Say anything: confusing relational dynamics and the quest for authenticity

From the time we are small, we are taught to engage with each other in ways that provoked dramatic emotional connection. Storytelling and the way those around us relate shape our perception of what it is to be connected to another person.

For those of us who grew up in the days of John Hughes movies and the big emotional reaction, we didn't realise that we were being given a particular relational "kool aid" to drink. "Love" came after struggle and confusion. It was a boom box held aloft playing Peter Gabriel. In the 1990s, rom-coms like Bridget Jones taught us to make assumptions about what each other needed, act with the best of intentions but be misunderstood and shunned before the truth was finally revealed and we could be reconciled. Authentic contact couldn't be achieve through simple respect, clear boundaries and doing what you said you were going to do. That's just too boring.

But in reality, that's exactly what actually makes for authentic contact. Taking responsibility for ourselves. Listening to what's going on for us and working out what we need. Identifying if we need help and making a clean, factual ask which you are comfortable to make, aware that the request might be denied. And knowing that if it is, it's not because you are hated. It's just that the resource isn't available.

The big Hollywood version of emotional contact is, frankly, manipulative. Otherwise we wouldn't pay to go and watch the film. One of the founders of TA, Steve Karpmann wrote about this back in 1968. He talked about how we generate drama by playing one of three roles in relationship:

The Victim: Not necessarily an actual victim, the Victim’s stance is “poor me!” The Victim feels put upon, powerless and oppressed. They seem unable to make decisions and solve problems and look to others to save the day. For a TV reference, think of Jamie Lee Curtis' character in The Bear.

The Rescuer: This role saves the day and concentrates their energies on solving the Victim’s problem, saying “I'll save you whether you want me to or not because I know what's best for you!” James Marsden did a great job inhabiting this one in Disney's Enchanted.

The Persecutor: This role is controlling, critical, oppressive and authoritative.  Sometimes the persecutorial aspect of a character can be hidden, but when we slow down and look, we find it. Obvious persecutors include Cersei Lannister in Game of Thrones while the directors and writers disappointingly let Daenerys Targaryen's character descend into the same in later seasons.

The “Drama” arises when somebody changes position, e.g. Victim to Persecutor.  This is why Daenerys' story arc is so powerful. Victim of her brother in season one. Then saved by Khal Drogo , before emerging phoenixlike from the flames of his pyre to become the great rescuer and breaker of chains . But, eventually, she succumbs to her lust for revenge, becoming the destroyer of Kings Landing. Victim, to Rescuer, to Persecutor. Great drama made manifest with each switch in position.

While our own lives hopefully aren't as epically dramatic as a Westerosi story, the drama triangle still plays havoc with our day to day relating.

Imagine a couple. Georgy might say sadly “I can’t do this” (Victim), Beck might reply, helpfully “Do it like this” (Rescuer). Georgy then responds angrily “Leave me alone – did I ask you to help me?!” (Persecutor).  Beck is left confused and wounded, potentially moving role to Victim themselves. These sorts of interactions can become emblematic of our sibling, familial or marital relationships. Friendships can be formed on them. And so can grudges.

So what do we do about it? For this, we can go back to the big and small screen.

We may from time to time have shouted at the TV, "Don't do that!" when the guy falls for the obvious misdirect by his nasty friends. Or "why don't you just stop and think for a moment" when the heroine comes out with the ridiculous line "what do we do now?" (A brief aside - Hollywood loves making the female leads play the Victim - everyone knows that when the zombie apocalypse comes, those female leads will actually be standing firm with whatever weaponry they can get their hands on, kicking down doors and taking names).

The difference between simpering ineptitude and zombie badassery can best be summarised as agency. The ability to work out "what we are going to do" and the physis to make it happen.

When we start to take account of ourselves and the capacity of others, dramatic engagement gives way to more authentic contact. We think about our part in things, noticing what we could do and how we could take action.  This lets us also notice what other people could do and those things for which we we are not responsible.

In short, it lets us see what’s ours and what’s somebody else's. 

We can then decide whether we want to offer help, which may not be accepted, whether we need to be clear about what we are willing to be involved with, or whether we need to work out what we need and how we might go about making that happen.

Instead of Victim, Rescuer and Persecutor, we can become Vulnerable, Caring or Assertive. 

Vulnerable:   When we are vulnerable, we use our self-awareness to understand how we feel and then take those feelings as data to tell us what we need to do. “I am aware that I feel frightened about my exams coming up because I haven’t studied hard enough.  So, my fear is telling me I need to get on with studying.”  If it turns out the feelings tell us we need to ask for help, we can do that clearly, having thought through they’re asking for and being comfortable that if the other person says no it’s not a judgement about us, it’s just that the resource isn’t available.

Caring: When we are caring, we can express concern and offer ourselves as a resource, but we do not take on the thinking from the other person.  We listen, but do not underestimate the other person's ability to work things out.  We can choose to help but only when asked, and ensuring boundaries are set. “I’m here and you can ask me for help and I’ll check if I have resources to give it – and it’s ok I say no”.

Assertive: When we are assertive, we set clear boundaries, ask for what we need, say no to what we don’t want and communicate the implications if boundaries are breached.  Crucially, we then enact the consequences if the breach arises.  It helps here to consider that boundaries are actually set with ourselves rather than the other person.  "If this person raises their voice to me, I will leave."  We might communicate that boundary to the other person, but ultimately, we have to stand by ourselves to enforce it. 

By thinking about what our part is in something, noticing where we can take action, and remembering that we need to consider our long-term position, we can start to move away from dramatic interactions and have cleaner, authentic engagement built on being caring, assertive or vulnerable.  This steps us out of rescuing, persecuting and victimhood and invites the other person we are engaging with to do the same. 

If you're interested in reading the originating theory for this article, follow this link to Stephen Karpmann's 1968 article: "Fairy tales and script drama analysis" and Acey Choy's 1990 article "The Winner's Triangle"