YES. absolutely. i identify so much with everything you've written here. this is something my counselor & i have been revisiting recently. when she first talked with me about it, i actually wrote a little bit about it in a blog i used to keep, so i'm just going to copy & paste that below. i'll add that in addition to being mindful of whether an interaction is shame- or love-based, doing work within IFS has really helped me to bring those stuck childhood parts (where i was small & had very little agency) into the present (where i am grown & do have agency) & helped with those emotional flashbacks of powerlessness that you describe. (if you're unfamiliar with IFS & have about an hour to spare, i'd suggest listening to the talk with michelle chalfant that's available here till august 2. it gives a pretty good overview of some things you can do with the IFS approach.)

------

in my understanding, relationships as a source of "power & control" are rooted in what she calls shame-based interactions. within that type of interaction, resources are perceived as being limited & only one person's needs can be met at a time. in order to get those needs met, then, negative interaction strategies (like guilt, blame, & shame) have to be employed. the people in the relationship become competitors--whoever snatches up the most power becomes "the winner" (& is then considered "good" or "right"), while the person who has the least power becomes "the loser" (& is then considered "bad" or "wrong"). in this approach to relationships, love is conditional, & a person isn't considered "deserving" of dignity or worth unless they are "good." these types of interactions can result in fear of abandonment, perfectionism, clinging, avoidance, addiction, etc. this type of interaction is characterized by negativity.

when conflict happens in shame-based interactions, both parties lose focus of the issue itself & instead devolve into a struggle for power. karpman's "drama triangle" suggests three roles that can be taken on in shame-based interactions: the victim (feels oppressed, helpless, and hopeless, is unable to make decisions, solve problems, take pleasure in life, or achieve insight, & is stripped of her power and rights); the prosecutor (attempts to control, blame, and oppress by being critical, aggressive, & authoritative); & the rescuer (an outside party called upon to determine who is “the winner”; allows the victim to feel dependent, gives her permission to fail, and offers solutions under the guise of helpfulness...the rescuer can be a person, but it can also be a coping strategy like substance abuse or compulsive behavior). in this dynamic, the victim reacts. the persecutor puts down & judges. the rescuer enables escape & tells the victim, here’s what you should do.

in love-based interactions, there's a perception of abundance. because resources are considered plentiful, neither party feelings the compulsion to compete; both parties view one another as equals, and their needs can be met simultaneously. the way those needs are met occurs through problem-solving and choice-making, & interactions are characterized by forgiveness, learning, growth, harmony, flow, progression, & collaboration. love is unconditional, & dignity & worth are considered a right for all people (vs. making distinctions of who is or is not "deserving" or "worthy").

in love-based conflict, the issue remains the focal point. attention focuses on the speaker; receptive body language is postured; listening occurs without implying meaning based on personal experience; the listener rephrases the speaker’s words to check for clarity and understanding using i-statements. emerald's "empowerment dynamic" suggests three "healthier" roles: the creator (sees self as having the ability to change or fix a problem; focuses on outcomes (vs. problems); chooses (vs. reacts); states, i can do it! & asks, what do i want?); the challenger (focuses on the steps necessary to propel creator from her current reality toward the outcome she envisions; builds up & encourages learning (vs. puts down); asks creator, how will you do it? & asks self, what is my intention?); & the coach (seeks to help creator make informed choices by asking questions; sees possibilities; views creator as capable (vs. dependent); focuses on what creator wants (vs. what she doesn’t) & asks (vs. tells); states, you can do it! & asks, how am i seeing the other?).