Legal Theory lecture Part Two
Relationships - The Missing Links

Author: Dr Robert N Moles

Level 3 – What goes around comes around

Dawn stresses throughout her work that the formation or the groundwork of adult behaviour is probably in place by the time that we are two years old. By this time, we have already begun to put in place the strategies which we will use for emotional learning - and that this is connected with our understanding of self-esteem. This self image, or world-view, is of course the pre-linguistic equivalent of what we have been discussing in the previous lectures. We have some sense of understanding, or ideas, which have been derived from the information which we have learned. From this, we develop strategies which will inform our future actions.

To some extent, this “self-image” or world view, as well as influencing the way we act, will also influence the way that others react to us. To some extent then, we then become the authors of our own fortune or misfortune, depending very much upon those early experiences – which of course we are completely unable to influence. The idea is that we should see self esteem as being like a bank balance. The types of interactions which we can experience are

Positive or Negative – Conditional or Unconditional

Positive Conditional

We might say to a child that we are pleased with them for washing the dishes, tidying up their room, or being nice to the cat. The important thing is that the positive response depends upon their having done something or said something which is pleasing to the other. Its very much of the order, I like you / love you / feel proud of you – BECAUSE. In terms of its relative importance to us, each such response might be worth 50 points in our self esteem bank balance.

Negative conditional

We might tell the child off or send the child to its room. In Australia, apparently, children can be “grounded” for days at a time. This no doubt unpleasant experience means that they cannot have the usual range of privileges, such as going out to play, watch their favourite programs on television or spend the evening on the phone to their friends. The importance of the negative conditional is that it also arises BECAUSE – they didn’t speak nicely to granny, or they pulled the plants out to see if the roots were still growing – or they forgot to tell their parents that they were going round to their friends after school. In terms of relative importance, such negative messages might be worth minus 200 points in our self esteem bank balance.

The unconditional

On the positive side where granny or grandad, or mum or dad, just give the child a hug and tell it that they are the best little sunbeam in the world – its absolutely fabulous. No explanations. No reasons. That’s just the way it is. Each one of those might be worth 100 points in our self esteem bank balance. On the negative side, the unconditional message is – I can’t stand the sight of you get out of here. Again, no explanations or reasons. These can be very damaging and might take out 1,000 points from the self esteem bank balance. Clearly abusive situations which involve psychological, physical or sexual abuse, will involve many repetitions of such acts.

The self-esteem bank balance

Dawn states that as a culture, we have empowered the negatives in our interactions with each other. The child may actually have been very good for most of the day, and not have inspected the plant roots, and not have emptied the kitty litter on the floor. When things are going well, we might just be thankful, and not say very much about it. But as soon as we see the budgie with its feathers missing - or the water on the floor because the tap was left on - then we are on the warpath. Having missed the opportunity to lift the balance with the positive responses, we deplete it with the “what on earth do you think you are doing?” responses.

If we think of the balance sheet as running from those early years, some of our children may be deeply in debt by the time that they are approaching school. With a couple of years of “my little sunbeam” responses, the child may well think well of the world and of the people in it, as a good place to be. A bolstered self-esteem might lead to an expectation of getting on well with people and of being able to do well. So the child mixes well with the other children, and takes a positive interest in learning. The developing self-esteem brings with it the prospect of success. The child who is learning well will communicate better, and obtain the positive benefits of more challenging interactions with other children and adults. A depleted self-esteem with a few years of “why can’t you ever do what you are told” responses, will bring with it the fear of new situations, and a greater inability to mix with others and to learn. We, in fact, learn to adopt the labels which are applied to us, and to act accordingly – especially when they are applied to us by people in authority, such as parents and teachers.

This became an important issue in the developing criminology of the 1970s. “Labelling theory” or “deviancy amplification” was the process by which juvenile offenders became identified as delinquent or criminal, and as a result began to act in accordance with the label which had been imposed upon them. Many of their peers who had engaged in similar activities, but were not formally identified as such, by the police or the courts, went on to live quite normal lives. [1] They may, for all we know, now be eminent business people, politicians or law professors.

In essence, people who have low self-esteem, or negative self-images, engage in behaviour, which becomes dangerous and self-defeating. They choose friends and activities which continue to promote those unhappy and unsuccessful lives. Presumably such friends will be more accepting to them, and will not continuously say, “why don’t you pull yourself together?” Dawn puts forward the view, that once the self-esteem bank balance is below zero, then there is a scale of deficit activity, which comes with it. Her negative scale looks something like this:

The above represents the scale of psychological and social dysfunction which can arise from a deteriorating negative balance in the self-esteem account. Dawn makes the point that we do not, of course, have to work through the different levels in order to become suicidal. The workaholic, or the person suffering from drug or alcohol abuse, can become so overwhelmed that they can resort to homicidal or suicidal behaviour. The same applies to someone who is just too busy to service the car, or rushing home from work, and writes-themselves-off in an accident. It is obvious, that with someone who has been suffering negativity over long periods of time, they will have a lot of ground to make up, to try to get the account back to zero. It follows, that the sooner intervention starts, the greater the chance of turning things around.

This consideration might lead us to think about the value of “diversionary” programs, which have worked successfully in many countries over the last number of years. They are usually targeted at specific groups such as alcohol and drugs, mental illness, indigenous people, the homeless, domestic violence. The underlying rationale is that such people may be suffering from medical, social or financial problems. It seems to make little sense to “fine” such people - which will only make their problems worse - and increase the rate of the downward spiral. If they are given the support which is required to complete a program of education and training, and if this is done successfully within the required time, then it will be counted in their favour when they come before the court for the offence. Properly developed programs might well avoid recording a conviction where the program has been successfully completed, and thus avoid the issues of negative labelling which we have discussed.

In many societies, the conditional negatives have been given a priority and importance, which continually reinforce negative self-images:

The family – babies and young people being corrected for things done wrong, but not praised for the many things done right.

The school – focus on the errors, but not on the correct answers.

Religion – we are sinful people who constantly fall into error, and need to confess. Often frequently. 

The legal system – a serious and formal system which fines and labels those as criminal, where often their behaviour is no worse, or no different, from similar behaviour which occurs in more acceptable circumstances.

The media – awash with the slim and beautiful people (which most often we are not) and replete with stories of crime, war and famine.

When we are subjected to so much negativity, it actually takes significant reinforcement to enable us to believe that “I’m ok – you’re ok”. The lesson to be learned from this is that there is a serious and pressing need to empower and encourage positive feedback. Dawn suggests that this must start from the beginning of conception, and is particularly important during pregnancy and in the first two years of life. If we learn very early in life that our expressions of need will be met with a warm comforting and nurturing response, we will be encouraged and empowered to express our needs. If it is met with hostility, or indifference, then our communicative capabilities will either be suppressed or diverted elsewhere.

If we begin to think about the implications, which this might have for the law school, the lessons seem to be obvious. It occurred to us some years ago that the internal communications at the law school were not so good. The only way we heard about articles, which our colleagues had published, was when we happened to come across the fact in conversation. After a few frustrating attempts to get a newsletter going, we sat in my office one morning – typed a document called “Newsletter No 1”, put in it all that we could think of that had happened recently, and sent it around to all staff. Within a few weeks it had become an “institutionalised fact” within the faculty, and for all we know it is still going strong. This simple routine meant that people did not need to be “in the know” to know what was going on, and when we met up with our colleagues, we immediately had things in common which we could talk about.

It then occurred to us that when any of us had been particularly successful in terms of our institutional goals, say by publishing a book, there was no means by which we could formally announce the fact within the faculty, and congratulate them. So we instituted a series of “book-launches”. This gave us the opportunity to invite some famous judges to the law school, every one of which commented that they were not quite sure how to “launch” a book, but it made the author and the other members of the law school “feel good”.

It occurred to us that unless a visitor to the law school happened to notice the sign out front, there was very little within the building to distinguish it from the administrative building or from any other building on campus. So we set up cabinets in the entrance foyer which contained the recent articles and books which had been published. We commissioned quality and framed photographs of each member of staff, each of whom was photographed in a different location or pose - which was very different from the usual rogues’ gallery of headshots. When they were placed within the entrance foyer of the law school, visitors immediately knew who they were looking for. We have encouraged students to publish articles for newspapers, and to ensure that each major article is properly mounted and hung on the walls of the law library or seminar rooms.

Most law schools now have web pages, but often they put very little thought into them. I know of one law school where the “Dean’s message” is two years out of date, and still has the photograph of the previous incumbent of that office. The academic entries on the web site have entries for “major publications” under which members of staff without “major publications” have an ominous blank. How easy it would be to delete the heading where it does not apply, and maybe to substitute it with “research in progress”. With the information technology which we now have access to, it would be the easiest thing in the world to send out regular updates to our professional colleagues and alumnii, and to involve them in our developing research programs.

Incoming students often suffer from a crisis of confidence. Having been high achievers in school or in their previous career, they arrive at the law school, and begin to get passes and credits for their assignments. This is seen by them, and their families, as serious “under-performance”. At one law school, the Dean used to give an address to first year students at the beginning of the year, and invited each of them to say hello to students on either side of them. He then continued to tell them not to get too friendly with each other, “because this time next year, one of you three will not be here”. The fear of failure was no doubt thought to be an important motivator. We tend to think that any student interested in their subject has an inherent capacity to do well. Our task as educators is to identify opportunities to build their sense of self-esteem, and to create the conditions for success.

To counteract the “I’m just a first year” mindset, we like to remind all students that merely by virtue of being at the law school, they are “nearly famous” law students, and that they should be proud of that fact. We encourage them to believe that most people in the community will think well of them, just by virtue of the fact that they are “doing law” at university. One student came back to a tutorial after a few weeks, and announced – “you know Bob, it really works”. Apparently he had gone to the State library and asked for assistance with the obtaining and photocopying of some materials”. The assistant appeared disinterested, until the student reflected upon what we had discussed, and blurted out, “you know I am a law student at the university”. Upon hearing this, the assistant’s attitude changed, and the student was immediately presented with copies of the relevant pages, and told, “that’s ok we don’t need to charge you for them”.

This does not mean, of course, that we wish to encourage our students to use their privileged status to freeload on the rest of society. However, I think it is important to remind them that they do have a privileged status. We can then find a multitude of ways in which they can use that sense of empowerment for the benefit of society and for themselves. Many secondary schools are under pressure to develop new courses on civics and justice programs. We encourage our students to go to many of the “rough and tumble” schools to help the teachers prepare relevant materials and give talks and tutorials to the school students. The school students “look up” to the university students - and at the same time feel special because they have university students coming to work with them. No doubt many of the school students might think more positively of the value of study, when they see university students (with nose and face rings) turning up to spend time with them. Our students work also with a wide range of community groups, the police, legal practitioners, business people and judges. It is important that the students realise that judges and others can actually work with students in ways which will no longer be possible when they become legal practitioners. Instead of thinking of exams and essays as the only type of materials which students can produce, we encourage them to produce materials for publication – on the web - in newspapers and for conferences and journals. “Vertically integrated teams” mean that students at all levels of the law school work with each other, and learn to respect and help each other.

We accept that we will have a struggle to ensure that the academic staff in law schools see the value of these new ways of working. Many of them find these new developments threatening, and as Dawn suggests, instead of articulating their fears or concerns, they just “get angry”. It will all be impossible, how can we treat 1,000 students as individuals, we’ll get sued if they say something wrong, it just won’t work. We believe that such academics will have to change their “world view” or “organising frameworks”, which is a large part of the motivation for writing this book. We will have to re-conceptualise the staff-student relationship, if we genuinely wish us all to be successful. The standard view that we have 8 contact hours per week with students, and the rest is our research and administration time, will certainly have to change. Many of our students have been happy to be involved in administering student programs, for they feel that they benefit from the experience and contacts, which they make. We can become happy to spend 40 hours a week with students if they can be seen them as “research assistants”. They can bring considerable benefits to the progress of our research, without feeling that they are being exploited.

By working to progress cases through the courts, and in research on miscarriage of justice cases, they really learn how the legal system works, and (more importantly) how it might be improved. It is only with our students that the law school can be properly re-integrated with other areas of the university and with the wider community. For anyone who is not involved with such a program, we can only say that instead of being “the chaos” which many have predicted, it is fast-moving, constantly changing and very exciting. The program activities and issues related to its management and assessment will be found in the later lectures. For those who suggest that this type of work cannot be properly managed, or evaluated as part of student assessment, we invite them to think carefully about their role – whether they best serve their student’s interests as controllers or as facilitators of student learning.

As a prelude to considering the details of the programs, which we have developed, we do think that it is important to consider the role of computers in all of this. The transformation of the academic role is in our view only possible because of the new means of communication and of publishing which are now becoming available to us. We therefore spend some time in later lectures looking at the issue of computers, and the strategic opportunities which they present. Now we will look at the final stage of our psychological study.

Level 4 – The Drama Triangle

This stage of Dawn’s program has been developed from “the drama triangle” which was developed by Karpman as part of “transactional analysis” in the 1960s.

Each of us will tend to have a preferred position in this tripartite scenario, but equally, we will also tend to move quickly between each of the three positions. Dawn suggests that the vast majority of us will operate with this scenario most of the time. Each of the three situations is dysfunctional and seen to be part of “unhealthy” interactions.

The object of the exercise is to try to ensure that we get out of the triangle, and stay out of it. In terms of transactional analysis, it means accepting the proposition that “I’m ok – you’re ok”. That we see ourselves as a loveable and valuable person who deserves to get our needs met in a positive and healthy manner. We also appreciate the needs which others have to be seen and to be treated in this manner. So we start with the positive perspective which looks at life outside the triangle. The essential propositions or rules of this world view are:

Life outside the triangle

I’m ok – you’re ok
It is ok to expect to get my needs met
It is ok for you to expect to get your needs met
I win – you win – win / win is both desirable and achievable
We proceed by negotiation and avoid conflict
This process can only be engaged in by those with high self-esteem
We use “I” statements which express how we feel, what we need
We avoid “You” statements which attribute blame or fault
To work, we need to understand “assertiveness” and how it differs from passive or aggressive behaviour.

The key factors in the healthy development of relationships, is:

First - the development of feelings of confidence and empowerment.

Secondly - the realisation that its ok not to be perfect.

In our communications, especially concerning our feelings, the most frequent and damaging responses are those which deny, minimise or trivialise the feelings which are being expressed. The person who says to us, “you’re not angry”, when we obviously are – or that, “you have no right to be angry” or “oh, its only that” so as to indicate that it really can’t be significant or important - is responding in a manner which is disempowering to us. 

The underlying message which we receive is that the other person is ok, and that we are not. It represents a form of passive aggression and leads to a feeling of powerlessness, when confronted with an abuse of power. The three positions in the drama triangle can be characterised as follows:

The rescuer

This person conveys the message, “I’m terrific - I’m always available - I’m ok, you’re not, and you need me to cope or get things done”. The motivation underlying this attitude is one of guilt. It no doubt arises from earlier experiences which have conveyed the message that whatever you have done it is not good enough. In order to try and prove their worthiness, the rescuer becomes a martyr, a workaholic – ring me anytime, day or night and I’ll be there (and then you can’t complain). The most likely outcome is that the rescuer will suffer from burn out, exhaustion, family and emotional breakdown – and still not feel loved.

The persecutor

This is the person who takes the view that “I’m ok – you’re not – and its YOUR FAULT”. This person is driven by anger and will be abusive to others, blame and humiliate others, will sabotage their work or seek revenge and to punish them. Although motivated by anger, the persecutor does not have to act angry. We should remind ourselves that most of our human communication is non-verbal. In fact “the persecutor” can be charming and smiling, whilst working their sabotage. As Dawn says, “Beware the smiling persecutor!” The persecutor might say, as part of the put-down, “lovely fruit cake – bit dry though” – or “Oh, you bought that car – I would have thought that you would have read up on them – pity about that”. Sabotage with a smiling face – “no, it really can’t be done – sorry about that”.

The victim

This is the person who presents as hopeless – “I am a stupid, hopeless, helpless person, I need help, its all too much for me, and you’ll have to save me”. The message here is that “I’m not ok – you’re ok – you’ll have to save me because I can’t save myself”.

It is important to recognise that whilst the victim portrays themselves to be helpless, this should not be confused with being powerless. Indeed, of all the performances, the victim usually brings forth the most powerful responses. Whilst we are all running around trying to save the victim, we’ll be met with the response that “I’m sure you’ve got better things to do, its not worth bothering with me, I’ll just suffer in silence”, which brings forth even greater efforts to please them. As they say, “the harder I work, the worser it gets”.

The drama

It is important to appreciate that the rescuer, persecutor and victim are all playing roles which are extremely MANIPULATIVE. They are all dealing with others as means to an end, rather than as ends in themselves. They are conditioning the responses which they require from others by dealing with them indirectly, instead of clearly stating their needs, and giving to the others reasonable choices. Most of us are in the triangle, in one position or the other, most of the time.

It is also important to appreciate that whilst we may have a favoured starting point, we can switch roles – and we frequently do – within a matter of seconds. Take for example the person who is driving to work on a busy day. They are caught up in traffic and (being a rescuer) make a point of stopping to let someone out from a side road. They stop and wave them on reassuring themselves that if they had not let them out the person would have been stuck there for hours. The person in the car behind is in persecutor mode, and blasts the horn and makes rude gestures – “bloody idiot, we’ve all got to get to work”. The person in front switches to victim mode – “everyone picks on me, every time I try to help I just get into trouble, why are they picking on me?” Then as they move off the person in front moves into persecutor mode and thinks, “I’ll show them, I’ll get my own back,” and deliberately drives slowly, and in the middle of the lane so the car behind can’t get past. Rescuer – victim – persecutor. All within 30 seconds, and within 20 yards.

The family is the perfect example of the triangle. Mother has been running around all day – washing, cleaning, ironing, shopping, picking the kids up from school. She arrives home with the kids and the shopping and they barge past her to get into the house to turn the telly on first. Mother struggles into the house – the perfect victim. The first child (playing persecutor) gets the telly control, picks their favourite program, and then turns to the other child and goes, “Ya ha I got my program – you can’t watch yours ninny”. The second child is now a victim and starts crying, “its not fair, I never get to see what I want”. Mother switches from victim to rescuer of the second child – “I’ll sort it out for you, don’t you worry” and then immediately switches into persecutor as she turns on the first child, “I’m sick of you, always causing trouble”, a whack in the ear and off to the bedroom for no 1. The first child has stopped being persecutor, and becomes a victim, “Its not fair, no-one loves me”. The second child switches from victim to persecutor and turns the telly up loud so that no 1 can hear that he’s got his program after all, and might throw in the occasional “Ya ha” to make sure no 1 is really upset. Within minutes, the house is in chaos, everyone is crying or shouting, so mum (who has already gone from victim to rescuer to persecutor) now goes back to being the victim “whatever I do is wrong – I try so hard, and this is all the thanks I get” and she starts crying. The two children who have been persecutors and victims now take turns to be rescuers – and because they feel guilty, they offer to set the table and make mum a nice cup of tea.

Within the space of a few minutes, everyone has been in all three positions, everyone is unhappy, and there is every chance they will go around and around. What possibility is there to get out of the triangle? The main issues to consider in effecting the escape, are that one can “nurture” without rescuing, that one need not assume guilt, and that one is not responsible for, or able to control others.

Your best friend telephones you to say that her husband has left, she can’t cope, and doesn’t know what to do. The rescuer response is to say, “I’ll be right over, pack your bags and come over to my place. We’ll sort it out.” This really means – I’ll sort it out for you because you can’t sort it out for yourself”. In one quick step, the rescuer has now denied that the person is capable of sorting it out for herself – minimised her involvement in it, and trivialised her role in things. The rescuer takes control, makes it clear that the other is both helpless and hopeless. The rescuer might even add a touch of persecution and say, “bloody fool, we’ll get the lawyers on to him” – meaning – that we’ll make his life a misery. Lawyers are usually regarded as good tools for persecutors to use.

Nurturing – supportive – negotiate – set boundaries

The nurturing response would be to first enquire about the feelings which the other person is experiencing – “what happened – how do you feel about that?” The next step might be to acknowledge the validity of those feelings – “Its quite natural to be upset, don’t apologise for crying like that”. The next step is to enquire about what the other person thinks should be done. “What do you think that you should do about it?” and then “and how can I help?”.

The person might then say – “I’ll come and live with you for a while”. An appropriate response might then be to negotiate – “How will that help?” Or to set appropriate boundaries – “why don’t you come until Saturday”. If the person says, “Can I come and stay for a while”, that may not be suitable to you. The temptation is to become a rescuer and then a victim. “Come and stay with me” turns into problems about how long that means. The person is trouble wants to stay for 6 months, and you can’t really put up with them for more than a week. Their loss of control turns into your loss of control.

Assertive Vulnerability - Rules

Life outside the triangle can be quite good. It does not mean that we expect to be perfect. As vulnerable and fallible human beings, we are just like all the rest of the human race. We have to be confident enough to know that whilst we may not be perfect, we are doing a pretty good job. We, like everyone else, have our vulnerabilities, but we also have our needs, and can learn to indicate to others what OUR needs and limitations are. We avoid getting back into the triangle by maintaining a watchful awareness of our own vulnerabilities, needs and limitations. It is only the rescuer who overlooks those things and plunges in regardless, and then has to recover the situation by becoming a persecutor or victim. The person who has just been abandoned by the husband might well say, if they are thinking from the point of view of assertive vulnerability – “We always used to go to our friends house on Saturdays, and I am dreading Saturday, because I’ll have nothing to do that day”. The assertively vulnerable friend, who is not looking forward to spending Saturday evening indoors alone with her distressed friend might say, (thinking negotiation – win / win) “Why don’t we go to the cinema on Saturday, it would do us both good?” Or, (thinking negotiation win / win) “I have to do something else this Saturday, but I would be happy to have you over for a meal with some friends the following Saturday. For this week, why not give (another friend of ours a call)”.

The rules for keeping out of the triangle include:

Recognise your own vulnerabilities – do not do things which make you feel uncomfortable

Be mindful of what your own needs are – one does not have to be a martyr to be a friend

¹See for example The Drugtakers – The social meaning of drug use - Jock Young – Paladin 1972 – which has extensive references in the index to “deviancy amplification” and also to “deamplification”. “City Politics and Deviancy Amplification” – Gail Armstrong and Mary Wilson in Politics and Deviance – Papers from the National Deviancy Conference – edited by Ian Taylor and Laurie Taylor – Pelican Books 1973.

Top of Page