The Victim as the One Who Invokes the Role of the Perpetrator
This perspective likens the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator to a theatrical performance in which each party plays a specific role. The perpetrator performs the role of aggression, while the victim performs the role of submission to that aggression. In this sense, the perpetrator is not viewed as an entity independent of the victim; rather, their existence becomes linked to the victim's continued performance of that role.
The situation is compared to a sporting event: just as an athlete needs an audience to cheer them on, the perpetrator—according to this view—requires someone who responds to their role and provides the space in which the role of the perpetrator can be enacted. Therefore, merely reinforcing the belief within one's consciousness that one is a "victim" is seen as a signal that allows the same relationship to continue.
This does not mean absolving the perpetrator of responsibility or denying their accountability. Rather, it suggests that the relationship between the two parties is based on an ongoing interaction in which each role reinforces the other.
The Lamb and the Lion
This perspective illustrates its argument through the example of the gentle lamb and the predatory lion. The lamb's gentleness and vulnerability make predation possible, while the lion appears as a predator only when there is suitable prey before it.
From this viewpoint, the relationship is not one-sided but consists of two complementary elements. The brutality latent within the lion becomes action only when it finds an appropriate object upon which to exercise it, while the lamb's vulnerability makes that action possible.
Therefore, the lamb is not viewed merely as an innocent victim, but as one of the elements within the scene that allows the role of predation to emerge.
The Origin of the Perpetrator Within the Victim
This perspective goes a step further by proposing that a true victim is not created at the moment of being attacked; rather, victimhood begins much earlier, when a person surrenders internally.
A person who preserves complete inner freedom is difficult to turn into a victim. However, when one's inner world becomes constrained by fear, helplessness, or surrender, that internal restraint precedes the appearance of an external perpetrator.
For this reason, it is said that the victim carries the image of the perpetrator within themselves before the perpetrator appears in reality. The external perpetrator is merely a reflection of an internal tyrant that has succeeded in dominating the individual's consciousness.
Accordingly, genuine liberation is first an internal process before it becomes an external confrontation, because one cannot free oneself from the external perpetrator while still carrying the perpetrator's image deep within.
Critique of the "Victim" Identity
This perspective argues that modern society frequently produces and reinforces the identity of the victim. People often define themselves as victims of harassment, poverty, society, circumstances, or a particular event.
These descriptions are not regarded merely as accounts of events that occurred, but as psychological identities that may become deeply rooted within an individual, causing them to live through that identity and continually reproduce it.
There is a significant difference between experiencing abuse and moving forward with one's life, and allowing that abuse to become a permanent definition of oneself. In the first case, the incident remains part of the past; in the second, it becomes a psychological program that repeatedly revives the perpetrator whenever the individual defines themselves as a victim.
From this standpoint, the culture of identifying with the role of the victim is criticized because maintaining that role, according to this perspective, gives the perpetrator a reason to continue playing their own role.
The Relationship Between Self-Interest and Corruption
This perspective connects the concept of victimhood with the idea of internal corruption. If a person continually finds themselves surrounded by patterns of injustice, exploitation, or abuse, this is viewed as an indication that an inner weakness still exists and has yet to be addressed.
Just as darkness can enter only through an open passage, corruption can find its way into a person only if there is an internal vulnerability through which it may enter.
Consequently, every painful experience is regarded as an invitation to discover that inner vulnerability rather than merely condemning the external darkness.
In this way, responsibility shifts from focusing entirely on the perpetrator to examining the internal structure that made the continuation of such patterns of relationships possible.
Moving Beyond the Role of the Victim
This stage of the perspective concludes that liberation does not begin by fighting the perpetrator, but rather by abandoning the identity of the victim itself.
As long as a person defines themselves as a victim, they continue to perform the role that grants the perpetrator legitimacy within this duality. However, once they stop identifying themselves by this description and begin reclaiming responsibility for their own consciousness and life, the relationship itself starts to dissolve.
At this point, the question is no longer, "How do we punish the perpetrator?" Instead, it becomes the deeper question: "How do we stop creating the conditions that allow the role of the perpetrator to continue?"
Should the Victim Be Helped?
This perspective raises what appears at first to be a shocking question: Could the best way to help a victim be to refrain from helping them?
The answer does not stem from rejecting human compassion or denying suffering. Rather, it is based on the idea that assistance may sometimes prolong a problem instead of resolving it. If the victim becomes continually dependent on others to rescue them, they may never find sufficient motivation to discover their own ability to protect themselves.
From this standpoint, every form of assistance offered to a victim should be measured by its ability to free them from the identity of victimhood, rather than by its tendency to reinforce that identity within their consciousness.
The goal is not for a person to remain dependent on someone else for rescue every time adversity arises, but to become capable of saving themselves.
Between Compassion and Reinforcing the Role
This perspective argues that society often confuses compassion with reinforcing the identity of the victim.
When someone is harmed, people gather around them, repeatedly reminding them that they are a victim. Their story is constantly retold, and their social identity becomes more closely associated with what happened to them than with what they are capable of creating afterward.
Over time, the incident itself may become part of the person's identity, causing them to live within it rather than move beyond it.
Thus, this perspective proposes that consolation which does not encourage a person to regain their strength may ultimately reinforce the wound instead of healing it.
Society and the Limits of Protection
This perspective criticizes the belief that society can protect all of its members if every individual is incapable of protecting themselves.
Society is not an entity separate from its people; rather, it is the collective body formed by its individuals.
If every individual waits for others to protect their life, then who will protect everyone?
Therefore, the fundamental principle is that a person must first learn to protect themselves. Social cooperation should come afterward as a complementary stage, not as a substitute for personal responsibility.
A strong society is not made up of helpless individuals waiting to be rescued, but of individuals who each possess a minimum level of competence in managing their own lives and defending their legitimate interests.
Assistance That Weakens
This perspective distinguishes between two different kinds of assistance.
The first type is assistance that restores a person's strength and encourages independence. This is regarded as genuine help.
The second type is assistance that makes a person increasingly dependent on others, causing them to wait for solutions to come from outside themselves. According to this perspective, such assistance does not solve the problem; it merely postpones it.
Therefore, true support does not consist of others carrying a person's burdens on their behalf, but rather in teaching them how to carry those burdens themselves.
The Concept of Rights
The discussion then moves to a critique of the common understanding of rights.
According to this perspective, the recognition of a right does not necessarily mean that everyone possesses the ability to exercise it.
An example is the freedom to travel. The fact that a person has the legal right to travel does not mean that everyone has the financial means, knowledge, or practical opportunities required to make use of that right.
Consequently, this perspective distinguishes between a theoretical right and practical capability.
Capability is not granted by legal texts alone; rather, it is developed through knowledge, strength, experience, and preparedness.
Therefore, possessing a right is not sufficient unless one also possesses the ability to preserve and defend it.
Value Is Not Bestowed from the Outside
This perspective argues that people often seek their worth through the recognition of others, through compensation provided by society, or through the image that others create of them.
True value, however, is not acquired from external sources; it arises from within.
A person who truly knows their own worth does not wait for others to validate it.
In contrast, one who continually seeks external approval remains dependent upon the judgments of others, rejoicing when praised and suffering when diminished.
For this reason, this perspective encourages freedom from the need for external validation, since any value dependent upon public opinion can disappear as soon as that opinion changes.
Assistance Motivated by Pity
This perspective also criticizes a form of assistance that is based solely on pity.
A person may receive money or support simply because they have been wronged, rather than because they possess the ability to rebuild and progress.
According to this view, such assistance may carry an implicit message that keeps the individual imprisoned within the identity of being oppressed.
In contrast, support that stems from confidence in a person's ability to rise again is fundamentally different, because it nurtures competence and self-confidence instead of reinforcing helplessness.
Therefore, this perspective favors every form of assistance that strengthens independence over any assistance that further attaches a person to the identity of the victim.
Consolation Between Reality and Illusion
This perspective maintains that consolation is not always an act of liberation. It may instead become a form of emotional sedation if it merely eases the pain without addressing its underlying causes.
When everyone gathers around the victim to affirm that they have been wronged, promising that society will avenge them and that others will restore their rights, the unspoken message they may receive is that they are not responsible for rebuilding their own strength because someone else will do it for them.
From this perspective, genuine consolation is not measured by the amount of sympathy expressed, but by its ability to help a person regain their independence, rebuild their inner strength, and move beyond the identity of victimhood. Consolation that merely confirms suffering without encouraging growth may unintentionally prolong the very condition it seeks to relieve.
In this way, consolation may, in some of its forms, become a means of postponing a person's awakening rather than serving as a step toward their liberation.
This perspective does not deny the value of compassion. Rather, it distinguishes between compassion that awakens the will and compassion that reinforces helplessness.
Exploiting the Victim's Identity
This perspective argues that the image of the victim can become a tool for exploitation—not only by the perpetrator, but sometimes by the victim themselves or by those around them.
A person's suffering may be used to gain sympathy, support, or social benefits, to the point where continuing to suffer becomes more advantageous than overcoming it.
When suffering becomes an identity that grants privileges, letting go of it becomes increasingly difficult, because the individual may unconsciously fear losing the attention they receive if they are no longer perceived as a victim.
For this reason, this perspective maintains that the greatest danger of the victim's role lies not in the pain itself, but in becoming accustomed to that role until it becomes part of one's identity.
Responsibility Before Seeking Justice
This perspective maintains that the pursuit of justice should be preceded by self-examination.
Every painful experience carries a question that concerns not only the other person, but also what the individual needs to develop within themselves to prevent the same experience from recurring.
This does not mean that the aggressor bears no responsibility. Rather, it suggests that focusing exclusively on the aggressor's wrongdoing may prevent a person from recognizing their own vulnerabilities.
Those who concern themselves only with condemning external circumstances may neglect to reform what lies within, whereas those who examine themselves add inner justice to external justice, thereby strengthening their ability to protect themselves.
The System That Promises Protection
This perspective raises a philosophical question regarding systems that claim to protect society from crime.
It argues that many such systems focus more on the consequences of the problem than on its underlying causes.
It is suggested that apprehending criminals, while legally necessary, does not necessarily eliminate the conditions that gave rise to them.
As long as the conditions that generate violence remain unchanged, society will continue to produce new forms of crime, even if the names of the perpetrators change.
Therefore, true justice is not limited to punishment alone; it also requires removing the conditions that allow the cycle of violence to continue.
The Void That Invites the Perpetrator
This perspective uses the concept of "emptiness" to explain the emergence of the aggressor.
According to this view, the perpetrator enters only where they find an empty space that has not been filled with awareness, strength, or the ability to defend oneself.
It is compared to a house whose door has been left open. The first question is not only, "Why did the thief enter?" but also, "Why was the door left open?"
This is not intended to absolve the thief of responsibility, but rather to broaden the perspective so that prevention is considered alongside accountability.
In this view, closing the gateways of vulnerability is more effective than merely pursuing their consequences.
Within the Family and Society
This perspective argues that many forms of injustice do not originate from strangers, but rather arise within the environments closest to us, such as the family, relatives, or everyday relationships.
Therefore, reducing crime to the image of a stranger may conceal the reality that many forms of abuse emerge within relationships that are presumed to be the safest.
Accordingly, this perspective maintains that confronting the problem begins with acknowledging that it can exist in any environment, rather than assuming it always comes from outside.
The Exploitation of the Vulnerable
This perspective criticizes various forms of exploiting vulnerable individuals, whether they are children, the sick, people with disabilities, or anyone unable to fully defend themselves.
When the suffering of a vulnerable person becomes a means of obtaining financial, social, or emotional benefit, the relationship becomes another manifestation of the perpetrator-victim dynamic, even if it is disguised as compassion or care.
For this reason, this perspective emphasizes that the true value of care lies in empowering people to regain their independence whenever possible, rather than turning their vulnerability into a permanent source of gain.
Justice as the Building of Human Beings
This stage concludes with the central idea that a society does not become more just merely by increasing punishments or multiplying speeches about protecting victims.
True justice begins when individuals are developed to become capable of protecting themselves, accepting responsibility, and cultivating awareness, thereby reducing their need to live in the role of the victim.
Thus, the ultimate goal is not merely to reduce the number of perpetrators, but to diminish the conditions that make the existence of perpetrators possible, as well as the psychological structure that predisposes individuals to live their lives as perpetual victims.
Deservingness as an Inner State
This perspective moves from discussing the victim and the perpetrator to another concept it considers even more fundamental: deservingness. The events a person experiences are not viewed here as isolated incidents, but as reflections of the level of inner preparedness with which the individual approaches life.
Deservingness is not used here in a legal or moral sense. Instead, it refers to the existential state in which a person lives. According to this perspective, people do not experience life in the same way because each individual possesses a different level of awareness, resulting in different outcomes and experiences.
Therefore, a painful experience is interpreted not only by what happened, but also by what it reveals about the individual's inner structure and their readiness to deal with it.
High and Low Deservingness
This perspective maintains that deservingness is not a single level, but rather a spectrum ranging from low to high.
Low deservingness causes a person to move from one painful experience to another, repeat the same patterns, leave fields they are unable to adapt to, and then blame those very fields for their failure.
High deservingness, on the other hand, is understood as a person's ability to extract the greatest possible wisdom, maturity, and knowledge from every experience they undergo, regardless of its nature.
The perspective goes even further by describing a level that may be called very high deservingness, in which success is no longer limited to a single area. Instead, the individual achieves a state of inner harmony that is reflected in every aspect of life, from wisdom and strength to abundance, serenity, and the ability to manage life's experiences.
Thus, deservingness is understood not as the possession of things, but as the possession of the ability to deal with them wisely.
Escaping the Field
This perspective associates low deservingness with a person's tendency to escape.
According to this view, a person who abandons a particular field because they believe the field itself is corrupt, impossible, or meaningless may simply have reached the limit of their own inner preparedness, rather than the limit of the field itself.
Therefore, withdrawal is not always interpreted as evidence of a flawed environment; it may instead reflect the limits of one's capacity to remain and grow within it.
Consequently, this perspective encourages self-examination before passing final judgments on people, environments, or experiences.
The Field of Perception
This perspective introduces the concept of the Field of Perception, arguing that confrontation does not occur solely on the level of actions, but also on the level of psychological presence.
A person who constantly avoids confrontation, refuses to face the sources of their fear, or withdraws whenever they feel threatened reinforces within themselves the identity of the victim. The victim remains a victim by fleeing from the perpetrator.
By contrast, a person who is able to remain present in the field of confrontation without collapsing or fleeing gradually begins to move beyond the role of the victim.
The Perpetrator Follows the Victim
One of the central ideas of this perspective is that the perpetrator does not act independently, but rather responds to the movements and behavior of the victim.
According to this view, the perpetrator does not create the entire situation alone. Instead, they wait for the appearance of behavior that enables them to perform their role. The key to the prison is in the victim's own hands.
An analogy is drawn from the animal kingdom: a predator may begin chasing prey it believes to be weak, yet abandon the pursuit if it discovers that its judgment was mistaken or if the nature of the encounter changes.
From this, the perspective concludes that many expressions of aggression depend on the way the other party presents themselves—not in the sense of justifying aggression, but in the sense of influencing the continuation of its dynamics.
Fear as the Fuel of the Duality
This perspective views fear as the fuel that sustains the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator.
The greater the victim's fear becomes, the stronger the perpetrator's presence appears. Conversely, as fear diminishes, this duality loses much of its power to persist.
Courage, therefore, is not understood merely as boldness or impulsiveness, but as liberation from the psychological state that causes a person to respond to life from a position of defeat.
Within this framework, fear alters not only emotions but also patterns of thought, decision-making, and the ability to recognize available alternatives.
The End of the Prison
This perspective employs the metaphor of a prison to illustrate its central idea.
Although the perpetrator appears to possess the key to the prison cell, this perspective completely reverses the image, arguing that the true key lies in the hands of the victim.
The moment a person ceases to define themselves as a victim and begins reclaiming responsibility and the capacity to act is the very moment the walls of the prison begin to dissolve.
This does not imply that external constraints disappear immediately; rather, it means that the very foundation of the relationship that once gave those constraints their power begins to collapse.
Thus, liberation is understood, first and foremost, as an inner transformation that precedes every external change.
Fear, Shame, and Guilt
This perspective concludes its analysis by referring to three psychological states that it considers among the most influential in human experience: fear, shame, and guilt.
It argues that these states are deeply interconnected and together form the psychological ground upon which many expressions of helplessness and brokenness grow.
A person imprisoned by fear loses a portion of their will, one who surrenders to shame hides from confrontation, and one who remains consumed by guilt becomes unable to reclaim their freedom.
Accordingly, true liberation is presented as a journey of transcending these states—not by denying their existence, but by understanding them and refusing to allow them to become a permanent identity.
Accordingly, true liberation is presented as a journey of transcending these states—not by denying their existence, but by understanding them and refusing to allow them to become a permanent identity.
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
.png)
No comments:
Post a Comment