Is triangulation always abuse?

[JohnLove]

Is triangulation always abuse?

My perspective is that this "friend" is both their friends and if he had spoken to her husband or even treated him differently after the discussions then that sounds like classic case of TRIANGULATION. Which falls under the definition of abuse in an intimate relationship.

Small point.  Triangulation is not abuse, it is a natural family dynamic.

It can be the source of drama, or polarizing fights - it can be a stabilizing force too.

According to Bowen, these three part relationships (triangles) have at least four possible outcomes which are as follows - 2 are good and 2 are bad:

(1) A stable pair can become destabilized by a third person;

(2) a stable pair can also be destabilized by the removal of the third person (an example would be a child leaving home and no longer available for triangulation);

(3) an unstable pair can be stabilized by the addition of a third person (an example would be a conflictual marriage becoming more harmonious after the birth of a child; and

(4) an unstable pair being stabilized by the removal of a third person (an example would be conflict is reduced by the removal of a third person who takes sides).

https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=121673.0

It may well be a natural family dynamic but I feel it is an unhealthy one unless you are speaking of raising children, then the "rules" differ.

I am unfamiliar with the work of Bowen but I am not always thrilled about entertaining conflicting theories regarding experts. Some relationship experts are absolutely amazing and some are misguided or just plain wrong.

My understanding of triangulation in an intimate realtionship is one of abuse. It goes against pair bonding (3 IS a crowd). it destroys intimacy (the protective element to the vulnerable part of in all of us), it undermines the emotional support that is the REAL purpose of a relationship (when someone outside steps into that role). I won't even delve into the sexual component.

How is this in any sense healthy or even desirable in an INTIMATE relationship?.

Maybe our definitions of triangulation differ?  

Split from https://bpdfamily.com/message_board/index.php?topic=271749.msg12579728#msg12579728

[RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM SOLVING]

RELATIONSHIP PROBLEM SOLVING This is a high level discussion board for solving ongoing, day-to-day relationship conflicts. Members are welcomed to express frustration but must seek constructive solutions to problems. This is not a place for relationship "stay" or "leave" discussions. Please read the specific guidelines for this group.

[Notwendy]

               Click on diagram to see lead site article



The triangle can teach us a lot about relationships- the drama triangle and triangulation.

My parents were most stable with each other when they could be angry at one or more of the kids. This way, they were in mutual agreement over this and it seemed to bond them. People tend to bond over a common enemy- think politics, and other events where having a scapegoat is used to get votes, unite people and so on. An affair can be a triangle where the unfaithful couple bond over a common secret ( the affair, the spouse that makes them so unhappy). For some people, it is the forbideness, the unavailability of the secret partner ( they can't be together all the time), the sneaking around and the fantasy that makes it so exciting.

We see our spouses every day- we see them home with the kids, coming home from work, tired, cranky, no makeup, whatever. Then- away from home we see someone else- dressed up, no kids around, on their best behavior. How can the spouse compete?

I have to be aware of my own feelings and the fact that we don't stop being able to notice that  someone is attractive or feel emotions just because we are married, however, we can choose to put boundaries around that- no one on one dates, talking about our relationship to others, no hugging people unless we know them well and feel it is OK, no long intimate talks on line.

[Cat Familiar]

I can't pretend to understand the concept, but from personal experience I do know that sharing information about one's relationship with an outside person can either be a blessing or a curse. I have a couple of friends whose husbands abuse alcohol or are alcoholics. We've shared very personal details about the challenges of living with an addict. It's been a source of strength for me, although I would never want my husband to know what I've said about him.

On the other hand, I've seen where these sorts of disclosures could damage the relationship if the outsider were to advise that the relationship is so dysfunctional, it should be abandoned. Particularly if there is a potential for a romantic relationship with the outsider, it becomes a slippery slope.

[Skip]

Maybe our definitions of triangulation differ?

This might be true.  At bpdfamily use conventional psychology and lock in on a "site-wide" definition so that we all have a common language when we post    This is one theory that is very helpful and worth understanding.

I am unfamiliar with the work of Bowen but I am not always thrilled about entertaining conflicting theories regarding experts. Some relationship experts are absolutely amazing and some are misguided or just plain wrong.

Triangulation comes from / originated in Bowen's Family Theory. This is textbook material.

www.thebowencenter.org/pages/concepttri.html

Triangulation - we all do it.  There are favorable outcomes and unfavorable outcomes.  There are 3 people involved.

Bowen's point is that triangulation is occurring all the time - we all get involved in triangles - some triangles are good, some are bad.

We are do it on this board everyday. Members in unstable situations with their spouse come here to stabilize. If we center and arm the unstabilized situation with constructive advice - its good triangulation.  If we over validate inappropriate behaviors or take sides  - its bad triangulation.

The Karpman Triangle, described by Stephen Karpman and elaborated by many others, is a subset of triangulation and very useful tool for understanding "stuck" relationship dynamics. The idea is that we often find ourselves playing out scripts. These roles feel safe, as they are familiar; we slip into as comfortable as we sink into the us-shaped indent in our own beds. But they are very limiting. They keep us trapped.

The triangle in its simple form consists of three roles:



The roles are Persecutor, Victim, and Rescuer. We may start in one position, but as another (or others) shift around the triangle, so do we.

The Persecutor insists, "It's all your fault." The Persecutor is controlling, blaming, critical, oppressive, angry, authoritative, rigid, and superior.

The Victim is of course persecuted. The Victim's stance is "Poor me!" The Victim feels victimized, oppressed, helpless, hopeless, powerless, ashamed, and seems unable to make decisions, solve problems, take pleasure in life, or achieve insight. The Victim, if not being persecuted, will seek out a Persecutor and also a Rescuer who will "save" the day but also perpetuate the Victim's negative feelings.

The Rescuer's line is "Let me help you." A classic enabler, the Rescuer feels guilty if he/she doesn't rescue. Yet his/her rescuing has negative effects: It keeps the Victim dependent and gives the Victim permission to fail. It also keeps the Rescuer stuck in focusing energy on someone else's problems, not solving his/her own.

The most valuable aspect of Karpman Triangle is not to call abuse - but to see the dynamic start to unfold and know how to countermand it.

What do we do when we are drawn into the Persecutor role?

[hope2727]

We see our spouses every day- we see them home with the kids, coming home from work, tired, cranky, no makeup, whatever. Then- away from home we see someone else- dressed up, no kids around, on their best behavior. How can the spouse compete?

I have to be aware of my own feelings and the fact that we don't stop being able to notice that  someone is attractive or feel emotions just because we are married, however, we can choose to put boundaries around that- no one on one dates, talking about our relationship to others, no hugging people unless we know them well and feel it is OK, no long intimate talks on line.

So well put.  Thanks.

[formflier]

 

I've always thought that there was one person in the triangle that "shouldn't be there" or is the "third wheel"

That person is the one that usually leads the triangle to a good outcome... .or a bad one.

I may be wrong... .looking for tweaks on how I think about this.


So... .A&B have a fight.

B goes to C and says "blah blah blah"

If C says  "that's horrible... A shouldn't have done that... .you showed great restraint... .I hope you won't let this affect your life... .etc etc".  I'm seeing this going in bad direction.  Person C took one side of the story and validated that person without any suggestion of ownership of part of the issue.

If C says... ." that's horrible... .I would be very stressed if I was in your shoes.  Once you collect yourself and sort out your thoughts I hope you can have a conversation with A and you can sort out your differences."  I'm seeing this going in the right direction... .C is supportive... .not taking sides... .and suggesting action which may lead to resolution.

Am I on the right track with triangulation... .or am I using a different definition?

[Skip]

That's basically it.

[OffRoad]

It seems to me that if you throw a counselor into the mix, you have triangulation, but going to the resolution side. So no, triangulation isn't always abuse, IMO.

[JohnLove]

Hi formflier, I should say that I did not post this topic and don't have any interest in continuing with it unless an open and critical analysis is allowed... .except to say that is the Bowen theory on triangulation. It is but one view or perspective.

I appreciate you clarifying your interpretation for readers. Your example spelled it out with no ambiguity. Nice work.  

The karpman triangle is a very useful tool in bringing unbalanced human interactions back into balance. But it is only a tool for awareness of acute situations and the direction to take to resolve them. I would not call the Karpman triangle "triangulation". It's merely a geometric diagram designed to express those principals from the three angles involved. Hence triangular.

Ideally the people concerned, whoever they are, should be in the centre of the Karpman triangle. That is considered healthy.

Human psychology and understanding is constantly evolving and particular views and perspectives are very helpful in all of us trying to achieve our ideals, and for us to adopt new methods or deep understanding for ourselves often means taking what works and letting go of what doesn't. Which can be other peoples perspectives or ideas which may be self limiting.

That is why there is not just one universal consensus on relationships just like there is not one standard of treating BPD. There are many varied methodologies and not all work for everybody. Some don't work at all for some people. I'd like to see something that fits everybody but that remains elusive at this time.  

Let us not forget that just 20 years ago there was NO treatment for BPD offered to individuals that were suffering greatly or their partners who also suffered enormously.  :'(

I've always thought that there was one person in the triangle that "shouldn't be there" or is the "third wheel".

I may be wrong... .looking for tweaks on how I think about this.

Am I on the right track with triangulation... .or am I using a different definition?

You are not wrong but you are using a different definition to mine. In an intimate relationship there is no third party. The "third wheel" or "three's a crowd" are old sayings that are a reflection of this. But your subsequent explanation does concur with some experts on this... .and I am no expert but my meaning of the word triangulation is when one person steps outside the relationship to divulge intimate knowledge from inside an intimate relationship to a third person. This in my relationship playbook is abusive. It violates the intimacy in an intimate relationship. It is emotional abuse plain and simple.

We can discuss intimate relationships as involving ONLY two people. No triangles, no circles, or even squares for that matter. When a third person is involved (that shouldn't be there) it can lead to chaos in the relationship. It can be destructive to intimacy and unhealthy for the relationship. There are many varied angles on this. My view of triangulation does not always lead to disaster but it is a very risky action to take and is often detrimental to the primary relationship. Most often it destroys intimacy which is the primary purpose of an intimate relationship.  

I will say that when one person in the relationship suffers from BPD conventional relationship theory or wisdom goes right out the window. Many counsellors won't touch relationships with pwBPD in them. For good reason. Counsellors that will can make a mess of things. I would recommend a counsellor with experience in dealing with BPD relationships as long as both partners consent to it. This way it is consensual triangulation and the risk to intimacy is not lost or at least it is minimised. The role of a counsellor is to restore intimacy through better understanding and hopefully functioning of the relationship. Understanding BPD dynamics and the partners feelings in a BPD relationship can be nigh on impossible without direct experience and even then what works for one may not necessarily work for another.

DISCLAIMER: These views are entirely my own. They may not be supported by bpdfamily.com

[sweetheart]

Hello jorhnlove,

Maybe asking 'is triangulation in a relationship with a pwBPD always abusive ?' might provide more clarity when people are thinking about their responses. This seems to me the distinction you are perhaps trying to make and for me it wasn't that clear. I could be wrong

My understanding of triangulation in its many forms and psychological interpretations is that it is not inherently abusive.

I do not know enough about any one psychological model of triangulation to offer up a cohesive argument.

What your post has me wondering though is what is it about this area for you that makes you ask the question, or is it just purely academic ?

[waverider]

I've always thought that there was one person in the triangle that "shouldn't be there" or is the "third wheel"

The complication is that triangles are not always static, they rotate with members varying their roles. Hence the third person is not always readily identifiable.

Also a third person may not fully play their role and break any toxicity that might otherwise occur. Allowing the venting without fuelling. eg councellor role. This is the good outcome of which you speak.

Triangles are everywhere, the key is to be aware of them and the dynamics in play so that you can take things in proper perspective

[Notwendy]

Is triangulation always abusive? I think my answer would be that it isn't always abusive but it is dysfunctional.

I don't think that involving a counselor is necessarily triangulation. It is different than involving a third lay person who has motives of their own. A counselor is a theraputic relationship and that is different. A good counselor knows how to stay off the Karpman triangle by not playing any of the roles.

My take on triangulation is that it is an immature way of socializing and bonding. A group of three is trouble for pre-teens. The triangle can rotate but the strong configuration is two people bonding against one. Having a common "enemy" makes the bond stronger because then they share something in common, and also focus on the third person instead of themselves. Pre-teen kids can be cruel and so this configuration can be abusive to whoever is in third, as that child can be teased, have nobody to sit with at lunch, and excluded.

My mother does this by bonding with someone- a friend, family member, and sharing gossip. She shares the gossip with someone else and then tells them not to tell the other person. It seems to me to be acting like a pre-teen girl. She and my father were frequently in conflict, and they were closer when she painted us kids black and bonded with him over their "horrible children", or with us kids as against our "horrible father", or with us kids- making one of us the white child bonding with her over the painted black one.

My H has traits and is less affected than my mom. He doesn't do this in the family with family members or friends, but once I became aware of triangulation, I noticed that we got along when there was someone we could both be annoyed at- an unreasonable person we know, a politician we disagreed with. These people are not affected by anything- we are just talking about them, however, it is easier to talk about politics or another person than to speak on an intimate level. It keeps the focus off of our own relationship. In this situation, it isn't abusive- nobody is being directly harmed- no action is being taken on what we talk about. However, it is dysfunctional when this is substituted for intimacy.

I think bringing a third person into a r/s as a possible romantic partner or some way that is damaging to the r/s could be a more damaging form of triangulation, but the dynamics- two people bonding by excluding the third, or bonding over common bad feelings over the third are similar.

[Skip]

Is triangulation always abusive? I think my answer would be that it isn't always abusive but it is dysfunctional.

When two people reach a state of tension (for example a disagreement, or impasse), very often, one or both will involve a third party. The third party is now part of the disagreement, or impasse.

Why does this happen? When someone is so frustrated with the disagreement, or impasse that they feel "unstabilized" by it, and they don't want to compromise (or the other party in the disagreement, or impasse refuses), they seek to "stabilize" themselves by involving another person.

The theory of triangulation recognizes that this is a very common human phenomenon. Its a descriptive term - its neutral.

Triangulation can have many outcomes. Some are highly beneficial. Some are neutral. Some are problematic.

Case study:

So a friend of mine experienced infidelity in her relationship. In the process of trying to recover the marriage, she was at an impasse.  She comes to me (triangulates) and tells me about how her husband and her are locked in conflict.

Beneficial action: I could recognize that triangulation is occurring and let her extinguish her frustration by listening to her with impartiality. This is better than her trying to extinguish it by escalating the impasse with her husband.

Beneficial action:  I can become more active in the triangulation.  Since I'm a trusted friend, I can try to disarm the conflict by validating her, but by also explaining that her husbands position has merit.  Telling her that to resolve matter, both have to see each others side and compromise. Even motivating her "you can do it".

Detrimental action: I can become more active in the triangulation and polarize the impasse. I can validate her and tell her to stick to her guns. Remind her how validated she was.

Detrimental action: I can become emotionally involved with friend.

[Notwendy]

Good point, Skip

Maybe dysfunctional people tend to triangulate in a dysfunctional way, and emotionally healthy people do it in a non detrimental way.

I think seeing a therapist is the latter- because the therapist is not entering the triangle in a destructive way, is confidential and ideally is impartial.

Family members and friends can be supportive but are not always impartial. As you said, if it is possible to be supportive of one person in a conflict without causing damage to the relationship, then that could be helpful.

[Skip]

Maybe dysfunctional people tend to triangulate in a dysfunctional way, and emotionally healthy people do it in a non detrimental way.

Certainly truth to this.

One of the takes homes from understanding triangulation is that it takes two for it to go bad.  In the case study above, regardless of the person who started the triangulation, the person who was drawn in place a deciding role in either making it worse or trying to make it better.  I think we have all seen some very healthy people drawn into triangulation and make matters worse.  Its easy to unwittingly make matters worse.  We even see it here on the boards sometimes.

What can we do?

We can try not to be the destructive third party.

We can recognize that when we triangulate, we often do this because winning is more important than resolving.

And lastly, we can be mindful when we have escalating tension with someone that their may be a triangulating party and that the resolution involves dealing with the triangle. Sometimes just reaching out to the third party and explaining triangulation is enough. Sometimes the triangle is so well entrench, your in a hopeless position to resolve. Helpful to know.

[empath]

In a past situation of extreme emotion, uBPDh and I had different ideas of what would be helpful. I reached out to a few close friends who I knew well and who were invested in my life. I talked about the situation with them and received support and prayer. They were shocked at H's perspective, but they didn't try to intervene or manipulate the situation. One of these friends started suggesting ways to get around H's actions; that's when I became uncomfortable and felt like that friend was being inappropriate.

When H suggested involving a third person in our situation, it was always an attempt to 'make me do what he wanted'. The people would be consulted in order for me to be told to comply with his ideas because I wasn't willing to do so when he wanted me to. 

Triangulation in a 'counseling' sense is an attempt to defuse a situation by the addition of a third person into a situation.

[Notwendy]

One of the reasons I started counseling was to have a safe, impartial person to speak to. Of course this board is also anonymous. I can also speak to my sponsor and 12 step group.

I did not want to involve family or friends as I didn't think that woud work for me.

One way I stay out of the drama triangle with my FOO is not to go there. If my mother calls me up to "talk" about another family member, I reply that I don't want to talk about "so and so" behind their backs. The other family members know I have told her this.

Sometimes I have actually had to let go of a relationship with someone she has painted me black to. In this case, it would be her word against mine. The other person would have to decide which one to believe. Sometimes it isn't worth convincing someone of that and disrupting her r/s with them as sometimes that is the stronger one.