Work Text:
Early Trauma and Family/Home Dynamics
Pawbert Lynxley’s personality and later actions are unmistakably heavily impacted by the abusive environment he grew up in. As the youngest/runt of the family he experienced constant belittlement and conditional love.
According to the Coercive Family Systems Theory in such homes approval or love is only earned by performing correctly while mistakes bring humiliation, emotional withdrawal or even punishment. Later on it becomes a cycle of not just the child’s correct or wrong behaviour but the interaction with the parent as a whole. The child doesn’t just learn from mistakes, they become scared of mistakes and begin to avoid them. That constant pressure doesn’t just affect their emotions but rewires the brain to think that every mistake is bad and even “deadly”. Over time the child might internalize the family’s standard as they don’t have another perspective or “the right thing to do”. A child learns mostly from their parents’ actions and characteristics and without having another example, they don't realise that something's wrong and shouldn't be the way it is.
After years of abuse and being treated like trash, the child doesn’t just shrug it off. The kid starts to believe it with their whole heart. That phenomenon is known as Internalized Oppression and because Pawbert just accepted the family’s judgement as truth/reality his sense of self-worth became tied to his family’s approval which he didn’t receive. This explains why later even when given the choice to change, he risks moral boundaries just to satisfy their family because in his mind, being accepted by his family is the only way to actually matter.
The Scapegoat/Golden Child dynamic further intensified his plight. Being consistently overlooked and dismissed made him hyper-focused on pleasing his family. This led to two patterns: extreme people-pleasing and a willingness to compromise morality to gain acceptance. His identity became basically entirely tied to his family’s judgment, leaving him without a sense of self independent of their approval and love.
Another explanation for his framework/moral compass is Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs. His physiological needs may have been met but at the second “story” of the pyramid everything crumbles. The next human need is the feeling of safety which he didn’t have inside of his home which makes the next human needs unmeetable. His love and belonging, esteem and self-actualisation needs weren’t met. For example esteem needs were tied closely to his family’s recognition rather than his own self-worth. Without lower-level needs, Pawbert never reached self-actualisation which is responsible for a sense of identity as well as a moral compass.
I also relate to some of the psychological mechanisms described here. In my experience I believed that my grades were the only thing that made me good enough. The pressure and self-blame made me ignore my own well being while pushing myself to my limits as well as turning to unhealthy coping mechanisms such as self-harm and starving myself. That’s why Pawbert’s behaviour is not excused but understood because at least from my own point of view when someone learns that love or approval is tied solely to their performance, they see themselves and the world around them in a differient/”wrong” way without even realizing it.
This combination of chronic fear, conditional love, and fractured self-esteem explains Pawbert’s later behavior and actions. His betrayal, cautious cruelty, and eventual guilt can all be traced back to his upbringing where he didn’t even have a chance to build up his self worth or moral compass.
So how did psychology translate into his actions?
Was the Betrayal and Attempted Murder Planned?
At first glance, Pawbert’s betrayal appears calculated as he gains trust, waits for the right moment and uses snake venom to frame Gary as well as to bring down the whole race of snakes to please his father. This would suggest that the goal of the betrayal was not accidental, However, when looking at the situation from a psychological lens, the situation becomes more complex than just an evil plan.
A psychological concept I’d like to bring into here is Instrumental vs. Reactive Behavior. Instrumental behavior is goal oriented, while reactive behavior is driven by survival instincts as well as emotional pressure. Pawbert’s actions show a mix of both. The broader goal of gaining his family’s approval and love is the planned part which fits instrumental behavior while the emotional state driving his decisions appears reactive. His desperation, fear of rejection as well as his long term trauma and abuse were pushing him forward like a survival instinct. An instinct that would let him survive in the family as well gain their acceptance that he never got. Let’s break it down into simpler terms: If his childhood was healthy/normal he wouldn’t chase after approval to such an extent and in the process wouldn’t attempt murder and betrayal.
Another fitting psychological concept is Cognitive Dissonance. Pawbert still shows signs of empathy and moral awareness which clashes with the act of betraying people that trust him. To reduce that internal conflict he chose a quick and mostly painless method to kill. (IRL that way isn’t painless but during the movie it seemed more like for example Judy was feeling more powerless than in agonising pain). But with that there’s another conflict between choosing a method that wouldn’t cause suffering BUT still was chosen so that a whole race of animals (snakes) would be forced more into the shadows.
Another concept that supports this theory is Learned Helplessness. After years of conditional love and repeated failure to meet his family’s expectations, Pawbert likely developed the belief that he had no real alternatives. In his mind choices weren’t choices anymore but inevitabilities. Betrayal was less of a decision to him and more like the only path to avoid feeling worthless because let’s say he actually chose to be different from his family. In that case everything he learned while being a child with the only thing mattering to him was his family’s approval. If he chose a different path he’d still feel empty afterwards because the only thing he longed for his whole life would never be met as well as practically get shattered while the brutal option had at least a chance of reaching his goal of being loved.
Why betray Judy, Nick and Gary?
IM GONNA CALL JUDY, NICK AND GARY “THE CREW” TO SHORTEN IT
Pawbert’s betrayal of the crew is especially significant because they represent exactly the traits and things he never had with that being most importantly trust and unconditional love. They didn’t expect anything back from Pawbert for helping him so that’s why their partnership felt unfamiliar.
Through Attachment Theory, Pawbert’s behavior aligns with a disorganised attachment style. People with this attachment pattern are craving connection yet fear it. Healthy bonds create a conflict within him because they’re different from his deep beliefs. Pawbert was taught his entire life that love must be earned and while he’s challenged with a different belief system/ different love type (one that doesn’t expect anything back) he goes back to his original system that his family has taught him. The crew treats him as an equal and not someone that Pawbert has to prove his worth to. Instead of feeling safe, this triggers a sense of unfamiliarity inside. Betraying them is his way to escape the confusion and vulnerability of being actually seen.
Social Identity Theory also helps explain why in the end Pawbert ultimately chooses his family over them. His identity is entirely rooted in being a “Lynxley” while the crew represents an alternative identity in which he doesn’t need to fear or perform. Accepting the new identity would be equivalent to throwing his whole old identity away as well as rejecting the only group he has ever known and belonged to, even if the identity is rooted from abusive relationships he still chooses to stay loyal to it to keep him from losing himself.
Another relevant concept is Splitting which is a trauma based defense mechanism that forces situations into safe and unsafe “boxes”. Pawbert’s family, even if abusive, are psychologically categorized as “safe” because they’re predictable and familiar. The crew on the other hand is categorised into the “unsafe” box because they’re outsiders that disrupt the structure of predictability that Pawbert learnt (how to behave and what happens if he fails to meet their expectations) which makes the crew get classified as threats because they complicate loyalty. In Pawbert’s eyes they're seen as obstacles to his survival within his family.
In the end, betraying the crew isn’t because they’ve wronged him. He betrays them because choosing them would mean accepting a healthier world- one which he was never prepared to live in.
Did he ever express his true self or was it all an act?
At first, Pawbert’s behaviour early in the film appears genuine yet influenced by his father. Still I believe it’s the real Pawbert as he’s socially engaged and seemingly comfortable yet awkward in his role. However after it’s revealed in the movie it might all feel planned.
A key concept I’d like to bring up is Masking, a coping mechanism commonly developed by individuals who grow up in abusive environments. Masking isn’t lying, it’s rather selectively presenting traits that a person (Pawbert in this case) thinks are most likely to be accepted and praised by others. Pawbert likely learned early on that being his true unfiltered self resulted in punishment as well as beratement. As a result he did not develop a stable singular identity, but multiple context dependent ones (for example: when alone, when with family, when at events). The version of him at the ball therefore can be understood as real yet not fully stable.
Another relevant theory is False vs. True Self by Winnicott. The false self emerges to protect the true self from harm in unsafe environments such as: encounters with his father OR mentioned earlier interaction with the crew which according to the Splitting mechanism also feels unsafe and unfamiliar. Pawbert’s charm might function and be used as a fake self, not because he's deceitful by nature, but rather because vulnerability has never been safe for him. After he’s revealed as the villain his actions might appear fully planned and deceitful but in my opinion it’s more accurate to say that his protective structure has gotten more “protective” of his real self resulting in such extreme behaviors such as attacking Nick head on.
What’s important is that trauma does not allow for clean separations between the true and false facades. Pawbert’s acting is still an expression of who he is, with that being a person shaped by fear and survival. He switches “personas” not because he suddenly becomes someone else, but because different psychological needs are activated. At the ball, belonging and safety feel at a paw’s reach. Later on when rejection and exposure become imminent his need for survival and approval from his family overrides everything else. This would suggest that Pawbert was being his true self particularly when he felt accepted in the moment. His tragedy lies in the fact that his true self was never allowed to freely exist without fear which makes the mask come back on to protect Pawbert’s core. What might appear as an evil plan might've just been a way for his true self to exist freely at home.
Should he be in jail? Is he redeemable?
From a legal and ethical standpoint, Pawbert should be held accountable for his actions. He knowingly not only betrayed others but more importantly tried to manipulate events (commit fraud) as well as attempted murder. Accountability is necessary not only to protect others, but to also remember the real harm he has caused. Trauma does explain his behavior but it does not erase responsibility. There definitely were better ways to change his “fate” rather than attempting murder and indulging in his sick family’s desires.
With that said, punishment alone would miss the whole point as well as Pawbert's psychological reality. His actions weren’t driven by lack of conscience, but by a distorted survival framework shaped by long term abuse. Towards the end of the movie we can see the presence of guilt as well as him already trying to change by reading “Partnership for Dummies” which was earlier seen in Judy’s hands. It’s possible that after he “sobered up” from the adrenaline rush seen in either: the fight scene with Nick, or in the entire thought of fulfilling his plan and the finally becoming accepted by his father, after “sobering up” he finally realises what he did and decides to take action and start to change himself right here and there. The change suggests that Pawbert still possesses traits needed for rehabilitation. Someone incapable of redemption would show emotional detachment or pleasure in causing harm which Pawbert seemingly lacks.
A more appropriate response would therefore be restorative rather than purely punitive. Lack of freedom combined with long-term psychological counseling/ therapy would address both accountability as well as the root causes of his behavior. Therapy focused on working through his trauma as well as helping him separate his sense of worth from his family by forming an independent moral compass.
As for redemption, like stated before Pawbert appears psychologically redeemable, though not instantly and not without effort. Redemption does not mean “sweeping everything under the rug and forgetting it ever happened” but rather means having the capacity to change, reflect and over time take responsibility. The final scene of him reading in jail is significant because it shows Pawbert’s will to change and openness to healthier relationships. These indicators might be small yet meaningful showing that he’s beginning to question the worldview he was raised in and taught about.
In conclusion, finishing everything off, Pawbert should face consequences for what he did, but he should not be written off as irredeemable. His story isn’t one of unredeemable evil, but a person who was never taught how to exist outside survival. With accountability, support and time Pawbert’s arc can be understood as not a failure of morality but the starting point of genuine change.