Chapter 10. The Relationship Model “Beggar”

The world owes me: The trap of entitlement.

1. NAME AND MEANING

Transcription and Etymology: The name of the model comes from the word “Beggar.” Within our methodology, this is not necessarily a person holding out their hand on the street. It is a deep psychological archetype of entitlement, in which a person is convinced that the world owes them something.

Seen through social psychology, this is a distorted perception of fairness. In our methodology, the “Beggar” is a model in which a person demands that their needs be met at the expense of others, giving nothing in return, and justifies this by their “special destiny” or “suffering.” Unlike the “Infanta,” who feels weak and submissive, the “Beggar” feels like a victim entitled to compensation.

The roots of this image reach back into childhood scenarios where needs were met without effort. In Greek mythology, echoes of this can be seen in the figure of Irus, a beggar who aggressively demanded alms from Odysseus. Across all cultures runs the same stereotype: the person who considers other people’s resources their own by right of birth or by right of suffering.

2. SLOGAN AND BELIEFS

People in the “Beggar” state of mind often broadcast thoughts that become their manipulative instruments. Here are the three core beliefs typical of this model:

“If you have it, why won’t you share?” (The belief that another person’s success is somehow a shortfall owed to them.)

“The world owes me for my suffering.” (Justifying demands through the position of a victim.)

“A friend in need is a friend indeed.” (Using friendship as a lever for extracting resources.)

3. INFORMATION BLOCK: HISTORY, LITERATURE, AND PSYCHOLOGY

To our great regret, in any society today you will find people who practice begging. And there are plenty more who are not formally beggars but bring a beggar’s mindset into their relationships with those around them. So who exactly are these “beggars”?

In this discussion, beggars should be divided into several categories. The first are those who have turned it into a craft: in a number of cases, they are seemingly forced into open begging by outsiders. Some Romani, a people known throughout the world for their historically nomadic way of life, engage openly in begging, treating it as a profession.

The second are those who exploit religious, national, and public values for selfish ends: they create fake pages on social networks, circulate fabricated photographs and videos, and play on people’s feelings in order to obtain money or other assistance.

The next category includes those who have genuinely fallen into need and are grasping for a last hope out of what seems like a dead end. Yet even here there are psychological reasons why a person perceives themselves as so helpless.

Some people in society, without begging in the literal sense, invariably evoke pity in those around them, shifting the burden of their own needs onto others. In such cases, a person makes themselves dependent on others and, without even noticing it, agrees to accept their conditions in exchange for help.

In the language of cognitive therapy, this is an external locus of control. Such people are convinced that their well-being depends not on their own efforts but on the generosity of those around them. As a rule, from childhood they received unearned praise: all their whims were indulged without the slightest effort on their part. Paradoxically, this combines pride and a sense of superiority with a complete inability to grow. They cannot tolerate criticism, are disinclined to learn, and yet consider themselves better than others.

The “Beggars” who live at someone else’s expense and manipulate those around them like parasites for their own benefit spend their daily lives demanding something from everyone. Often they ask to borrow money, making false promises, and afterward play the victim, produce every kind of excuse, and dodge responsibility in every way they can. People who build relationships with others purely to meet their own needs play the eternal victim, complaining ceaselessly about life and fate.

The Psychological Mechanism. A person arrives at the beggarly cast of mind when, in childhood, parents shower them with unearned and groundless praise, indulging their every whim without the slightest effort on the child’s part. Arrogance then takes shape in this personality, and they begin to feel superior to others. But being disinclined to learn and unable to bear criticism, they prove incapable of developing within society. A person who cannot meet their own needs yet believes, for some invented reason, that they are better than everyone else assumes, much like a monarch (in the Middle Ages, the pope anointed kings as chosen by God, and thus power passed by inheritance from father to son; the head of that power was called the monarch), that everyone is in their debt, and demands the immediate fulfillment of their wishes. In modern society, such an attitude is, of course, condemned, and so a person unwilling to change their habits expresses their demands in a different form: appealing to some moral value, they ask and they beg. The moment they utter a word about spirituality and receive a refusal, they unleash a torrent of reproaches on the one who refused, striving to make society condemn that person as “a bad person.”

Why is it that some people of modest means, even as they complain, still strive to work and earn their bread by honest labor? While others, holding steady jobs, put far more effort into coaxing something out of everyone they meet at every opportunity? What cognitive distortions must people emotionally inclined toward begging possess for a “Beggar” Relationship model to take shape?

The self-esteem of those carrying the Beggar relationship model is extremely low. From the very start they fail to recognize their own worth and know nothing of their abilities and talents. For this reason, as a defense mechanism, they become aggressively demanding toward those around them while at the same time considering themselves above everyone. That is why they do not strive for self-development and want to get everything at once, without effort. To this end they make a special point of displaying their most vulnerable sides. Ask such people “How are you?” and they invariably answer: “Oh, it’s hard, nobody helps me.” Their self-confidence falls so low that they are unable to properly assess their own capabilities. As a rule, psychologically they operate on the conviction “I can’t, it won’t work out for me,” and they see all possibilities in another person, striving to seize those same possibilities for themselves. That is exactly why they tend to devalue the successes of others while feeling deep envy toward them and being ready to be cruel. “They have more than they deserve. And I deserve more than any of them. What they own is mine by right.” Slogans like these lie at the heart of the beliefs of many thieves and murderers. Recall the hero of Dostoevsky’s novel Crime and Punishment: when Raskolnikov committed his crime, he was convinced he was thereby restoring justice.

If a “Beggar” meets someone’s attention and affection, he immediately finds his victim in that person and begins to exploit them. This does not mean the bearer of the Beggar relationship model will go around saying “give me money” every day, everywhere. For instance, a man complains to a woman that his wife left him, that he is unhappy, alone, homeless, and doesn’t know what to do. The woman, instantly moved to pity by his plight, takes him into her home. That is precisely the plaintive pattern of behavior which, on the other hand, is perceived as weakness. And the one who accepts it is driven by the need to play the savior. Unlike “Cinderella,” the “Beggar” will never try to give something back. Without any effort, forever appealing to pity, he will work to get his way. For example, in a personal relationship he will constantly beg for love. Comparing himself with others, he will pity himself. A woman may end up beside such a man not because he is close to her, but because she feels sorry for him. Needless to say, such a relationship goes on without a drop of joy.

Now imagine what happens when “Cinderella” meets a “Beggar.”

“I need your love. My mother never showed me that kind of care. I want to be loved too, like everyone else. I beg you, don’t leave me. You’re my only one; apart from you I have no one.”

“Don’t worry, you can trust me completely. Whatever you need, I’ll do it. My home is your home.”

Even living together, these two will struggle to build a healthy relationship. Cinderella is the woman who will strive to please her partner at any cost and in the end will suffer through the relationship without a drop of joy. A man can share the same fate. The bitter outcome of a relationship built on unhealthy needs is either separation or an agonizing life together.

When two unhappy people meet, a tragedy is born: they mistake intense emotional upheaval for love. The needs of both are satisfied, yet both feel inadequate. This emotional attachment points to a problem of dependency between two people with complexes. That is why in separation both experience intense turmoil and anxiety. When they are together, the anxiety subsides, and they cling to each other all the more tightly. This is why they live in terror of losing the relationship. And in separation they experience the tragedy so acutely that the whole world seems meaningless and empty to them. This state sometimes reaches nihilistic despair. There is only one way to cut this knot: while they are together, these people are convinced that they have no psychological problem at all, and even when it is pointed out to them directly, they will not admit a third person into their symbiosis. Only if some sudden change occurs in their lives, or interference from authoritarian loved ones separates them, will they perhaps turn to a psychologist to soothe the pain of separation. The tragedy of separation can be so unbearable that people fall into severe depression and even contemplate suicide, if only to quiet the ache in their hearts. To grasp how widespread this phenomenon is, one need only listen to classic works of art about separation. In Azerbaijani folklore, songs of parting have always been on everyone’s lips, for each one awakens the feelings of millions of people. One might recall Rashid Behbudov’s song Ayrılıq (“Separation”).

To avoid reaching that kind of separation, couples caught in mutual frustration struggle to find the resolve to change their lives.

The toxic union: the “Beggar” and the “Cinderella.” Relationship psychology places particular emphasis on the dangerous bond between the Beggar and Cinderella models. This is a classic example of neurotic symbiosis. Driven by guilt, Cinderella is unable to leave the Beggar, even when the relationship becomes unbearable. She considers herself responsible for his life, convinced he will perish without her. The Beggar, in turn, uses her guilt as an instrument of manipulation.

The Cinderella model seeks at every turn to justify her partner’s negative lifestyle with all sorts of excuses. She deceives herself, telling herself things like: “You don’t know him. He’s such a good person, it’s just that luck keeps turning its back on him, envious people won’t let him get anywhere…” Guided by such beliefs, even without finding a worthy life partner in him, she tries at least to fill his need for love. “At least I won’t abandon him; otherwise he’ll be lost, he can’t live without me.” A truly self-sacrificing Cinderella is fully capable of satisfying all the needs of the Beggar model.

This neurotic approach works, for a while. Cinderella, pleasing everyone around her and forgetting herself, does receive emotional nourishment, after a fashion. But one day her nerves give out, and the needs she has suppressed for years begin to break through to the surface; she stops indulging the games of a partner with beggarly tendencies. That is when the true conflicts erupt.

Why does such emotional upheaval happen? The Beggar is not used to hearing “no.” His inclination toward parasitism has always made it easy to get what he wants. Once his needs are satisfied, even donors like Cinderella grow stale, and the way opens to ever-new demands. So the Beggar’s victim cannot endure this relentless pressure any longer and refuses to keep indulging him; the cup of patience overflows. In this confrontation, the victorious Cinderella is able to break the vicious circle, yet the bearer of the beggarly relationship model immediately sets out in search of a new victim. Having found someone else suffering from a guilt complex, excessively responsible and unable to say “no,” he plays out the same scenario once again. As a rule, those who live by the beggarly mindset always keep several victims close at hand, so that if one refuses, they can fall back on another. Once someone extends a helping hand, the Beggar never gives it up willingly. For instance, if in a family the woman bears all the burdens while the man idles away his days at home and out on the street, the woman may one day rebel.

“So what kind of man are you?! For fifteen years you haven’t been able to find a proper job, you lounge around doing nothing, you’ve dumped the whole weight of the family on me, and on top of that, you keep me in your debt. I’ve had enough of you!!!”

Even if this rebellious protest comes from the woman, someone accustomed to the beggarly relationship model will invariably start begging her for mercy all over again. And if that fails, they will surely find somewhere else to go.

“You’re the only one who understands me. With her it never worked, I endured it for so long, but I can’t bear the humiliations anymore. I’m a man too, it wounds my dignity, so many demands—my back is already buckling under the load. I have no one but you. Don’t turn away from me…”

With pleas and incantations, the Beggar, by fair means or foul, will invariably find his way to the heart of a new Cinderella. If a kind-hearted person opens the door to the petitioner for even a single day (“Come in, I’ll help you, don’t stay alone in a situation like this”), the Beggar will turn into a long-term resident of that house. The Cinderella who took him in out of pity, for the very same reason, will not be able to throw him out. She will put up with him for a while, and then once again become the classic heroine of the same endlessly repeating life story.

“Why does everyone who enters my life always use me? I want to meet a normal person too, someone who will take care of me. After all, I’m a woman too…”

You’ve probably already guessed the reason for such complaints. And the one who abused begging, once they’re out the door, collides with yet another “aggressor” guilty of their misfortunes. In their life story, such characters are beyond counting. They are ready once more to explain to the next victims just how merciless life is. As if every separation strips them of everything and forces them to start from scratch.

But if you look closely, it turns out that in fact he invested nothing in these relationships, neither materially nor spiritually: he did not invest, he exploited. This means our hero is no savior; seeing himself in the role of the victim, he invariably strives to live at someone else’s expense. It is his own choice. And when you get down to it, in his relationships with people he has always been only the one who takes, and the moment he met resistance, he automatically switched into hostility mode. By criticizing the other side and awakening guilt in them, he only strengthened his own position.

“Beggars” who build relationships with this kind of mindset are never able to awaken strong feelings and emotions. They will never be able to build relationships in the manner of the “Courtesan,” let alone the “Geisha.” After all, even here it would take a certain potential and the ability to realize oneself in a particular craft. They are not inclined to learn, though not because they lack the mental capacity. It’s simply that the thinking formed within the Beggar relationship model is alien to learning from the very start. And a person who doesn’t strive for personal growth cannot develop socially either. To achieve anything in this direction, a person must first realize that they are capable of succeeding in some field and helping others. If they begin to think this way, they are already stepping away from the “Beggar” position. If begging stops seeming to them the only way out, other possibilities and paths can be sought. They see all sorts of people around them who take care of them every day, and believe it is only thanks to them that they stay on their feet. If such a person were put face to face with these people and pushed into an open confrontation, they might begin to see the state of affairs differently. For them, this would be colossal stress and emotional upheaval.

It takes a great deal of time to move away from a mindset built up over long years, one that generates a particular model of behavior. They may come to see that such an approach leads to failure from the very beginning. All their life, the main purpose of continuing unneeded relationships was to satisfy false needs. Arriving at this thought, they experience a “crack of awareness” in their thinking, yet the process of forming a new mindset may still take a long time. On the one hand, they recognize their true problem; on the other, uncertainty sets in. For many years, after all, they have relied on one and only one means of survival.

To get out of this position, a person needs a new angle of vision. It’s as if, having once needed the help of this or that individual, they now begin to see around them not separate people as the saving hand of life, but the opportunities it offers. Various job positions can always seem like a way out; however, when the person finds no answer to why they have never taken advantage of them, they will come up with all sorts of excuses. That is precisely when statements beginning with “yes, but…” start multiplying. If you notice such a contradiction in many people’s speech, know this: the person is crushed under the weight of their own excuses. The victim position is considered deplorable precisely because it holds a person back from developing. And a personality lagging behind in its own development will sooner or later become captive to one false behavior model or another. Over a long time, the same mindset systematically generates the same behavior in different situations. The habit of leaning on an outstretched helping hand from everyone they meet finds its place in the Beggar relationship model in exactly this way.

In society, such people, following a false ideology, strive to assert themselves in all sorts of ways. They see extracting benefit at someone else’s expense as the only way out. Unlike the Lilith model, the “Beggar” gives the person standing before them nothing in return. Within the Beggar relationship model, the so-called “gigolos,” men who live off a woman and endlessly beg her for money, consider themselves superior to other men and put on a performance of feigned love. They live off a woman, but being insincere, incapable of taking on responsibility, and above all unable to give her a sense of confidence and trust, they cannot make her happy. Exploiting her weaknesses, they invariably manipulate her for their own ends.

A “Cinderella” drawn into such relationships, suffering from a guilt complex, carries the “Beggar” on her shoulders all her life. Such women, as a rule, turn into forgotten, love-starved, lonely, abandoned creatures. “At least there’s some kind of man in the house,” they console themselves. In exactly the same way, when it is a woman who carries the Beggar relationship model, she, like Cinderella, draws a man toward herself and tirelessly deepens his feelings of guilt and inferiority. One of the most powerful causes behind the formation of such personalities in society lies in vulgar customs and traditions. Another cause is a purely psychological factor: parents who experienced hardship in childhood, by unconditionally fulfilling every whim of their children, lay the foundation of this kind of thinking. In behavioral therapy there is the notion that positive actions should be rewarded. However, when the reward comes without the slightest effort, the child does not grow into a fully formed personality and applies their one innate skill in all its various forms: crying, screaming, stamping feet. In modern society, carriers of this relationship model justify such behavior by attributing it to “Generation Z”: impatient, unable to bear criticism, incapable of accepting the word “no,” invariably displaying idleness and feigned fatigue. On the other hand, we keep coming across ladies who, having watched stories on social media, dream of living the life of rich “oligarchs.” You recognize them by their characteristic statements in relationships between a man and a woman: “A man, if he wants to date me, has to earn at least this much money,” “I would never date a poor man,” “I only date oligarchs,” “What has he ever done for me to date him? Where are his expensive gifts?” “A man must give me expensive gifts, fulfill my desires, but that doesn’t mean I have to do anything for him in return. I don’t date men who expect something in return for their gifts,” and other meaningless, spiritually impoverished judgments. As a result, such people, the most vivid specimens of the Beggar relationship model, no longer ask to have their needs met; they demand it as their due and consider themselves above other women. At first glance, this relationship model might be likened to the Lilith model. Yet there is a fundamental difference between them: “Lilith” is ready to do anything for money and knows how to get it; she is capable of building long-term relationships. The “Beggar,” meanwhile, makes one-sided demands but is incapable of giving anything in return. That is why the Beggar relationship model can only temporarily coexist with the “Cinderella” and “Teresa” models. In any other case, even the Beggar’s very first demand either meets harsh criticism or is simply laughed at. Mature people are capable of resisting begging in any of its forms: a request, a plea, a demand, threats. At the same time, there is an enormous difference between resisting begging and showing mercy. Mercy is bound up with the desire to help a person in need, regardless of their personal choice, and it is received with sincere gratitude. The Beggar relationship model, by contrast, begins with an insincere appeal, and the present need itself stems from the person’s own conscious choice. If a young, healthy person capable of working decides, instead of mastering a profession and acquiring a specialty, to take up begging, that is their personal choice. And giving such a person material assistance is neither mercy nor charity. It is yielding to their manipulation. In most societies, for this reason, the Beggar relationship model is considered the lowest rung of the social ladder—below even Lilith.

At first glance, the “Beggar” might be likened to the “Infanta,” yet there is a substantial difference between them. The Infanta sincerely believes herself to be as weak as a child, experiences these feelings, and, living in constant fear, unfailingly needs support. She submits to her protector without question, fulfills his demands, and shapes her behavior to fit his decisions. The Beggar, on the other hand, is not looking for a single protector; he demands something from everyone in a row. His claims show up in relationships openly and explicitly, not only through pity, but through hatred, aggression, intimidation, and at times outright blackmail. The person who meets his needs he actually holds in contempt and tries to avoid becoming dependent on. Toward this person he feels not satisfaction or submission, but the opposite: a hatred that only grows. As if seeing in others holders of far greater privileges, he cultivates hatred for them within himself. Feeling aggression and hatred toward people, he deceives them and thereby justifies his own behavior. Luring people into a trap, he experiences inside something like satisfaction. This category includes petty swindlers as well as those who blackmail people in all sorts of ways to extort money. Whatever form they take, all of them belong to the Beggar relationship model.

“Beggars” are forever searching for ways to profit from other people’s needs. They always justify behavior built on exploiting someone else’s earnings. Begging is considered the most dangerous behavior model for society. The lower all moral values sink, the higher hatred of people rises. If in the “Puttana” or “Lilith” model a person placed material values above all others for the sake of happiness, for the sake of meeting their own needs, in beggarly thinking the goal is rather to seize someone else’s income. The hatred can be so strong that even false prayers, in the end, turn into a curse.

That is why people say: “Eaten bread is soon forgotten.” Do a good deed a thousand times, fail to do it once, and it’s as if all that goodness gets trampled underfoot. This behavior comes straight from beggarly thinking. To the “Beggar,” the fact that you have what he does not is somehow your fault.

Crisis and transitions. When those around him stop giving (everyone has rejected the manipulation), a crisis begins. The negative path (Crime or Lilith): when no one gives voluntarily, the Beggar may turn to theft or to selling his body (a transition to the Lilith model). The mindset shifts from “everyone owes me” to “for money, I’ll do anything.” This is the path of degradation, though at times it develops certain skills. The positive path (Personal growth): if the person realizes that this path leads to a dead end, he can begin searching for objective ways to achieve what he wants.

In society, we most often encounter the negative model: despite the Beggar’s efforts, no one willing to help is left around him; he has quarreled with everyone, and no one falls for his manipulation anymore. Then the “Beggar,” unable to meet even his minimal needs, goes through the crisis of this behavior model, starts pondering a new way of relating, and the first thing that comes to mind is selling his own body or turning to crime. Once he resolves to sell himself, he has already moved away from the idea that “everyone owes me” and goes on living by the conviction that “for money, I’ll do anything”: his claims on people diminish, he becomes inclined toward mutual arrangements, his manner of relating changes, and he begins to pay more attention to the needs of those around him. Continuing in this direction, even having started by selling his body, he eventually notices what exactly people are willing to pay more for, and strives to provide those services. He moves from the Beggar model to the Lilith model, and from there, developing himself, he may become a merchant, a dancer, a singer, or take up some other profession. But whatever the profession, his criterion of choice is now whichever work pays the most. Such a person thus keeps learning new things and develops a serious motivation to advance socially. Of course, however much a person changes and grows with this approach, because he keeps changing professions and lines of work, he cannot reach great heights in any one field. But if, after Lilith, he discovers a profession he loves, one that fits his talent, he can move on to the Geisha relationship model and achieve real success in the field he has chosen. So a carrier of the Beggar relationship model, forced into change by a crisis and having passed through several transformations, can become a well-known figure loved by society. That is exactly why experienced people say: “If you really want to help a beggar, don’t help him.”

Those who go through a psychological crisis without changing the mindset of the Beggar relationship model find, after a while, that because they cannot get what they want, their hatred of people grows even stronger, and they try to seize other people’s means quickly and by force. In this state they plan the cruelest and gravest crimes. Even after committing a crime and being arrested, these people do not consider themselves guilty and may prepare to commit a more carefully planned crime in the future. In reality, though, such people spend a large part of their lives in prison for the crimes they have committed, and their minimal needs are once again met by the state, that is, by society.

The second path is personal growth (a positive motive). In this case the Beggar is not satisfied with his small achievements; as his outlook widens, his wishes grow, and he gradually understands that if he goes on living within the same relationship model he will never reach the life he wants. At such moments he spends some time dreaming, and then looks for objective ways to make those dreams come true. His shortest-term goals point toward trade, and he understands that to live the life he wants he has to go into business. For in this field he can build a career quickly while spending little effort on training. As a result, the ability to communicate with people and the skill at manipulation that, within the Beggar relationship model, covered only his minimal needs now have a far greater effect on sales. Such people now approach the customer on the principle of working together, and in most cases they make the largest share of their income from trade, for example from selling cars, real estate, and so on. But this person is no longer a Beggar: without realizing it, following his dreams step by step, he first fits into the Lilith relationship model and may then go on to live by the Geisha relationship model. Whatever the field, it is the mindset a person lives in and the foundation on which they base their decisions that determine their current relationship model.

Let’s not forget: a relationship model belongs to no profession and no nationality. It can change only through the personal thinking and decisions of the person themselves.

4. 5 FAMOUS FIGURES (ARCHETYPES OF THE MODEL)

Historical and cultural figures whose behavior corresponded to the “Beggar” model: a sense of entitlement to receive, living at others’ expense, manipulating through pity.

Rodion Raskolnikov (Literary archetype, F. Dostoevsky).

The hero of the novel Crime and Punishment, who considered himself entitled to dispose of other people’s lives for the sake of a “higher purpose.”

Manifestation of the model: His philosophy, “am I a trembling creature, or do I have the right,” is the quintessence of the Beggar’s mindset. He justified the crime by claiming that the world was unjust and that he had the right to take what belonged to others to restore the balance. This is an intellectualized form of begging.

Count Alessandro Cagliostro (Historical figure, 18th century).

An Italian adventurer and mystic who traveled across Europe.

Manifestation of the model: He lived off his patrons, wielding manipulation, mysticism, and flattery. He created no real value, yet skillfully exploited the trust and resources of the nobility, constantly moving from one patron to the next as the resources ran dry or the deception came to light. A classic example of living off other people’s resources while giving nothing back.

Irus (Mythological archetype, Homer).

A beggar from the Odyssey who aggressively demanded alms from the heroes.

Manifestation of the model: He is the symbol of aggressive begging. He didn’t ask; he demanded, hurled insults at those who refused, and believed that his status as a victim entitled him to other people’s resources. This is an ancient archetype of hatred toward anyone who has more.

The modern “Digital Beggar” (Social archetype).

Bloggers collecting donations for “treatment” or “projects” with no accounting, manipulating their followers’ emotions.

Manifestation of the model: They use social media to monetize pity. They craft the image of a victim of circumstance, demanding financial support from their audience while offering no real value or product in return.

Ippolit Matveyevich Vorobyaninov (Literary archetype, I. Ilf and E. Petrov).

The hero of The Twelve Chairs, a former nobleman incapable of work.

Manifestation of the model: A man of the old order who believes the world owes him for his birth. He doesn’t want to work; he wants to get everything at once (the chairs with the treasure), and he manipulates those around him (Tikhon), assuming they are obliged to serve him because of his status.

5. EXITING THE MODEL (DEPRESSIVE AND AGGRESSIVE)

Depending on the context, a person may face rejection, or begin to grow.

When the resources of those around them run dry (when everyone has rejected the manipulation), the crisis begins.

The depressive exit: The person realizes: “No one wants to give me anything.” The Beggar plunges into despair. He may turn to crime or to selling his body (the shift to Lilith’s model) to obtain resources by force or by exchange. This is the path of degradation, though sometimes it forces a person to finally learn real skills (the path toward the Geisha).

The aggressive exit: The person is angry at the world. “You’re all greedy!” The Beggar starts openly demanding, blackmailing, threatening. Hatred grows. This is the road to isolation and crime. Yet if the person recognizes the futility of this path, they may begin to seek objective ways of getting what they want (trade, labor), and that becomes the first step toward maturity, toward the Chameleon as the adaptive stage before the Phoenix.

6. MARIA’S STORY. THE PATH OF “BEGGAR”

The last message had been sitting on the screen for three days: “Maria, find a job. I can’t do this anymore.” It was from Nina. Maria reread the words lying under her coat on the couch where Anton used to sleep, and each time found in them fresh proof that people are ungrateful.

Two months had passed since she put his shirts out on the landing. He came for the shirts the next day while she was out and dropped the keys in the mailbox. The room above the bakery became very quiet, and in the mornings the smell of bread she no longer sold rose from downstairs.

For the first three weeks everything went well. She called and didn’t ask how anyone was. Nina brought bags of food and left money under the sugar bowl. The neighbor whose child Maria used to watch in the evenings paid her electric bill. The man on duty at the center, whom she reminded of a year and a half of nights, sent what he could and apologized besides. Every bag at her door confirmed what she already knew: she was right, they really did owe her.

She didn’t look for work; there were people, after all, for whom she had done so much. She quickly learned what worked on whom. With Nina it was enough to bring up the divorce: “When you were in a bad way, I practically lived in your kitchen. And now you begrudge me?” For the neighbor a heavy sigh into the phone sufficed. Her mother she called once, on a bad evening, and said that she and her father had wrecked her life with their fights and could at least help with something now. Her mother cried and sent what she had. Maria counted it and thought that they could have managed more.

If the reply didn’t come right away, she wrote again, nastier: “A friend in need is a friend indeed. I guess I was wrong about you.” An hour later a transfer would arrive.

“They have it and I don’t,” she explained to herself, counting other people’s money. “So they ought to share. I’ve suffered more than all of them put together.” With repetition the thought hardened like cement. This is the external locus of control we talked about: a person looks for well-being in other people’s generosity and other people’s guilt and doesn’t count on her own hands.

By the end of the second month the phone had gone quiet. The neighbor stopped opening her door; the man from the center changed his number. Nina brought one last bag, set it down in the entryway, and, without taking off her coat, said:

“I love you, but you’re going to eat me alive,” and she began to cry. “I’m scared now whenever the phone rings at night.”

Maria replied that Nina, then, was just like all the rest, and shut the door. After that came the message.

On the fourth day the food from Nina’s bag ran out. Maria pulled her coat on over her nightgown and went out, not knowing where. Her hair hadn’t been washed in a week. The wind was raw and blew up her sleeves.

By the pond in the park an elderly woman sat on a bench, crumbling a loaf for the ducks. A bag stood beside her, and sticking out of it were a second loaf and a carton of milk. Maria stopped. She stared at that loaf and felt her mouth fill with saliva, and then heard her own voice, plaintive and demanding at once, perfected over two months:

“Ma’am, you have plenty there… Surely you can spare…”

The woman raised her head, saw her, and her face changed. She pulled the bag toward her and wrapped both arms around it, the way you hold a child. She was afraid of Maria.

Maria broke off in mid-word. All at once she saw herself from over there, from the bench: an unwashed woman in a coat over a nightgown, looming over an old lady and reaching a hand toward her bread. And she remembered Nina, who was afraid of calls in the night. People had been buying her off, the way you buy off someone you fear.

“I’m sorry,” she said. “Please forgive me.”

The woman didn’t answer and didn’t let go of the bag. Maria turned and walked away, slowly at first, then almost running, and all the way home she felt the whole park staring after her. On the stairs she sat down on a step because her legs wouldn’t hold her, and stayed there until she was chilled through. Crying would have been easier, but over those two months she had spent her tears on getting people to give her more, and now that she needed them for herself there were none left.

At home she stood in front of the bathroom mirror, made herself look, and promised the woman in it that nobody would ever be afraid of her again. Then she washed her hair in cold water: the hot water had been shut off for nonpayment.

The next morning she walked into the first staffing agency she passed. The girl behind the desk asked what kind of position she was hoping for. A week earlier Maria would have known what to say.

“I need work. Any work…”

They hired her as a cleaner in an office tower, on the night shift: a bucket, a mop, eleven floors. Her pride tried to object and found it had nothing to object with. Out of her first paycheck Maria slid an envelope with part of what she owed under Nina’s door. She didn’t dare call.