피해자 연기하기 도덕성과 권력을 통한 조작

### 니체에 따르면 '피해자 역'을 하는 피해자를 이해하고 대처하기
* 🔍 니체는 <도덕의 계보학>에서 도덕의 기원을 탐구하고, **어떤 사람들이 도덕을 개 목줄처럼 다른 사람들을 통제하는 데 사용하는 방법**에 대해 이야기합니다.
* 🎭 '피해자 행세'는 개인이 도덕성을 이용해 **피해자인 척**하고 문제를 해결해 줄 구조자를 구함으로써 권력을 얻는 개념입니다.
* 🎯 진짜 피해자와 피해자 행세를 하는 사람을 구별하기 위해서는 **동의가 중요한 역할**을 합니다.
* 💔 진정한 피해자는 **동의를 하지 않았거나 동의할 수 있는 위치에 있지 않았고 이용당한 사람**입니다.
* 😈 피해자를 연기하는 사람들은 **정당한 동의를 하지 않았다고 거짓으로 주장**하거나 **은밀한 계약을 통해 기대치를 강요**하는 방식으로 상황을 조작합니다.
* 🛡 피해자를 연기하는 피해자는 **의무감과 죄책감, 동정심과 혐오감**이라는 두 가지 주요 무기를 사용하여 다른 사람들이 자신을 구하도록 강요하는 경우가 많습니다.
* ✅ 피해자를 연기하거나 피해자를 연기하는 타인에게 조종당하지 않기 위한 핵심은 **피해자와 상호 동의를 얻는 것**입니다.
* 📜 "항상 그렇듯이 이것은 **니체의 일부 사상에 대한 제 의견, 이해, 해석**일 뿐 조언이 아닙니다."

피해자를 연기하는 것은 니체의 작품에서 논의된 것처럼 강압, 죄책감, 숨겨진 기대를 통해 권력을 얻기 위해 도덕성을 조작하는 것을 포함합니다.

In /On the Genealogy of Morals/, Nietzsche searches through history for the origins of morality. And in it, he talks about how some people use morality like a dog-leash to control others. They use morality to get people to do what they want. It’s an interesting idea with lots of implications, but I’m interested in exploring one particular version of this idea: /playing the victim/. Someone who plays the victim is an example of someone who uses morality to gain power, and that’s what I wanna explore in this essay. But before we can understand what it means to /play the victim/, we need to understand what it means to be a victim. For this essay, we can define a /victim/ as /someone who is taken advantage of by another person/. And we can call /the act of taking advantage of someone/ a /crime/. And typically, what we want for all victims is /justice/. And /justice/, as discussed by Nietzsche, can be thought of as /giving back to the victim.

what was lost when the crime was committed? In other words, you can think of justice as
the repaying of debts: the criminal must repay the debt they acquired by taking advantage
of the victim. I’m not saying this is what justice means,
but this is a way many people understand justice, and this definition is important in the context
of this video. So what does it mean to play the victim? What separates a genuine victim from someone
playing the victim? A genuine victim was actually taken advantage
of, but someone playing the victim wasn’t. And how do you determine whether someone was
actually taken advantage of? It comes down to consent. Someone is taken
advantage of when their presence is used in a way they didn’t agree to. And so a true victim did not give consent
or was not in a position to give consent, such as in the case of a child or someone
who was severely intoxicated. But someone who plays the victim gives legitimate
consent and then claims they didn’t.

Or they claim you consented to things which you didn’t consent to, or were not in a position to consent to. I’ll explore what both cases look like a little later on. So why would someone play the victim? To put it simply, they play victim so someone will save them from their problems. They’re looking for a rescuer. And how do they get people to save them? Someone who plays the victim has two main weapons: obligation and guilt, and pity and disgust. Let’s take a look at the first weapon: obligation and guilt. Here, the person playing the victim claims that you consented to things that you didn’t consent to, or were not in a position to consent to. They impose an obligation on you and make you feel guilty for not living up to the obligation. They try to coerce you into paying a debt that you did not consent to taking on. Let’s look at an example.

At the age of 22, Jane’s husband left her
with their two sons: Jamie and Michael. Jane told herself that she would dedicate
her life to her sons, and that in return they would take care of her. I will take care of them, she thought, and
in return, they can never leave me. So keep that in mind: Jane is imposing an
obligation on her sons. She’s binding them into a covert contract. But they’re children. They’re not in a position to consent to
such a contract. So how does this play out? Jane will do anything for them as long as
they don’t leave her alone. But as they start growing up, naturally, they
start wanting to live their own lives. They want to spend time with their friends
and lovers. And anytime they want to leave the house,
anytime they want to do something without her, anytime she feels them creating some
distance from her, their mom uses guilt and

obligation to make them stay. She says, “after everything I’ve done
for you, after all the time, energy, and money I’ve spent on you, you’re just going to
leave me?! You are terrible sons! You should be ashamed!” But is this fair of Jane to do? She imposed this contract on her kids—/I
will take care of you as long as you never leave me/—when they were not in a position
to consent to such a contract. And whenever they seem to threaten her contract,
she uses guilt and obligation to force them to comply again. Instead of handling the problem of loneliness
in a mature and healthy way, she emotionally blackmails her sons into rescuing her. Now let’s look at the second weapon someone
uses when playing the victim: pity and disgust. Here, the person playing the victim claims
that they did not give /you/ legitimate consent when they actually did. They’re trying to claim they didn’t give
you legitimate consent so that others feel

pity for them, and disgust for you. If people feel pity for them, they get people
on their side and increase the chances that someone will come and rescue them. If people feel disgust for you, the person
playing the victim turns people against you, which will increase the chances that you submit
to their demands. Let’s return to our example. So Jane’s attempt to use guilt and obligation
works on one of her sons, Jamie, but they fail to work on Michael. Michael tells his mom that he’s moving away
to go to a good college. So what does Jane do when guilt and obligation
fail? She uses pity and disgust. She says to Jamie, the son who feels obligated
to her, “Can you believe Michael would do that to his own mother? He took all of my money and then left me all
alone!” She makes Jamie feel pity towards her, increasing
the chances he’ll rescue her, and makes him feel disgust towards his brother Michael,
increasing the chances Jamie will abandon

Michael or coerce him into submitting to his
mother’s demands. But is it fair for Jane to claim that Michael
took all of her money and left? Remember, Jane’s contract is /I will take
care of you as long as you never leave me./ Jane was an adult when she chose to enter that
contract for Michael, but Michael was just a baby. Jane was capable of giving legitimate consent
and did, but she expected a mutual consent from Michael that he wasn’t in a position
to give as a child. And even if Michael was able to give consent,
he might not have wanted to enter into that contract with his mother—one where she supports
him in exchange for him never leaving her alone. So she gave him legitimate consent to receive
her support as a child, but now that he’s not meeting her demands, she’s trying to
claim that she never gave him consent and that he took advantage of her. That’s just one example of someone playing
the victim, but it can happen in many different

types of relationships: between lovers, family,
friends, or co-workers. But everyone who plays the victim has one
thing in common: covert contracts. What’s that? It’s a hidden expectation of someone else. Remember, I said that a person can play the
victim in two ways. The first way is that they can give you legitimate
consent and then claim they never gave it to you. But why would they claim they didn’t give
it to you? Usually because they had a hidden expectation,
a covert contract, which you didn’t live up to. And so now they want to claim they never gave
you consent to punish you or to make you fulfill the hidden expectation they have. The second way someone can play the victim
is that they can claim /you/ gave consent when you didn’t or were not in a position
to. In our previous example with Jane, the mother,
she might say to her son Michael, “you were never supposed to leave me!”

But that was a hidden expectation, a covert
contract, that Michael’s mother had for him. Michael never gave legitimate consent to that
expectation. So how do we stop playing the victim or being
manipulated by other people playing the victim? The answer comes back to mutual consent between
people who are in a position to give legitimate consent. We need to be clear about what we want from
others and what they want in return, and then we have to mutually consent to give one another
those things. And in cases where the other party can’t
give us consent, such as our children, we are only free to give our consent to them,
but we can’t demand things of them that they aren’t in a position to give us consent
for. As always, this is just my opinion, understanding,
and interpretation of some of Nietzsche’s ideas, not advice. If you liked the video, please consider liking
the video. And if you’re looking for another Nietzsche
video to watch after this one, I recommend

watching my video “Nietzsche - Overcome
Shame, Become Who You Are.” I’ll put a link to it in the description
below and in the top right of the screen right now.

Nietzsche - Beware of People Playing the Victim

Freedom in Thought

피해자 연기에 도덕성 활용하기

니체는 "희생자 연기"라는 개념에 초점을 맞춰 도덕성을 통제 수단으로 사용하는 방법을 탐구합니다.

이 글에서는 피해자의 정의, 피해자에게 빚을 갚는다는 정의의 개념, 동의의 유무에 따른 진정한 피해자와 피해자를 연기하는 사람의 차이에 대해 자세히 설명합니다.

피해자를 연기하는 사람은 동의를 한 후 동의하지 않았다고 거짓으로 주장하는 것이 특징입니다.

피해자 연기는 사람들이 자신의 문제를 해결하기 위해 구조자를 찾는 방법입니다.

이들은 의무감과 죄책감, 동정심과 혐오감이라는 두 가지 주요 전술을 사용하여 다른 사람을 구출하도록 조종합니다.

예를 들어, 부모는 통제력을 유지하고 혼자가 되는 것을 피하기 위해 자녀에게 의무를 부과하여 독립을 원하는 것에 대해 죄책감을 느끼게 만들 수 있습니다.

제인은 죄책감과 의무감을 이용해 아들들을 조종하여 자신과 함께 지내도록 만들고, 떠나고 싶어하는 아들이 수치심을 느끼게 만듭니다.

또한 동정심과 혐오감을 이용해 자신을 희생자로 묘사하고 한 아들을 다른 아들에게 대항하게 하여 자신의 목적을 달성합니다.

죄책감과 의무감이 실패하면 그녀는 동정과 혐오감을 이용해 아들들에 대한 통제력을 유지합니다.

비밀 계약이 관계에 미치는 영향

마이클에게 자신의 요구를 들어주도록 강요하는 제인의 시도는 두 사람의 관계의 공정성에 대한 의문을 불러일으킵니다.

숨겨진 기대치가 포함된 은밀한 계약은 한 사람이 피해자를 연기하고 다른 사람을 조종하도록 만들 수 있습니다.

가족 관계든, 연인 관계든, 업무 관계든 은밀한 계약이 존재하면 권력 불균형과 감정적 조작으로 이어질 수 있습니다.

피해자로 느껴지거나 조종당하는 느낌을 피하려면 상호 동의가 필수적입니다.

상대방에게 원하는 바를 명확하게 전달하고 동의하는 것이 중요하며, 그 반대의 경우도 마찬가지입니다.

어린이와 같이 동의할 수 없는 사람을 상대할 때는 대가를 요구하지 않고 자신의 동의만 제공할 수 있습니다.