A Knight's Tale. Or a Dragons Tail. I'm not quite sure.

I don't know what it is about being a human on planet earth, but don't we just love a heroes story? Throughout cultures, mythology, religion, spirituality, politics, media, and popular culture we encounter the hero. I mean, it's part of what drew me to psychology in the first place: to help! I can indeed assure you that over my years of experience, I have dropped the nativity and notion that I can be some kind of heroic-savior-psychologist, but more on that later.

A hero is not much of a hero if there are no threats or things that are threatened. So we need to throw two more characters into the mix: the classic 'damsel in distress' or more generally, a victim, and also a character known as the antagonist or villain, or again more generally known as the 'persecutor'.

This trio is archetypal, it's the knight, the maiden and the dragon. It's Edward, Bella and the Volturi. Harry Potter, Ginny and the Basilisk. Frodo, Middle Earth and Sauron. Spiderman, Mary-Jane and the Green Goblin. Mulan, China and the Huns. There are religious heroes like Jesus, mythological heroes like Marduk of Babylonian mythology, political heroes like Winston Churchill, social heroes like Mahatma Ghandi. I could go on for a while, but I won't.

Hercules Defeats the Hydra. Photo by Djordje Ristic from Pexels: https://www.pexels.com/photo/close-up-of-hercules-and-the-hydra-sculpture-carved-on-the-building-facade-13670862/

All of these characters and stories are compelling and alluring- the heroes are described as such admirable characters with noble intentions, and are oh so pure of heart. They're capable, modest, kind, and what seems to be a strong thread through them all is that they are often literally self-sacrificing (Jesus dies on the cross, Mulan becomes a soldier and goes to war, Harry enters the Chamber of Secrets to fight a monster).

The victims are quite often portrayed as women, or they're is something about them that is at least harboring a quality of innocence, beauty, fragility and oppression that sets them worthy of rescue and protection. In the enduring words of Disney's Mulan it is "what do we want? A girl worth fighting for!"

The villains are often cast as down-right heartless, with cold and uncaring reptilian hearts. They are greedy, and often possessing of a great power, they predate upon the weak, and must be defeated by the hero to save the victim. They're spared empathy and dimension, and are equated to evil itself. The dragon motif is both strong, powerful, greedy for a hoard of gold, a cold-blooded reptile, and is need of defeat to save a princess. Likewise, Voldemort of Harry Potter is a very powerful wizard, he cannot feel love, and he amasses power through other wizards to persecute the less powerful non-wizards.

Often the characters have very little dimension, and if they gain dimension, they cease to become what we know as heroes, villains and victims, but real nuanced people. I've noticed that as these listed movies remain frozen in time, those who watched them age and develop psychologically, and so the view of these characters tend to shift. An anecdotal example that I have witnessed has been the shift in how Twilight is now viewed. The swooning 14 year old girls are now analytical 28 year old women who post lengthy reels marking out the Twilight book pages for it's relationship red-flags between Edward and Bella.

Perhaps it's obvious to us all to be able to grasp the limited dimension of the characters in these movies- So, why are we all still casting ourselves in these roles expecting that to totally work out and be just fine.

Photo by cottonbro studio: https://www.pexels.com/photo/man-and-woman-standing-behind-a-red-curtain-6899771/

A common dilemma I come across in therapy are people who are either questioning, rationalising, lamenting, erasing or battling their role as either the hero, victim or persecutor in their life and relationships. Sometimes there is no confusion and only absolute certainty that they are just that one role. At times there appears to be no clear line that can be drawn for people as to who is in which role, there can even be role reversals, and double role reversals and switches, like some poorly directed theatre production in utter shambles. There appears here to be two levels of difficulty: Firstly, the roles we inhabit themselves are often problematic, and secondly the way we move between them can be dizzying. Steven Karpman I must note is a therapist who has written extensively on this very topic, and has documented every type of role and role switch you could possible imagine, he refers to this phenomena as the Karpman's Drama Triangle.

Steven Karpman's Drama Triangle. This diagram denotes the positions/roles of persecutor, rescuer and victim, and they relationship between each.

Some examples of some primary agendas I'll see in therapy:

The Hero: 'How can stop my friends from hurting?' 'how can I help my girlfriend with career stress?' 'I need to protect my fragile mother', 'I need to protect my kids from making my mistakes', 'I know what's best for my wife', 'I'll defeat my mother-in-law's tyranny over my boyfriend!'.

The Victim: 'I'm pathetic', 'I can't do this', 'I don't think I'm good enough', 'no one is there for me', 'no one likes me', 'I need someone to get me out of this mess', 'I can't handle this, I need you!'

The Villain: 'Screw you and the rest of the world', 'she deserves to hurt', 'I'm surrounded by pathetic useless people', 'I'll do what it takes to get my way, no matter the cost', 'frankly, he is lower down than me'.

The above are all quite isolated statements- we don't know how each person got there, or what follows. And frankly it was very clunky for me to write these one line statements because they were so isolated. In the real world, they need to be expanded upon and contextualised. Let's take an example:

The Hero (let's call her Holly) might say "how can I help my girlfriend with career stress?" but what precedes this idea is "I've always felt so unhelpful and problematic in this relationship, so how can I help my girlfriend with career stress?' Hmm. We can see that this hero hasn't always felt like a hero, but that she feels compelled to be heroic because she's been feeling like a villain. I could even expand on this example further and add what may follow, "I've always felt so unhelpful and problematic in this relationship, so how can I help my girlfriend with career stress? I printed out 20 different job application forms, and I feel so exhausted and used". Here, we've continued the story from villain, to hero, to now Holly feeling exhausted and used and in the victim role!

It can be apparent from this example that each role doesn't exist in isolation like the movies would like to make us think, but that they are all just distinct nodes along a continual cycle.

The above also shows us what might go on in one person's intra-psychic world. But what about when we throw another person into the mix? I don't say this just for fun or to make this complex, but because we don't actually exist in intra-psychic vacuums, relationships are not one-way mirrors. Our sense of self is in the context of others and their minds too.

Back to the analogy then. The girlfriend, let's call her Abby, may also share the reality that Holly is problematic. Maybe Holly get's easily overwhelmed by public settings, and stays home, and needs support when she goes out, and this adds pressure and demands on Abby to support her. The story of Holly being a 'problematic' villain is a shared reality for them both. Another friend, let's say Tim, conversely understands that Holly has always struggled with anxiety, and rather than seeing her as problematic villain, he sees someone in need of help and compassion- a victim perhaps! Let's expand further and say that Abby grew up with a mother who was emotionally overbearing, and parentified Abby. Let's say Tim grew up with a mother who was emotionally differentiated and able to provide a holding space to him when he was upset.

The more characters, reactions, perspectives and backgrounds I add, the more complex it becomes! The story evolves and dimensions are added. Each person has had a unique set of experiences that shape how they see themselves and others. These experiences amalgamate into internalized roles and imagos (or objects) that can become projected and casted unto others. All these projections create a dizzying show of lights, glare, strobe and disorientation that no one knows which way is up! Who is the villain then? Who is the victim? Who really is a rescuer?

Photo by Liza Summer: https://www.pexels.com/photo/upset-diverse-women-near-wall-6383270/

Let's say Abby, due to the emotionally overbearing relationship to her mother learns to dismiss others altogether, to shut them out, not give too much stock into what they say and really take it 'with a grain of salt'. She's more sure in herself, and sticks to her guns when she feels a certain way. On the other hand, Holly may have been cautious, uncertain in herself, taught to rely on the perspectives of others rather than to back herself. What we've got here is not only a battle of 'who's the hero, victim or rescuer', but 'who's reality prevails?'

This could mean that Abby's subjective experience of Holly is the reality that prevails. This is bad news because well, Abby isn't in fact the arbiter of reality, the teller of objective truth in the relationship. This could mean that Holly will walk away under the false idea that she's just emotional, problematic and burdensome. In reality, that's just one take on the situation. This casts Holly as this demanding one dimensional villain, when in actuality, she is subjectively experiencing a role of victimhood too.

Here's the big question: who's right then?

Here's the answer you were not wanting: It's subjective!

Here's a further amendment to that answer: That's actually the wrong question.

Perhaps we're looking at this as to who again is the 'villain/hero/victim', when really we need to understand that there are merely villainous/heroic/victimised feelings, thinking and behaviours. The potential resides within all of us to behave think and feel in heroic, villainous or victimised ways at all times:

“The line separating good and evil passes not through states, nor between classes, nor between political parties either -- but right through every human heart -- and through all human hearts. This line shifts. Inside us, it oscillates with the years. And even within hearts overwhelmed by evil, one small bridgehead of good is retained”

―Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, The Gulag Archipelago 1918–1956

Part of the issue here in this analogy is that only one truth or limited view point prevails. Perhaps it's as if Abby is in charge of the truth, and Holly complies. If one person is in charge of the truth, then Holly has a real challenge ahead of her: she's potentially in for 'fighting the wrong battle'. In Holly's valiant though misguided attempt to shift the role of being a demanding problematic villain, she does so by trying to pull further in the other direction of being a helpful hero, but since this is a projection of Abby's, this will continue to never be enough for Abby until she can find it within herself to decide it's enough, and also until Holly finds it within herself to decide she's enough. Otherwise, Holly is only to left feeling worse, still casted as the villain, and leaving her feeing demoralized, tired, guilty, and pursing this ever receding horizon of being a hero.

As far as I can tell, there are four pitfalls that all are due to 'absolutist' thinking:

• Absolutist views of self and others as 'the hero, villain or victim'

• Lack of awareness of fluidity between these roles

• The faulty assignment of either a hero/villain/victim role to someone's identity as opposed to their behaviours/feelings/thinking. E.g., a hero vs heroic behaviour

• One reality prevailing
  

The way out of these roles, or role-behaviours, or being in roles we don't like, or being mis-understood is more simple: keep an attitude of curiosity throughout it all.

Perhaps curiousity and finding nuances is the antidote to being absolute, black and white and all-or-nothing. Maybe. I guess I don't want to be too black and white here.

This might look like: Hold your view of yourself (your feelings, thoughts, wishes, desires) with gentle curiosity 'perhaps I'm bad, perhaps there is good too'. Hold others (their behaviour, intentions, words) with a gentle curiosity, 'perhaps they're the victim here, perhaps they also are part of the problem in some way'.

Hold your identity as one role lightly too, 'perhaps I'm a villainous person, or I could have just had a more spicy critical thought', or 'maybe she's the real victim here... or she just felt powerless in this instance'.

Let's hold others' reality with some gentle curiosity too 'maybe this is is the truth of the matter, maybe there's more to the story', 'maybe they're stuck in their own story, and projecting on me'. Perhaps your own perspective too needs a grain of salt, 'maybe there is something else I'm missing, there are details and nuances lacking'.

It may serve us all well to remain in this mildly unconvinced, curious, mindset. A hero only has a few tricks up his sleeve, as does a victim or villain. As tempting as it is to draw this line in the sand, to try to make some certainty out of uncertainly, to be black and white- this also limits us.

Just like the stories we're taught in our youth, we learn broad strokes about good and bad, and it's helpful to have words and labels for this things such as 'hero', but as we develop, we hope that this can shift to become more nuanced. Maybe that greedy dragon was trying to live up to the impossible standards of it's dragon father? Maybe it's species are now endangered by knights with something to prove?

In each interaction with others and yourself, it remains helpful to stay curious, somewhat unconvinced, open to what else you can learn from yourself and them, and hold these roles of hero, victim and rescuer with loosened grip.

- Chelsea