exhausted. You ignore your needs altogether and then you either resent this and move into persecutor or into self-pity as victim And like all these three roles, if there is a suggestion anything going on below the surface, there’s a strong pushback, a righteous indignation, which of course, keeps the circle spinning.

Rescuers, of all three, tend to be the more socially acceptable and in truth can be everywhere both professionally and personally. Police officers, military personnel, doctors, social workers, therapists, big brothers, best friends can all twist to rescue.

The Victim

Way back in 1965 The Beatles sang, “Help, you know I need someone” and that pretty much sums up the victim. We all have times when we need to get our feet back on the ground, but as with the rescuer this is just part of the picture. But of all the three patterns, victim can be one of the most difficult to escape. It can give the freedom from responsibility, freedom from making decisions, and if you have had a history of being criticised or of being self-critical escaping that pressure can be a tremendous relief

The term victim itself can be somewhat politicised and controversial, but this role should not be confused with the normal meaning of the term. Some victims will be indecisive and anxious but just as many will be successful, dominant, confident. Many control the room professionally yet once they cross over the domestic threshold it’s a different ball game altogether. Equally anyone who thinks victims are powerless are missing the point: victims are engaged in an exercise of power and influence using the strategies at their disposal. And guilt can be one of the most powerful tools in the box, a power that can become addictive. For many, power without responsibility is the ultimate dream.

Yet, of course, it is a hollow one. The cost of focusing on guilt and emotional manipulation is that victims have to discount their own ability to negotiate or resolve conflict. By dismissing their own sense of self-worth, their own power of agency, it re-inforces their own internal critical voice and exploits their own fear of judgement and inadequacy.

The Persecutor

Of course denial is as standard for all these positions, but with the persecutor it can be the most profound. Indeed many would be both offended that they are viewed as such. They are adamant they are being positive, offering solutions. They see themselves as rescuers, telling hard truths, and in a former life they may have had a martyr complex.

In my view the classic description of a persecutor as a tyrannical figure blaming and shouting at partners or co-workers is both crude and misses the point. Such people are just horrible bosses or bullying lovers. Persecutors are different, they are essentially the evil twin of rescuers, a sort of good girl gone bad, who believe they are trying to help yet become frustrated no-one is listening.

In contrast to rescuers who need to create a victim, persecutors have a profound fear of victim, both in others and themselves. Many would have succeeded despite difficult circumstances and have, unconsciously at least, a resolute denial to feel sorry for themselves. They will often a have conviction, a sort of manic devotion to positivity, with the flip-side being that any deviation from this line is seen not as a rational discussion, not as the start of a debate but as an attack, as succumbing to negativity, as a failure mentality and thus must be pushed back. For the other side, what this means is that any suggestions or reasonable doubts or signs of weakness are met with attack, attack, attack.

Spinning Around

Read any article about the drama triangle and much is made about how roles can spin around. For example, sad Sally (victim) cries that no-one likes her.  Desperate Dan (rescuer) tries to reassure her to no avail. Exhausted, he complains she doesn’t listen to him and follow his advice (victim), Sally angrily dismisses his help as worthless (persecutor), and accuses him of being controlling. Dan turns away feeling unloved and unappreciated (victim), with thoughts such as “I have spent all morning trying to help you and you say that!”  which also can spin easily  into “Why do all these people come to me for help yet no-one ever helps me?”

While such transitions can occur, there are limits and indeed significant differences between reactive and habitual roles. Neither Sally nor Dan are natural persecutors and thus are not fully involved in such dynamics, it is just a bit part, a temporary spin until they return to their true point, namely Sally (victim) and Dan (rescuer).

Complications also occur from differences in role strength. You can have a strong victim pushing a general helpful individual into rescuer mode. Or a strong rescuer wanting to disempower to create a victim. Or a strong persecutor and a strong victim. Each of these permutations will play out in subtly different ways and with different intensities but the outcome is the same.

For all these couples, none of them can seem to grasp happiness within the relationship. There is often a low-level acceptance, even a perpetuation of unhappiness, almost an active element in holding on to resentments.. Indeed as soon as one member is happy, the other partner feels wrong-footed, has to rain on the parade. The upshot is both parties stay in a sort of constant level of defence, unable or unwilling to escape the game.

That’s the drama triangle, the next section explores its equally problematic first cousin, the Parent-Adult-Child (PAC) model from Transactional Analysis, before the final part looks at strategies to manage and maintain.