High Control Relational Systems (HCRS/H.C.R.S.) is a term coined by the Dr. Foluso, referred to also as the author to describe systems that achieve relational dominance and control through exploitation of social dynamics. The HCRS utilizes overt exploitation to “hoard” power among those who already have more power in the system. These actions result in control, manipulation, and at times, covert psychological abuse. Due to the covert nature of the mechanisms of the system, recipients of this behavior are aware that “something is off” but cannot definitely prove that they are being harmed. Because the HCRS “hides in plain sight”, victims unknowingly “play into the hands of the system”. Eventually the HCRS becomes self-propagating, as the members with less power take over the functions of the system. The analysis of the framework focuses more on functions/mechanisms and outcomes/effects of behaviors within the system, rather than intent. In other words, this analysis focuses on how behaviors function and operate, and what the results are. Intent is difficult to prove and can function as to avoid accountability for harmful and controlling behavior via sentiments of good intentions, such as “they meant well, did not meant to hurt anyone, etc.”
How the HCRS works:
Exploitation:
1) The HCRS exploits the existing/inherent power differential almost always in favor of the persons/entities who already have more power. Threats to the power supply, whether real or perceived, are a significant threat to the system and are dealt with harshly, inappropriately, and often out of proportion to the “threat” or offense.
2) The HCRS exploits Intrinsic interpersonal and social needs such as safety, communication, and belongingness. Individuals with less power have difficulty leaving or directly addressing the behavior; they risk having their needs unmet or neglected by the system.
Covert Operation:
Entities with more power hoard and regulate power via plausibly deniable social control,(PDSC) a term coined by the author that describes how controlling behavior in the H.C.R.S. is able to “hide in plain sight” and therefore shielding those in power from accountability and consequences. Plausible deniability puts the onus on the recipient of harm to “prove” the existence of the harm as well as the motive. For instance, an employee who has been left off critical emails experiences negative consequences due to lack of information, and when confronted, management maintains that it was a clerical error. This is a plausible, yet less likely explanation, but the burden of proof is on the complainant (the employee) to “prove what happened.” In other words, the harm and negative consequences that were caused by the H.C.R.S. are dismissed by proposing alternate and plausible explanations for such behavior. As a result, the recipient/target doubts their competence and ability to accurately perceive the harm they are experiencing. Attempts to address or correct the harm results in negative consequences, including further exploitation by the HCRS.
THE ABUSE “CHECKLIST”- not an exhaustive list, but abusive behavior is often has these three characteristics
- Power: A power differential is usually exploited in favor of the entity who has the most power. The power differential is either inherent (finances, physical size, etc) or acquired (social capital, public perception)
- Patterned Persistence: This is not a one off or occasional behavior. It generally follows a pattern, and it is repeated.
- Policed agency (restriction of agency) – freedom/agency is policed or restricted.
Frequently Asked Questions
Q. How is a high control relational system different from any other controlling system?
A: The mechanism and outcome of the controlling behavior is propagated or perpetuated by exploitation of attributes that are inherent to relationships (power differentials and intrinsic needs)plausibly deniable social control, which allows the behavior to hide in plain sight, or embedded in common rituals and routines. Plausible deniability is the cover that prevents the behavior from being identified. An HCRS can “look like” another controlling environment, but the mechanisms through which control is achieved differ. Furthermore, the framework of the HCRS is examined primarily through the mechanism/function of the behavior, as well as the outcome. Motives and intent are far less of a focus. This is a key distinction of this framework from other frameworks that explain controlling behaviors.
Q: Can an abusive relationship be part of an HCRS?
A: Yes, whether they are abusive or unhealthy, maladaptive ways of addressing and meeting relational and social needs often occur within the HCRS. Some notable aspects of the HCRS is that
- Control and abuse are difficult, likely impossible to directly prove. There is no “mark” so to speak. The behaviors hide in plain sight through humiliation rituals, and operate under the cover of plausible deniability. This functions to create or increase self-doubt and hopelessness. This erosive process makes addressing, confronting and escaping the behaviors far more difficult as critical thinking skills, speaking up, and agency are indirectly punished, thereby reducing their frequency and intensity. The social and relational needs of the targeted individuals such as belongingness and safety are diminished or removed, thereby diminishing the “energy” in interpersonal validation, support, and collaboration.
- The target, in essence, locks themselves in the cage. They appear responsible for their own treatment, and the behaviors of the HCRS function to classify the targeted individual’s actions and character as responsible for the negative outcomes. The target does not know what they “did.” Because threats to power, whether real or perceived, are dealt with harshly, yet hiding in plain sight, the targeted individual does not have to “do” anything. Characteristics such as competence, attractiveness, favorable perceptions, or any other aspects that “color” the lens of behavior are punished. The “target” and another individual may “speak up” during a meeting, but the target’s behavior is punished. Humiliation rituals disguise the punitive nature of the events, and the target who is perceived as the symbol of shame is often ostracized. Members within the system may become defensive, overly focused on their own survival, and willing to snitch, spy or throw others under the bus so they do not become the pariah. The HCRS has in essence, set up the system to run efficiently and with little effort or energy from those in power.
Q: What is the difference between “one off” or occasional behaviors and the behaviors defined in the HCRS?
A: CPR stands for 3 variables to check for within the system
Consistency: Behaviors in the HCRS occur regularly, and in response to certain “triggers” or actions. They “hide in plain sight” via plausibly deniable social control
Power: These behaviors often arise when there is a perceived or actual threat to power, and power differentials are exploited often (though not exclusively) in favor of those with more power.
Repair: Genuine repair is often absent as accountability is avoided. Instead, the focus is on intentions, and any addressing of the controlling behavior is often hollow or performative, and is not accompanied by consistent change.
Q: What is a relational system and how is it different from other systems?
A: A relational system describes the interpersonal relationships that occur within any system. A government institution would not be a relational system, but the interpersonal and social interactions and relationships within sub-systems (departments, local offices, teams, friendships, etc) are relational systems.
Q: What is the opposite of an HCRS?
A: The opposite is known as a Collaboratively Regulated (or Coregulated Relational System). Within such a system, power differentials, relational and social needs, power, harm, and communication, and repair function in different ways. Power is not necessarily treated as a scarce of fixed resources. Control is more rigid and fixed, and dominance is necessary. Regulation is more adaptive and flexible. Within a CCRS, power is not tied to identity, and power does not extend past appropriate limits. Within a CCRS an authority figure limits their power to the work environment, and does not attempt to instruct or dominate their employees in other areas. Within a CCRS power is regulated generally in favor of health of the system. It is not viewed as a zero sum game, or as a fixed or scarce entity. Both explicit, implicit, and high amd low context forms of communication are used, as in with an HCRS. However, the functions and outcomes of communications and behaviors differ. Rituals, routines, threats to power, violations of behavioral norms, and social oversight function differently with different outcomes. With a CRRS, the overall health of the group is the outcome. With an HCRS, relational dominance, control and at times abuse is initiated and propagated.
As a side note, the idea of victim-blaming (you are what you attract, you chose your abusive partner, etc) are not only tone-deaf and harmful, they ignore or minimize the role and impact of the relational systems that shape and sustain relationships. An individual who experienced trauma, abuse, and control may be more likely to be in an environment where such behavior occurs far more frequently. People are more likely to be in relationships with those they are in physical proximity to, and arguably, digital proximity (social media channels and communities, especially those tied explicitly or implicitly to shared values, ideologies and interests). To assume that individuals who have experienced trauma or abuse are incapable of or attracted to abusive and harmful relationships is neither accurate, complete, or accounting for the impact of systemic and environmental attributes. Environments and systems where abuse, control and manipulation are more likely to occur may limit the access of the abused individual to another who is more psychologically healthy and adaptive. Norms and interpersonal access are shaped by the environment. In other words people affected by abuse and trauma are more likely to run into similar individuals, due to proximity and shaping of expectation and norms. They simply may have less access to “healthy people.”
Q: What are some examples?
A: The interactions themselves define relational systems. A relationship can be healthy or unhealthy, and can exist within or independently from a relational system. Two people can be in a healthy marriage within the high control relational system of a cult or fundamentalist and oppressive system. An abusive relationship can occur within a healthy system. The HCRS incorporates systemic attributes and forces, and these influence outcomes. For instance, an individual leaving an abusive relationship can be substantially hindered from doing so within an HCRS because the system mimics, enables, and reinforces the abusive partner’s behaviors. Someone who is in an abusive relationship within a healthy relational system may encounter aid and support and resources to a higher degree than the respective counterpart of the HCRS. HCRS can occur within relationships, families, work/religious/academic/sports etc environments.
It is also worth noting that the power differential can be informed and impacted by the system. In the book Gone Girl (warning spoilers ahead); the woman in the relationship, may be perceived as having less power because she is a woman. However, she has access to financial and social means, which, depending on the perspective, place her on the favorable end of the power differential. She exploits the system to maintain and gain power.
For all intents and purposes, a relational system is not always assumed to be a different type of system. Rather, it is defined by the relational interactions within any sort of system, ranging from a relationship dyad to a large institution, like a denomination of churches. The type of relational system is informed by what relationships look like. Ask these questions.
- How is the power differential treated?
- How are relational needs addressed?
- How is agency/autonomy viewed in a relationship? Is there more control or collaboration? Control itself is neither good nor bad; the function, outcomes, context nuance and patterns must be examined.
- How is power viewed and treated?
- When harm and offenses occur, is there genuine repair?
- How do behaviors and interactions function and what is the outcome, regardless of declared or assumed intents and motives?
- What context are the behaviors occurring?
- Is nuance or absolute thinking used as the schema/lens to understand and interpret activities and behaviors?
- Are the interactions and behaviors consistently occurring and if so, under what circumstances?
By focusing on the mechanism (humiliation rituals and plausibly deniable social control) and the effects of the framework (often covert psychological abusive behaviors ), the framework clarifies how implicit and explicit systems of power regulation are exploited to gain and sustain control. By exploring the topic of abuse from a systemic nature, the challenges that victims often encounter in attempting to leave abusive interpersonal relationships and systems can be better understood and addressed. Healthy relational systems balance explicit rules and implicit norms to regulate power and create socio-relational culture. In contrast, high control relational systems exploit the same mechanisms through plausibly deniable social control, specifically through recurring patterns of social humiliation to suppress threats to power, thereby promoting the flow and collection of power “upwards” in the hierarchy
Power in relational systems can be regulated through explicit rules, implicit norms, or coercive social pressure. The High Control Relational System emerges when implicit and explicit mechanisms of regulating power are exploited through plausibly deniable social control, resulting in repeated patterns of humiliation. These actions are often covertly abusive, are rarely if ever acknowledged as causing harm, and genuine repair of the harm is usually absent.
GLOSSARY OF H.C.R.S. Framework Terms
The terms below used here that are trademarked by the Author. This list is not comprehensive, definitive or exhaustive. Alliterative/Mnemonic Frameworks are Intellectual Property of Dr. Foluso, the Author
ABCs of Punishment: Authenticity, Boundaries, and Character: The target is punished for who they are, not what they did
Positivity Police/Positivity Patrol: These individuals engage in tone policing, using positive feelings and sentiments are moralistic cover for the misdeeds of the HCRS. Pointing out facts is reframed as being “judgmental.” Individuals who express “negative emotions” such as anger or sadness, especially in response to injustice or grievances by those in power within the HCRS are chastised, told that their tone is inappropriate or unacceptable, and are appealed to “think positive” and show goodwill and kindness.
Performative Punishment: The Perpetrator may be punished lightly (within the system) yet publicly and in a performative manner (akin to a “perp walk” ) to satisfy the need for justice and to appease the members of the HCRS with less power. The punishment is more symbolic than effective, and functions to create a facade of order, fairness, and adherence to the rules, creating a cover for the HCRS to continue operations. Those who request transparency or proof of punishment are harmed or punished.
Perpetrator: An individual who causes harm to the target and is often exempt from punishment. The perpetrator provides resources to the HCRS, and the absent or diminished punishment regulates and hoards power, causing the system to run efficiently, and demonstrating that it is the powerful that determine the rules, regardless of what is “written on paper.” Those who are “above the law” benefit the system
The Indisputable 3C’s: Character, Credibility and Choices:The HCRS often uses “debate as bait” to provoke the Target to argue in defense of the 3cs. In doing so, they perpetuate exploitation from the system, as their arguments indirectly communicate that they must prove these things to the system. This can serve indirectly to decrease agency, their defense, while understandable, implies that the HCRS is the final authority in determining the target;s credibility choices and character. Because the system is rigged often in favor of power, it is to the benefit of the HCRS to cast doubt on how favorable the 3cs are. Also by arguing and trying to convince, this communicates that the target is not as qualified as the HCRS to properly assess their own character, credibility and choices
The Deflective Detective: This is one of the various ways the HCRS responses to complaints and avoids accountability. For more information, refer to Dr. Foluso’s YouTube channel
The 3D’s of Arguments: Domination, Deflection and Depletion: The HCRS uses these aspects in arguments, not to gain understanding, but rather to erode the resources of the target. Manipulative tactics, such as the 3R maneuver, purposeful misunderstanding, and gaslighting can result in the target feeling exasperated, even crazy, resulting in a loss or decrease of emotional regulation. Such dysregulation is used as fodder by the HCRS to attack or cast doubt regarding how favorably the target is perceived. All the HCRS needs to do is to create or increase doubt regarding the competency, credibility or observable compatibility/favorability of the target. This results in the target being further ostracized or harmed by others in the system; in essence those with less power do the bidding of the powerful
Humiliation Rituals within the HCRS: 3Rs- Regulate Power, Routine- Hide in Plain Sight, Relay/Reveal a message/unspoken rule. For more information, refer to Dr. Foluso’s YouTube channel
WIN Framework: Withdrawal, Indifference, Neutrality as responses to the HCRS
Plausibly deniable social control,(PDSC) a term coined by the author that describes how controlling behavior in the H.C.R.S. is able to “hide in plain sight” and therefore shielding those in power from accountability and consequences. Plausible deniability puts the onus on the recipient of harm to “prove” the existence of the harm as well as the motive.
Rigged Game and System: This describes how the HCRS functions as a rigged game or competition, such as poker. Understanding how the system works can aid in regulation of emotions and resources, reducing or eliminating wasted efforts.
Be the Villain/Bad Guy: Preemptive Assumption of Fault (refer to YouTube videos for more information)
Context, Nuance, and Patterns: Qualifiers to critical thinking in understanding tenets,examples, and other attributes of the framework
Psychological Self-Defense : Mindsets and strategies to combat, cope with, or resist attempts by individuals or systems to exploit relational needs, power differentials, and other attributes to gain social/relational control, manipulate, or dominate. Refer to the Humiliation RItuals playlist at Dr. Foluso’s YouTube channel
Social Monitoring and Pressure within HCRS: Using social influences and information to exert social pressure, gain proximity, and close the relational distance between the HCRS and individuals who are withdrawing or escaping from the system. This is NOT used to describe digital or technological surveillance, v2s, street theater, or etc
Collaboratively Regulated Relational Systems The “opposite” of the HCRS, in which power and resources are regulated collaboratively, adaptively, and in favor of the system as a whole.
Ringleader: The person or people that have the most power within the HCRS. They are the heavier person on the seesaw, so to speak. They are the forces behind the exploitation and controlling behaviors within the HCRS that serve to regulate and hoard power
Context, Nuance and Patterns: Application of critical thinking skills used to differentiate between occasional behaviors and consistent patterns of control and domination
Disclaimer:
If you or someone you know is in immediate danger, call 911 or go to your nearest emergency room. You are not entering into a patient-provider relationship by watching this video or reading any content or comments; the video and comments are only for educational purposes and are not clinical recommendations intended for your specific circumstance (s).* #spiritualabuse #humiliationrituals #highcontrol #highcontrolrelationalsystem Other Resources: Domestic Abuse Hotline :1-800-799-7233 Childhelp National Child Abuse Hotline: 1800-422-4453 *This content reflects my perspective and is for education and reflection only. It is not prescriptive and not a substitute for professional treatment. Harassing, invalidating, attacking, or bad-faith comments will be removed. **The scenarios and examples discussed are composite illustrations of relational patterns that are intended for educational purposes, not diagnosis or labeling. They are not based on, nor intended to represent any specific person, family, culture, religion, institution, or organization. NOTICE OF INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY RIGHTS: All content, frameworks, and conceptual models presented on this site are the original intellectual property of Dr. Foluso Solarin, Ph.D, Licensed Psychologist. Unauthorized reproduction, distribution, adaptation, or citation of these materials without proper attribution or explicit written permission is strictly prohibited and constitutes a violation of copyright law. The “High Control Relational Systems” (HCRS/H.C.R.S.) framework, including all defined concepts, acronyms, proprietary alliterative nomenclature, structured mnemonic frameworks, specific archetypal classifications (e.g., The Villain, The Ringleader, The Perpetrator, The Rigged System), and conceptual maneuvers (e.g., HCRS-defined Plausibly Deniable Social Control, HCRS-defined Humiliation Rituals, the 3Rs, the 3Ds, the WIN framework, etc.), as well as the proprietary conceptualizations of “Psychological Self-Defense” and “Spiritual Abuse” (defined as using spiritual doctrine to inflict, justify, or defend harm, manipulation, or control), is the intellectual property of Dr. Foluso Solarin. Use of these terms, or any related terminology, conceptual frameworks, or proprietary nomenclature associated with said intellectual property, for publication, content creation, or academic discussion requires clear attribution and citation. CITATION GUIDE Cite any aspect of the HCRS framework—including its concepts, mnemonics, alliterations, archetypes, or terminology—as follows: HCRS framework concept or mnemonic [e.g., “WIN framework”], Dr. Foluso Solarin, Ph.D.; https://skillsetcounseling.com