The Drama Triangle in International Relations

by

Stuart Yates

Source and outline of the drama triangle

The drama triangle is a well-known concept in the field of psychotherapy, originated and published by Stephen Karpman in 1968, and is an integral part of the model of psychotherapy called Transactional Analysis. Briefly, it describes a dysfunctional way of relating, with three nodes: persecutor, rescuer and victim. It is usually represented thus:

There is an excellent description of how the drama triangle works by Lynne Forrest at Lynne Forrest - The three faces of victim . Briefly, someone appears to be in need, I say 'appears' because s/he may not need help but if help is wanted, s/he wants help of a certain sort, not any help. A second person offers to rescue: rescuing is not the same as helping as it flows from the need of the rescuer rather than the need of the about-to-be victim and is thus imposed rather than offered. Thus, the recipient of the rescue is likely not to appreciate the so-called help and can respond in one of two ways within the drama triangle: either as victim, resenting the unasked for help, or as persecutor, when the 'rescued' turns on the rescuer and in some way persecutes him/her for the imposed rescue. If the former, the role of victim is chosen and the rescuer is cast into the role of persecutor. If the latter, the rescuer is cast into the role of victim and can choose to accept this or switch into the role of persecutor. People can move around this drama triangle indefinitely and the start point can be anywhere: a person can choose the victim or persecutor role just as easily as the rescuer role and can be drawn into any of the roles. Note that I have used words such as 'chosen' and 'cast into'. We can stay within a drama triangle, choosing a role or accepting a role offered to us but both choice and acceptance are choices. We can also make the choice to leave the drama triangle and not choose or accept the roles. To believe we have no choice means we are choosing the role of victim.

Example:

Joe is a bit down because his girl friend has gone off on an evening out with her workmates. Fred, intending to help, but in fact rescuing (Joe just wants a quiet evening in playing his stereo and he'll be OK) tells Joe that all women are selfish and make you miserable, you're better off on your own, come and have a few beers with me. (Fred can't attract women). If Joe chooses victim role, he might respond to the effect that Fred's right, why does he stay with Sally and gets more despondent, whether or not he has a few beers. If Joe chooses persecutor role, he is angry with Fred, defends Sally and refers pointedly to Fred's lack of a relationship. This is the point at which Fred has the choice of being victim or stay in rescuer mode, offering once more the role of victim to Joe. Thus there is a dance around the drama triangle.

I suspect this all sounds familiar: we all get caught up in the drama triangle. There is a way out of it, to decline the role. In the example above, Joe could simply say "It's OK, Fred, thanks for the offer, but I'll be OK. I just want a quiet evening in. See you around". If Fred were really offering help, he would accept this, but if he is rescuing, he is likely to respond in victim/persecutor role: "Huh, I try to help, but it's not wanted. I'm not wanted either obviously" (largely victim) or "Huh, I try to help, but no, you're so selfish. One day you'll wake up and find you have no friends" (largely persecutor). To avoid being drawn this time into the drama triangle, Joe has to answer the allegations and again indicate reasonably what he wants, without blame. To get out of the drama triangle we have to be clear what we want, make no speculative comments about the other and be prepared to be seen as a persecutor or victim and live with this.

The drama triangle can start at any point: some people are natural persecutors, others natural victims, others natural rescuers. We need to be on our guard against another's agenda and be clear how we want to relate and to be, not just operate in reactive mode.

International Relations

How does the drama triangle play out in international relations? You are probably ahead of me here: there are so many examples. Let us start with Iraq. Western nations, especially the US and UK, saw the people of Iraq as victims. Victims of the admittedly brutal regime of Saddam Hussein. Thus, the West cast itself in the role of rescuer: the poor oppressed people of Iraq needed rescuing from this dictator. Note that the wishes of the Iraqi people were not considered i.e. Whether or not they preferred to be invaded, or sanctions to have been adjusted, or any one of any number of alternatives. A rescuer does not think very much about what help is appropriate: the rescuer's own agenda is more important. Alongside this was the fear of being a victim: Saddam Hussein was seen as a possible aggressor i.e. persecutor and the response to this was to persecute first by getting rid of him rather than end up in victim mode. So the Iraq war was launched. There are no doubt many Iraqis who wholeheartedly approve of this but it is equally clear that many do not. Some of these are responding from the persecutor position: attacking the US/UK forces. It is quite poignant that there is genuine bewilderment on the part of some Western politicians at this. They cannot understand why they are being attacked, because they are 'only trying to help'. There are plaintive calls of 'But we're the good guys'. The logic of the drama triangle and the responses to the role of rescuer are not understood. The next step of course is that a rescuer who is spurned and then persecuted can unfortunately stay in the drama triangle and respond in victim mode: the US forces in particular have done this: it is right always to fight back when attacked, which sparked off the Falluja debacle, but this just places the responder into persecutor mode as, inevitably, Iraqi civilians are killed alongside the Iraqi fighters. The Iraqi response may then be in victim mode and so the deadly dance goes on.

That dance can go on for years and generations at a personal and international level. The most tragic example that I know of on the international scene is the Israel/Palestine conflict. Both sides see themselves as victims and each other as persecutors. There are two parallel transactions being carried out. Israel sees suicide bombing from the standpoint of victim and cannot see air strikes which kill Palestinian civilians as persecution. Palestinians see those air strikes from the victim point of view and cannot see suicide bombing as persecutory. These viewpoints with the consequent transactions repeated indefinitely are immutable unless there is a transforming insight or view. Without such a shift the situation will persist literally for ever - unless one side is literally and completely exterminated. I assume no-one either wants that or believes it to be possible. Another 'solution' which does not work is the external intervention approach, one example of which was recently put forward by Lord Tebbit. It is superficially attractive: a 'fair' solution is imposed on both sides by others. This does not work simply because the imposers are rescuers and the Israelis and the Palestinians would respond in victim or persecutor mode - as witnessed in Iraq.

Let us take these two examples just a little further. In the case of Iraq, the US is operating in drama triangle terms from the perspective of rescuer, then switching to victim mode when attacked, then into persecutor mode via excessive retaliation. (I am aware there are other dimensions, e.g. Wanting to control the Iraqi oilfields, but I am concerned here with the operation of the drama triangle and its pervasiveness) For there is a belief at all levels in American society, from the population at large to the Administration, that the US is the guardian of civilisation, the source of modern democratic institutions and therefore has a duty to bring such benefits to the wider world. This is seen as the acceptable face of American hegemony but it is not so acceptable. It is not acceptable, even at this apparently benign level, because it stems from rescuer mode. It does not stem from specific requests for specific forms of help but is imposed. Being imposed it is resented. Genuine help grows from a dialogue: what do you want, this is what we can provide, is this useful etc. Rescuing comes from a need, desire, urge, or whatever, to provide something irrespective of whether the other country wants that something or not and therefore starts the dance around the drama triangle. We read many times that the US should start listening and reacting rather than just acting from its own agenda: this connects with the operation of the drama triangle.

The roles that Israel and the Palestinians play in the drama triangle are slightly more complex. It is relatively straightforward on the Palestinian side. Fifty years or so ago they were driven from their land and have lived as refugees ever since. Their response is a mixture of victim and persecutor: in victim mode there is little evidence of Palestinian leaders working within the reality of the situation and constructively seeking the best outcome for their people, rather has there been a tendency to say to the world: look how oppressed we are by one of the most heavily armed nations in the world, do something to help us. This is of course inviting a rescuer, but unfortunately, as we have seen, rescuers tend then to be resented/rejected and the only effective rescuer in political and military terms is the US, which is (and always has been) firmly on the Israeli side. The elements of Palestinian society who reject such a 'helpless victim' response switched into persecutor mode: if you persecute us, then we will persecute you via suicide bombers etc. Israel portrays the mode of actually persecuting whilst claiming to be victim. The primary stance is one of victimhood: this understandably stems from centuries of persecution of Jews - the Holocaust was one of the most recent and terrible examples of such persecution. However, modern Israel was founded on terrorism (persecution) - we have ample evidence for this and the role of persecutor persists in the unwarranted ferocity of Israeli actions against Palestinians. So Israel inhabits both victim and persecutor positions simultaneously at different levels. This creates a potentially fatal tension within Israeli society when we add in those Israeli citizens - and there are many - who reject both the victim and the persecutor modes. When an individual is living in a way which is inconsistent with core beliefs we term that person incongruent. Whilst all nations are to a degree incongruent as there can never be one single set of beliefs held by everyone, nations can be relatively congruent and are then relatively at peace with themselves. Israel is one of the most incongruent nations when regarded in this way. The Israeli/Palestinian conflict is tragic on many levels.

A way forward

Ways out of the drama triangle at the individual level are difficult and tend to cause increased pain whilst the transition is made. At the international level it is considerably more difficult. There are however some basic principles. Firstly the path starts within, that is it starts within the minds of the heads of state. It starts with a recognition of being a victim or a persecutor or a rescuer. It starts with the acknowledgement of the reality. The second step is rejection of that role, an acceptance that any of those roles are bad for the nation and for the other nations involved. All roles are equally bad, otherwise, for instance, the victim nation will persist with some feeling of victimhood if there is any sense of being more justified than their perceived persecutors. Equally so with the other roles. This is a matter of taking responsibility and not attributing blame. It is the acceptance of what is. If the mindset consists of one of these roles, the next step is also internal, which is to examine how not to be a victim etc, how to see a way forward for the nation which is not relative to the other nation(s) involved in the drama triangle. It is setting aside others - they have their own responsibilities. It is about exercising autonomy: this is how I want this nation to be and to act It is to stop being reactive. The next step is to consider the effects on other nations of being and acting in this way and engaging in dialogue with them for a mutually acceptable way. Part of this dialogue is to reject, consciously and explicitly, responses from others stemming from any role on the drama triangle. It is very easy to get sucked back into it and the refusal to do so tends to elicit criticism from those who cannot get away from their role at that time.

If leaders were to take these steps not only would it start to change their peoples' views but also increase respect for them as leaders. If we take George Bush, I believe that those who support him and respect him do so because they believe he is not acting from a position of victimhood. Equally, those who see him as reacting from that position of victimhood have little respect for him. Victims tend to elicit little respect, if not contempt (see how the persecutor role is evoked?). Persecutors elicit fear (victim) and/or hatred (persecutor). Rescuers elicit more demands or shame (victim) or anger/hatred (persecutor).

The way out of the drama triangle at international level is difficult but it must start at the level of heads of state and their administrations. This way connects with the people who do not want to stay in the triangle and in this way a critical mass is created which produces the culture change. Only by such a culture change will the policies of states like the US and Israel, and of the people of Iraq and Palestine (neither of which at present are states) shift into a more positive mode.

One endpoint. As a UK subject - and I could get into victim mode about that status - my view on the UK in terms of the drama triangle in international relations is that the UK tends to be a rescuer rather than a victim or persecutor, although historically the UK has certainly been a persecutor. The UK tends to say 'We know better/best', the only difference is that the UK says this with rather more diffidence than the US. Tony Blair is much less diffident than the general run of UK Prime Ministers, being also able to contradict himself without shame or blush - no reverse gear etc. However, the tragedy of the UK under the present Prime Minister is that the UK does not have any autonomy by which either to take up its own position on the drama triangle or to get off it. The UK just goes along with the US. We act like a compliant province. Tony Blair just blusters along like a provincial governor, pretending to be autonomous, but we all know he is not. Again, tragedy is the only word to describe his failure to be autonomous and act autonomously and to stop hanging on to Bush's coattails as Bush moves around the triangle.

May 2004