Sunday 10 March 2013

Playing victim with the poor - pt2

(This blog will make more sense if you read pt1 first)

The Persecutor-Victim-Rescuer roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level. Please consider the following two examples with me.

The UK welfare benefits system

In stereotypical terms, the UK Labour Party leans towards being Rescuers, wanting to support the poor people (in both senses of that word!), while the Conservative Party leans towards being Persecutors of those 'idle scroungers'. Those on benefits may choose to play the Victim role (or not).

But both main political parties are both playing the same P-V-R game. After we have played one way for a while with Labour riding to Rescue the poor Victims on benefits, we flip over to the opposing pole for a change and elect the Conservatives to Persecute them instead for a season.

Those on benefits, if playing the Victim role, use their power to extract benefits from the government, but in the process become dependent. So, whichever party is in power, nothing actually changes and no real help is provided to the poor Victims to enable them to gain independence.

To make real change we need to move to the Helper - Challenger - Vulnerable roles, with Governments taking the Helper and/or Challenger positions. This is not the same as either Rescuer or Persecutor roles, and looks for actual change, not the maintenance of some long-standing power game. From the Government's point of view, this would involve releasing some power, so those in poverty can take more control of their destiny. From the point of view of those in poverty, this would involve taking more responsibility for what they can achieve for themselves if given needed help.

Governments are keen on telling the poor to take more responsibility, but less keen on letting go of control. And those who are playing the Victim role are keen to ask for money, but are sometimes less keen to take on real responsibility. And so, the whole merry-go-round turns again, as we keep playing P-V-R instead.

When a person with real need asks for help (i.e. being Vulnerable - not playing Victim), is instead dealt with as a Victim by the state, this is a travesty and does untold long-term harm, creating dependency where none was sought!

How can you tell which set of relationships is being enacted?
  • the Vulnerable person asks for help, but also takes responsibility for what they can do themselves
  • the Helper offers relevant help when asked, but doesn't exert control or take away responsibility
  • the Challenger is fair and doesn't 'put people down'.

International aid

The same applies to international aid. For too long we have played P-V-R with aid, where developing countries exert their power as Victims to extract aid, but are left dependent. The Western world either rides to the Rescue in order to retain control (with the price being aid money) or else Persecutes by exploiting the developing world unfairly while blaming them for mismanagement.

Are Western nations willing to accord the developing nations equal rights with themselves, or do we really want to retain the moral high ground and the control, with the price being international aid?

On the other hand, we often we criticise developing nations for 'playing victim', but will not let go of the control we demand as Rescuers or Persecutors. If we really want to help, we need to acknowledge and accept the loss of power for the Western world if we are able to help developing nations gain independence and autonomy.

So the question is: are we just wanting to endlessly play the P-V-R game, or do we actually want to respond when asked for help in order to effect real change?


I've written on a similar theme before in: 'Doing more than half the work'

Playing victim with the poor - pt1

There is a commonly encountered pattern of relating that counsellors and others are familiar with - it is often called the Karpman Drama Triangle (1). In this pattern two people enact well-rehearsed roles out of the following three options:

Victim (V): In this role the person is, in effect, saying "Please help me, I am poor and helpless and can't help myself".
Rescuer (R): The person playing this role sees the 'victim' and rushes to their rescue, saying "I can help you, I know just what you need, you poor thing".
Persecutor (P): The person playing this role may see the Victim and say: "Help yourself, you lazy useless good-for-nothing", and or may say to the Rescuer: "What gives you the right to be so high and mighty, thinking you have all the answers…".

Now, what is important to realise, is that this P-V-R game is about power; it is not about helping. Moreover, the players are very likely to switch roles frequently! Here is a simple example:

Nancy: "I don't know how to check the oil on the car; I've never done it before. Would you be a darling and do it for me?" (taking Victim role)
Fred: "It's about time you learnt to do it yourself. You'll never be independent while you expect me to do it for you." (Persecutor)
Nancy: "Oh please, darling. I'll learn one day but right now I"m worried about the car." (Victim)
Fred: "Alright, I'll do it. It's very easy really and it won't take me long." (Rescuer)
Nancy: "Well, there's no need to rub it in. I do all your laundry every week without complaining." (Persecutor)

And so the conversation continues… Please excuse the stereotypical roles, but I trust you will recognise how it works!

Note that Nancy never learns how to change the oil. Her request was not to learn how to do this, but to have Fred do it for her. Similarly, Fred never learns how to do the laundry. But also notice that Fred probably doesn't want Nancy to learn to change the oil or to be independent, for that would rob him of his role as 'expert about the car'; similarly Nancy probably doesn't want Fred to do the laundry for fear of losing her area of expertise.

So why repeat this familiar pattern of relating? Everyone gains something: the person playing Victim gets something done for them; the Rescuer can feel proud of their expertise and good deed; and the Persecutor enjoys feeling important by putting others down!

But there is a deeper, darker, and ultimately destructive, result to this way of relating. The Victim ends up being dependent and helpless, the Rescuer knows they haven't really helped and the Persecutor knows they are not important - they are disliked, even despised. In the end everyone ends up feeling bad.

Nothing has changed; they have just been round the familiar, rehearsed roles one more time.

This pattern of relating is very common, but it is not inevitable.  Here is an alternative dialogue, with roles that could be called Helper, Challenger and Vulnerable, so:

Nancy: "I don't know how to check the oil on the car; could you show me?" (Vulnerable)
Fred: "Sure, no problem. Ill be right there." (Helper)
Nancy: "Thanks. And sometime you should learn how to do the laundry" (Challenger)
Fred: "Yes, you are right. I have some time on Saturday; could you show me then?" (Vulnerable)

In this exchange something does change - both learn new skills and there is no need to go round this conversation again in the future.

The P-V-R roles are commonly played out by individuals, but I am also interested in how they play out at a societal and global level - but that is for the next blog...

(1) See: http://www.karpmandramatriangle.com

Sunday 3 March 2013

Buddhism is cool!

Buddhism seems to crop up in conversations in the most unlikely places these days. I work as a counsellor in a secular context. One of the growing buzz-words in counselling these days is 'mindfulness' - though actually this is usually introduced as "mindfulness, which originally comes from Buddhist practices'".

Also, in a training I attended recently, the trainer introduced a concept and similarly added, 'this is a Buddhist concept'.

I tried to imagine how this would have been received if the trainer had said about some point in the training 'this is a Christian concept', or, equally, 'this is a concept from Islam'. I very much doubt that either of the latter would have been accepted without challenge.

But, as Buddhism is currently cool, it's not just acceptable to introduce things as 'coming from Buddhism', but this seems to add to their cachet.

So I'm puzzled. What is it about Buddhism that is attractive and acceptable in our secular society, when other religions are carefully put back in their box?

Buddhist teachings on the nature of suffering and how to rise above it sound attractive; we all know what it is to suffer and we would rather that we didn't! So, it seems worth paying attention when a teaching claims to have something to say about this. Moreover, as Buddhism doesn't make a big play about any deity who should be obeyed, but rather extols a personal inward journey towards enlightenment, I suppose that this fits with our secular self-improvement society rather well.

Personally, having tried self-improvement of various kinds and made no headway - remaining as sinful as ever - I confess Jesus as my Lord. He specialises in rescuing sinners and requires only a simple prayer: "Have mercy on me, a sinner".

Being a sinner isn't cool, but Jesus offers forgiveness and eternal life to all who will accept His free gift.

That is a Christian concept. And daily lived experience.