This is an important concept that is tricky to describe. Some thoughts:
Minor vs Major Frame Control
Lots of relationships and minor interactions have low-key frame control going on pretty frequently. I think it’s useful to be able to name that without implying that it’s (necessarily) that big a deal. I find myself wanting separate words for “social moves that control the frame”, “moves that control the frame in subtle ways”, “move that control the frame pervasively in a way that is unsettlingly unhealthy.”
This is harder because even the most pervasive frame control appears on a spectrum. A romantic partner or family member can consistently weave a frame that is slightly unhealthy, but that doesn’t hold a candle to a cult that systematically eliminates all your mental defenses.
Abusers can also be victims
One of the most important, sad lessons I had to learn about this is that the person weaving a frame, or controlling, or abusing you, can be weak.
Society taught me scripts for handling powerful, high status abusers who needed to be whistleblown. And society taught me scripts for handling predators who were… clearly villainanous. But it turned out the people I needed to be aware of were legitimately victims in their own right. Society didn’t give me a script for “So-and-so is a victim and an abuser and it doesn’t matter that they’re sad and need help – you have a responsibility to help keep your social circle safe. You can also try to help them, but need to do so in a way that doesn’t put your friends or other vulnerable people in harms way.”
I’d edit “victims” to “weak” in the second header, since I think that expresses your point way clearer. You’re not just pointing at the common-ish (& true!) refrains of “abusers are traumatized” or “abusers were once victims” but more specifically “abusers may be doing a bunch of frame control from the role of weak & vulnerable person”.
Some people feel weak, and for some reason believe that they are going to be attacked by you, so they attack first. And they don’t update, because if you hit them back, it means “I was right about being in danger”, and if you don’t hit them back, it means “my clever defense was successful”.
Yes this. Reframing the recipient of violence as a threat or an aggressor when theyve mistreated and/or attacked them is a common frame control tactic.
Additionally, manipulating events through PR and telling stories about the person harmed to others that demonize them so that others won’t believe that you harmed them or will justify any harm you’ve caused is a common tactic used to frame events and your role in them as being different then what actually happened. (I.e. demonizing and excluding women who’ve been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct from an organizations leadership and/or wealthy donors, framing oneself as “trustworthy” while not practicing transparency with many of its donors or they people they recruit, promoting “community” and “integrity”while lacking a functional accountability structure, actively enabling harmful patterns of negligence and abuse and silencing and getting rid of anyone who express criticism or dissent, ect)
This is an important concept that is tricky to describe. Some thoughts:
Minor vs Major Frame Control
Lots of relationships and minor interactions have low-key frame control going on pretty frequently. I think it’s useful to be able to name that without implying that it’s (necessarily) that big a deal. I find myself wanting separate words for “social moves that control the frame”, “moves that control the frame in subtle ways”, “move that control the frame pervasively in a way that is unsettlingly unhealthy.”
This is harder because even the most pervasive frame control appears on a spectrum. A romantic partner or family member can consistently weave a frame that is slightly unhealthy, but that doesn’t hold a candle to a cult that systematically eliminates all your mental defenses.
Abusers can also be victims
One of the most important, sad lessons I had to learn about this is that the person weaving a frame, or controlling, or abusing you, can be weak.
Society taught me scripts for handling powerful, high status abusers who needed to be whistleblown. And society taught me scripts for handling predators who were… clearly villainanous. But it turned out the people I needed to be aware of were legitimately victims in their own right. Society didn’t give me a script for “So-and-so is a victim and an abuser and it doesn’t matter that they’re sad and need help – you have a responsibility to help keep your social circle safe. You can also try to help them, but need to do so in a way that doesn’t put your friends or other vulnerable people in harms way.”
I’d edit “victims” to “weak” in the second header, since I think that expresses your point way clearer. You’re not just pointing at the common-ish (& true!) refrains of “abusers are traumatized” or “abusers were once victims” but more specifically “abusers may be doing a bunch of frame control from the role of weak & vulnerable person”.
I actually originally wrote “Manipulators can be weak”, and changed it at the last minute (not sure why)
Some people feel weak, and for some reason believe that they are going to be attacked by you, so they attack first. And they don’t update, because if you hit them back, it means “I was right about being in danger”, and if you don’t hit them back, it means “my clever defense was successful”.
Yes this. Reframing the recipient of violence as a threat or an aggressor when theyve mistreated and/or attacked them is a common frame control tactic.
Additionally, manipulating events through PR and telling stories about the person harmed to others that demonize them so that others won’t believe that you harmed them or will justify any harm you’ve caused is a common tactic used to frame events and your role in them as being different then what actually happened. (I.e. demonizing and excluding women who’ve been on the receiving end of sexual misconduct from an organizations leadership and/or wealthy donors, framing oneself as “trustworthy” while not practicing transparency with many of its donors or they people they recruit, promoting “community” and “integrity”while lacking a functional accountability structure, actively enabling harmful patterns of negligence and abuse and silencing and getting rid of anyone who express criticism or dissent, ect)
Looking at you Monastic Academy.