Posted on April 1, 2010 - by Vic Desotelle

Victor-Victim-Villain: The Obstacle That Keeps Us From Deep Collaboration

Victor (Hero)

Victor-Victim-Villain … Your life is more dependent on these three ‘V’s than you probably know.

Our ways of thinking shape our world, and whether we know it or not, there are formulations of ideas that are controlling how we see the world and how we make choices. Think for a moment: How might these these three intertwined subjects relate to the ongoing nightmares in your workplace or your home-life? Then consider that most, if not all, of our decisions and actions emerge through this underlying “3V” culture-making archetype.

I’m wondering this morning, what might be another model that could work just a bit better? If we could become conscious myth-making creatures, then maybe we could design something different as a model dynamic? We have become the result of  it designing us, rather than us consciously using the model to create a collective intelligence that supersedes the interplay within the subjects of victor, victim, and villain themselves.

Villain (Devil, Demon)

Here’s a possibility to consider … All models have rotation or spin. Thus each subject within a model becomes one of the others. The victor-villain-victim archetypal interaction has (like all models) a dynamic movement that moves each subject into becoming one of the others. In this case, the the victor becomes the victim, the victim becomes the villain, and the villain becomes the victor. Have you ever noticed that in the movies? How the good-guy and bad-guy overlay each other’s light and dark sides? Batman and Iron Man are to good examples of this interplay. I’ve noticed that, in our society, there is often more attention placed, not on the hero, but on the villain. And because of this, the villain ends up being the real hero. This is the archetypal rotation in action.

Now then, in a (w)holistic view, do we need to allow the time it takes for each one of us to become the other? If so, then this must be a conscious act, does it not? Otherwise each of us (too often) gets unconsciously caught migrating from one identity to another, and then falls back again, creating a polarized oscillation of bouncing back and forth to and from the identity we had for ourselves previously … and previously … and so on. Rather than moving to the next identity in the mandala-like triad within the archetypal configuration, we instead get kind of stuck.

Victim (Powerless)

An Open Conclusion: What if we had an archetype for this dynamic – an archetype of archetypes (or archetype-squared)? Would this allow humanity’s failing displays of destructive expression to be able to move downstream into other realms of possible life, form, awareness, and consciousness? Right now, I’m writing a book on ‘cultural misfits’, and it’s just coming to mind that this may be its charter – to transmute “objective isolated acts” (static) into “subjective interdependent actions” (dynamic); at least in terms of how we think about models and their influence on our beliefs, choices, actions, and overall way of life.

And what does this all have to do with COLLABORATION? (Or the lack there of?) Call me and let’s have a dialog 831-454-8046, or email me below, or make a comment.

Vic