This talk—recorded for the community-focused Stroud IFS Drop-In—comes with an activation warning. You’re warmly invited to ask any parts that don’t want to be here to relax or go and play elsewhere for now. Parts that do want to listen and learn are welcome to stay. All parts are welcome; it’s entirely their choice whether they listen or read.

Below is a 20-minute video in which I speak about IFS, the dynamics between parts (in IFS language), a brief look at the Drama Triangle and why I view these roles as protective, and the alternatives. We finish by exploring new ways of being—Self in the “Healthy Triangle”—where we can be potent, responsible, responsive, and vulnerable.

All my notes from the talk follow. As you’ll see, I don’t stick to them exactly.

This talk begins with the dynamics between people—relational patterns between two or three individuals and the roles we take externally—and then looks at the parts of us that get activated internally. The Drama Triangle describes dysfunctional interactions in which people move between three roles—Persecutor, Rescuer and Victim—held in place by guilt and blame.

How does this map to IFS? IFS primarily focuses on the internal family system. We work within. The way we handle those external dynamics is, first and foremost, by making a You-turn. As Cece Sykes puts it: yes, someone may be behaving in a certain way, and of course we’d love a magic wand to change them—but we can’t. So we turn back inside and look there.

Dick Schwartz’s “Room” / Fire Drill
Imagine the person who’s triggering you (the “tormentor”) in a room and notice which parts of you show up in response.

Linking to Martha Sweezy’s Shame Cycle (six acts)
When “a bad thing happens” and we’re shamed, we take on the shame and our protectors leap into action—often in ways that play out with other people. Anticipatory scout managers may rescue/fix, blame/judge, or make us smaller/“less than”. Firefighters may fawn/soothe the other, or flip into a warrior mutiny—fighting back and projecting blame (“it’s not me, it’s you”).
Martha’s guidance when something painful happens now: put on your oxygen mask. Go first to the vulnerable ones inside and ask protectors to soften a little. Once Self has been with the hurt part and your nervous system has settled, consult the protectors about options. From a non-reactive place, decide whether to re-enter dialogue, take space, or leave the situation. More on the Shame Cycle here: https://www.stroudtherapy.com/news/shameifs

Working the ‘between’ with IFIO (IFS for couples)
Using the sideways infinity loop, map the predictable cycle:

When A says/does X, B’s nervous system activates. B: what do you say/do to yourself? What would I notice? Does A know this part of you?
Then A’s system activates in turn. A: what do you say/do to yourself? What would I notice?
We invite a You-turn for both, then return to the relationship speaking for parts (not from them), and naming the need underneath.

A related lens: The Gottmans’ Four Horsemen
A common sequence is: criticism → defensiveness → contempt → stonewalling. Recognising the pattern helps you pause, turn inward, and re-engage from Self.
https://www.gottman.com/blog/the-four-horsemen-recognizing-criticism-contempt-defensiveness-and-stonewalling/

Being me, I got curious about how the infamous Drama Triangle meshes with IFS. I’d love to know what you make of it—what happens in your system? Does it bring clarity, or does it muddy the waters?

From conversations with colleagues, I’m hearing a few IFS-flavoured views:

1) The “naming” pitfall can be shaming.
Used carelessly, the Triangle can land like a put-down. If someone’s already activated and you say, “You’re persecuting me,” “You’re being a victim,” or “Stop being a martyr,” that’s likely a protector speaking—and it tends to trigger a firefighter response and escalate things. Crucially, it also bypasses the hurt underneath that actually needs care. That makes sense to me.

2) An IFS-y take: turn inward and befriend.
With a You-turn and enough Self energy—curiosity, compassion, clarity—nothing is “too much”. The Triangle often shows up inside us as much as between us. Each role can be understood as a protector within, and the interplay between them becomes rich information. Treat the roles as trailheads, especially for outward-facing protectors, and look for the kernel of positive intent: what is this part trying to do for me? I find that lens genuinely helpful—both for exploring my own dynamics and for witnessing what’s happening externally. It can reveal hidden patterns.

So, what is the Triangle, exactly…?

Transactional Analysis, Eric Berne (1960s) and Stephen Karpman’s Drama Triangle (1968)
Karpman drew on fairy tales and script/drama analysis to describe the Victim, Rescuer and Persecutor roles—think the Pied Piper, Little Red Riding Hood and Cinderella. Here’s his triangle: it’s often a three-person dynamic. We tend to adopt a preferred role in our external family system, then switch as the interaction unfolds.

What struck me was the switching. I’m not only the Rescuer or only the Victim. Just like in Little Red Riding Hood—rescuer of Granny, victim of the Wolf, then persecutor of the Wolf—our parts can cycle through roles quickly. I can move from feeling vulnerable and powerless… to rescuing someone… to feeling unappreciated and angry… and then into “poor me—no one ever appreciates me.” The more the drama escalates, the more switching there tends to be. Sometimes we can even occupy several roles at once.

When I did a You-turn with each role, I recognised them as protectors—and not only that, each can show up as either a manager or a firefighter in IFS terms.

Of course, there are real victims. The world—and many of our lives—contains horrendous situations where we’ve felt hopeless, helpless, ashamed or “not enough”. When we experience trauma we create stories to make meaning and support ourselves.

In this talk, when I say “Victim”, I mean a protector part that may genuinely feel like a victim and act like one, but is still a protector—either a manager or a firefighter. The victim-protector tries to convince itself (and others) that nothing can be done, that efforts are futile—often by focusing outward and casting the other as Persecutor. That keeps things stuck and leaves the underlying little ones with the deeper feelings unseen. We need to meet this protector with care and attunement, avoiding any re-shaming.

I’ll speak about me, or places I relate to, and I invite you to do your own You-turn: check inside for what resonates—similarities, differences, and what your system wants you to know.

Victim – the “helpless damsel”

This role often sits at the centre, with the others revolving around it. These parts believe they are hard done by.

Manager style: “Poor me, I’m desolate, powerless, hopeless, ashamed.” This protector adopts a fixed stance and gets stuck there.
Firefighter style: reacting to a perceived slight—“You’ve no idea what it’s like; I’m so hard done by.”

I have a part that uses these tactics to keep me from feeling deeper feelings, to reduce anxiety and avoid risk—eliciting sympathy and rescue so I’ll be looked after. Good intentions; unhelpful effects. Internally I remain stuck and can’t access real grief; externally others may become resentful or feel powerless.

A victim part “needs” someone to listen and rescue (internally or externally) and also a persecutor—sometimes even setting someone up to be one (real or projected). If someone offers help, this part may respond with “yes, but…”, keeping the system stuck. Or it may focus on persecution—either broadly (“they always do this to me”) or with a quick, angry, blaming flip (the firefighter), which looks like perpetrating from victim: “It’s not me; it’s you/them.” Is that one part or two in your system? Have a look and see.

Rescuers – hero or martyr

Manager rescuers: a way of life—“Let me help you.” My rescuing/enabling managers put others’ needs before mine. It’s the “good person” part (and we’re shamed for being “selfish” or “bad”). There’s often a polarised partner that guilts or shames me if I don’t help. (Hello, cultural/legacy burdens—Catholic upbringing; both my parents had rescuing parts.)

There’s a controlling edge here: a need to be right. These parts use the “victim” to make me feel good, to claim the moral high ground and take the focus off my own trailheads. The intentions are good, but they can stop me feeling my own anxiety, taking responsibility, and allow others less room to grow or be autonomous—subtly implying, “You can’t manage; I must be in charge.” They also prevent others living with the consequences of their choices.

Firefighting rescue: when someone’s anger or scorn hits my nervous system, I can fawn/people-please. It may calm things initially but abandons my littlies—cue the “no one sees me… poor me” merry-go-round. I can then flip to persecuting (from rescuer or victim): “After all I’ve done for you!”

Persecutors – the “villain”

These can be managers or firefighters.

Manager style: not career criminal (!) but the judging/controlling voice—“It’s all your fault.” I have parts that blame, bully, use contempt, rigidity, superiority. Their intention is to get results, stay on top, or avoid feeling powerless and ashamed. Good intentions; harmful impacts.
Firefighter style: the warrior mutiny—deflecting pain outward: “It’s not me, it’s you.” Or flipping straight into victim (“look what you’ve done to me”), which may then provoke the other into persecutor—and round we go.

The pattern underneath

Across all three roles, the intentions are protective—but they miss the trailhead: taking personal responsibility and feeling the true feelings underneath. Our little ones are further abandoned, and focus stays on the “other actors” (inside and out). The invitation is always a U-turn: these “others” may be perfect tormentors for your system’s learning. Bring the focus back to you—who you are and how you are. IFS offers a way through, returning us to Self.

Let’s look next at the Winners Triangle and the Healthy Triangle:

Winners Triangle (Acey Choy, 1990):
- Vulnerable instead of victim—own vulnerability, problem-solve, and be self-aware.
- Assertive instead of persecutor—ask for what’s needed, set limits clearly.
- Caring instead of rescuer—offer concern without over-reaching or solving for others.
Healthy Triangle (after Proctor & Tehrani; via Emma Redfern):
Acting from Self, speaking for parts, and bringing that grounded base into the relationship when we “return”.

The Power of TED 2009 has a similar one, all subtly different but what works for you? …

Victim – creator, Persecutor as challenger and Rescuer - Coach

My IFS colleague Emma Redfern outlines the Healthy Triangle in a chapter of her excellent book on IFS supervision and consultation (https://www.routledge.com/Internal-Family-Systems-Therapy-Supervision-and-Consultation/Redfern). Adapted from Proctor and Tehrani’s Beneficial Triangle (2001), it makes profound sense to me: it brings the triangle back from interpersonal dynamics to healthy ways of being—acting from Self and speaking for parts. We can apply it internally first, and then “return” to the other person and the relationship. (And notice how solid this triangle feels—with that grounded base.)

Moving away from roles (protectors) and the dynamic between to ways of being or qualities of a person who has access to Self… vulnerable, Potent (in the sense of having personal power, choice and agency) and responsive to and responsible for oneself. We can put in boundaries and speak for parts.

So I don’t know how this is for you, how it lands within your own system … what do you make of it? I’m really curious.. Much more to explore, these are some of my musings.

1) Context and power matter.
Before we “triangle-ise” anything, check for real harm, coercion, or structural power differences. Sometimes “victim” isn’t a role at all but a literal reality, and the first job is safety, boundaries and support — not reframing. In IFS terms: reassure protectors you’re prioritising protection now, then do the U-turn when it’s genuinely safe enough.

2) Remember these are all protective strategies not identities
What looks like Persecutor is often a boundary-setting manager that’s over-amped; what looks like Rescuer is a caretaking manager that’s taken over agency; what looks like Victim is usually a blend of a protector (hopeless/helpless stance) shielding an exile. Alessio Rizzo talks about this too, here are a couple of his takeaways:

Track the contract each protector believes it’s keeping (e.g., “If I rescue, we’ll belong.” “If I attack, we won’t be shamed.”).
Offer new contracts from Self (clear limits, direct asks, paced vulnerability) so protectors don’t feel they must keep running the show.

3) The internal triangle.
Quite often the whole triangle runs inside one person: inner critic (Persecutor) ⇄ inner soother/appeaser (Rescuer) ⇄ collapsed/overwhelmed one (Victim). Mapping this internal loop first usually softens the between-us loop later. It’s a lovely place for your U-turn, parts mapping, and brief Self-to-part meetings before any hard conversation.

4) Nervous system lenses help.
The three roles often hitch a ride on state shifts:

Persecutor ~ sympathetic “fight” energy;
Rescuer ~ fawn/pleasing (sympathetic–ventral blend);
Victim ~ dorsal collapse.
Name the state, tend the body (breath, orienting, movement), then relate. It’s an “exit ramp” back to Self.

5) Protectors love allies. Notice when a part recruits a third person (“Come and tell them for me”), or when you’re pulled into someone else’s triangle. From Self you can decline the role kindly: “I care, and I’ll support you to speak for your part — I won’t speak as it to them.”

6) Rescuer and Critic contract-work.
Two practical renegotiations:

With Rescuers: move from fixing to offering. Use a simple “offer–ask–decline” dance: offer help, ask what’s wanted, allow “no”, and honour it.
With Critics: separate function (discernment) from method (shaming). Invite them to swap contempt for clear, time-boxed feedback delivered via Self.

7) Micro-skills in the moment.
Three tiny moves that change the game:

Name the blend (“A blaming part is up in me”).
State a boundary/need without a fix (“I can’t solve this for you, and I can sit with you while we think”).
Repair quickly if you slip (“A harsh part took over — impact first, intention later; here’s what I’ll do differently next time.”).

Conclusion — tying the whole essay together

We can hold on to one golden thread: the way out of the Drama Triangle (inside or between us) is Self leadership. The triangle’s roles are not flaws; they’re protectors with decent intentions who’ve taken on too much. When we slow down enough to track state (polyvagal), name blends (IFS), and make the U-turn, those same protectors become allies: boundaries turn respectful, caring stops over-reaching, vulnerability gains agency. Use the Healthy/Winners Triangle (or Creator–Challenger–Coach) for outer behaviour while you keep doing the inner work — speaking for parts, not from them; repairing early; and letting dignity guide the tone.

Hold context and power carefully, keep shame out of the frame, and give your system lots of somatic “exit ramps”. Then practise in community: buddy work, IFIO-style courageous conversations, and gentle renegotiations with your inner rescuers and critics. The more Self you bring, the fewer triangles you’ll need — and when they do arise, you’ll have the steadiness to step off them and invite others to join you on solid ground.