When I am writing up therapy plans I have a few theories and models that I typically utilise to help me develop an understanding of each one of my clients and their therapeutic needs. The modality I was trained in is Transactional Analysis (TA). To give a whistle-stop, potted account, this model of Psychotherapy was created by Eric Berne and it essentially considers the interpersonal exchanges in our social lives through the lens of intersecting Ego States; Parental, Adult and Child. TA proposes that we all have a Life Script; a set of beliefs about ourselves, others and for the kind of life that we should expect to live. How this life should ultimately end, or the payoff is ultimately what we are directed towards. All of this was influenced by our upbringing; the structure and dynamic of familial relationships is considered primarily in TA as opposed to external factors like social, cultural, economic factors as considered by say, Urie Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Systems Theory (which attempts to consolidate most influences).
Â
Fig. 1 The functional model of Ego States
The Parent Ego State reflects thoughts, feelings and behaviours learned from parents. The Child Ego State reflects the thoughts, feelings and behaviour we took on as children. Adult, in a way represents our autonomy; the power to choose how we live without the overwhelming influence of the Parent or Child. Adult can be seen as the present and Parent and Child can be seen as agitators trying to pull us back into our pasts. Berne talked about behaviours like spontaneity, compliance and rebellion as being associated with Child. The Functional Ego State Model outlines the expression of the Ego States in social interaction via specific behaviours. So for instance, Parent consists of the functional states Critical (or Controlling) Parent and Nurturing Parent. Child comprises Adapted and Free Child. Things then get a bit confusing when we look at second order structure, in which the Child State itself contains a Parent, for instance. Don’t worry about that for now. Keep in mind that Adult at the centre of experience, with Parent and Child lurking furtively, ready to lay siege to your connection to the here and now. Or maybe that’s too onerous an imputation, particularly for poor old Child.
A Note on Child
It is vital to note that each of us can be ‘in’ any of these Ego States at any point. Each of us tend to have an Ego State that they find themselves in more often that others. For me, it is most definitely Adapted Child. Naturally, hearing about ‘being in Child’ can sound disparaging, thanks in no small doubt to the connotations of the word child within the context of behaviour (if it’s taken in this way, the irony is you might be responding from Child Ego State!). Child does not mean ‘you are acting like a child’. Child does not mean you’re childish, or any of the other aspersions you possibly (and ironically in this case) stored up from your experiences in childhood and reserve for your sense of esteem. Child is that part of you that, like every body else who has ever lived (read that twice) learned via the prism of its caregivers; learned how to be in the world. Learned how to survive in the world. Mindful of oversharing and boundaries, let’s just say that my childhood involved isolation, independence and abandonment (of a primary caregiver. The primary caregiver, in my case).  To be dreadfully, powerfully glib, my Child is that part of me that is terrified of being left. I recognise I’m in Child when I am fawning and looking after somebody - because I had to look after myself and put the needs of others first in order to survive. Child is in the room when I’ve interacted with somebody, it’s taken a bit of a rough turn and I’ve holed myself away, under the duvet to hold a prolonged moratorium over what I did that was ‘wrong’ (Child typically uses the black and white language of blame). My Child finds empathy for the ‘wrong-doer’ and convinces my Adult that I am at fault, whilst simultaneously exploring all the reasons the other might have acted the way they did (empathically). I guess (operative word) that this is because I had to do this early on. I had to at least try to make sense of why my mother left, never to return. The biggest, most confusing part of therapy has probably been accepting the deep, deep pain caused by this abandonment, moving in and out of forgiveness, moving in and out of empathy, moving in and out of bitterness, rage, spite, envy, injustice, victimhood, pride, weakness, strength and the whole kaleidoscopic passage of human experience - whilst reckoning with my conditioning to take blame and to project blame with the agility of an Olympic tumbler. How do you parse out certain feelings and behaviours from conditioning to authentically experience them? Am I truly feeling at fault? What would it mean to recognise the Child in these moments and to move on to figure out where my Adult is - all while honouring what my Child needs? At the moment, I find I am walking a fine line between taking accountability and taking blame. I very much doubt I am alone. I’m almost a decade-deep into this process; and I have no answers, friends. What I do have I couldn’t possibly condense into feeble words (though GOD HELP ME, I LOVE TO TRY, DON’T I?). Suffice it to say, it’s important to stress that Child is a fundamental part of all of us. Freeing it of a negative connotation; its association with immaturity for instance (when actually, my Child took on the mature position of hyper-analysing the part he played in and the resolving of conflicts by appeasing parental figures who didn’t have the maturity to do so themselves), is absolutely essential for healing and compassion. I have undertaken empty chair therapy on several occasions whereby I have conversed with my mother (her imago ‘seated’ across from me) and even inhabited her, responding to me (which is about as awkward and painful as it sounds) and this did help to break free of the Child, wounded and physically and emotionally feel my mother’s experience (albeit, still through my prism). We must honour our Child. Remember, if any of this is resonating with you, picture yourself as you literally were as that child. What would you want to say to them? What would you want to do? I think of me at roughly 13. I was obese, acne-ridden, painfully-shy, lonely and scared. I’d want to hug him. I’d want to be a consistent and supportive friend. I want to say, ‘Mark. You’re doing your absolute best. You were not equipped for this. Nobody is. No-one deserves this. You are so, so, so, so strong. I love you.’ Please talk to your Child, soon. Â
Using the Different Tools in TA
As a therapist I can determine the Ego State my client is operating from, not just from our verbal exchanges but by the way in which they find expression via the clients’ behaviour. Behaviour could mean something as straightforward as observable body language. If a client reprimands themselves and says ‘I should never have gotten involved’ and they’re frowning or folding their arms for example, it could be a useful signifier of a Critical Parent Ego State getting the head of their senses. The subjunctive mood leads into another arm of TA; Counter Injunctions. The word ‘should’ is incredibly dangerous in my opinion, and reveals what injunctions/restrictions were communicated to the child from the parents.  If the injunction was ‘Don’t Exist’ (as I felt it was for me) I made a decision on some level, within my Child Ego State to try to offset this with a counter-injunction; a decision based off the pre/non-verbal as well as literal verbal messages received from my parents. I elected the Work Hard counter-injunction as it was explicitly communicated to me that this was the optimal, most ethical and desirable way to live via my two conscientious parents. I complied with their view of the world. I did this and I survived in this way. This is an adaptive mode that has tragically erred into maladaptive. I have (and again, as many of us have done and continue to) sought validation from external sources. Sought strokes from things I do rather than finding internal love for who I am. Â
Constellating the tools within the Script Apparatus such as Ego States, we can analyse direct communicative exchanges between ourselves and others, but at the same time it helps us to analyse the intrapsychic activity of each transaction (that is, what is going on for us internally with each response). Anger is certainly illustrative of my Child. This is all related to the nervous system, Attachment and Polyvagal Theory too, but let’s stick to the Ego States. My anger is often what is known as a Racket feeling (Erskine, 1979). The Racket System is another arm of TA that can be utilised to understand your own Life Script and the distorted, self-reinforcing ways you have grown to function in the world. This also constellates with Games, and all of these behavioural sequences, so to speak, intertwine all in service to the Script. So, anger is my main Racket feeling. If we think of racket like ‘racketeering’ - you know, like the old Depression-era gangster vernacular of earning a profit, fraudulently. That’s what my anger does; it earns me a certain payoff that I have oftentimes unwittingly sought to achieve, hence the fraudulence of it all. I get angry, a lot. I do. That doesn’t mean I’m a tomato-faced hot-head who is screaming at everyone, starting fights and grinding my teeth to a brittle nub. I mean, I do that sometimes. My anger is concealed beneath the amiable smile. And yes, I am indeed a qualified therapist. Just a reminder. I’m also a wholly qualified human being, so let's normalise therapists as humans whilst we're here. I don't provide answers - that's not what therapy is.
So the racket, the fraudulence is in the feeling of anger. I often adopt anger to stand in for fear or sadness. This relates to Berne’s concepts of Trading Stamps and Game playing; I tend to please others (or at the very least, try/intend to) but collect all the little moments (stamps) where I’ve felt like I’ve not been pleased (which manifests as private anger/rage) so that I can justify, for instance, giving up on somebody before they give up on me. This all works in service to my Script and the held Script-based feelings/beliefs about myself; ergo, that I am worthless, unlovable, I am always missed, always unheard, always unseen. My Childhood experience laid the soil for these roots to spread, whether inside or outside of my consciousness. Try to think of your Script. What is it? What influenced it? How might you challenge its fraudulence? I am not worthless. I am lovable. Not everybody is going to leave me. I know this, but knowledge and understanding is one thing. Everyday application is another. Don’t worry - nobody can simply erase their Script and immediately change. I’m living proof. But we must keep trying. That is true resilience.
I don’t have to please people, of course. Oftentimes, nobody actually asked to be looked after. This is a very common Game I see with adult clients. It might be best described as a Game of See What You Made Me Do (SWYMMD) or Now I’ve Got You, You Son of a Bitch (NIGYYSOB). Games are the enemy of intimacy. We cannot connect with eachother or ever get close to one another if we are playing Games. SWYMMD is almost a way of reinforcing isolation - it is the person who is probably Avoidant and historically disappointed by people. It reinforces the Script Belief that you have to depend on yourself by castigating others and apportioning blame. If you make the autonomous decision to grant your partner, say, the decision of which restaurant to go to tonight and they, perhaps bound in a Game of I Was Only Trying to Help (IWOTTH) oblige, should something entirely arbitrary happen (outside of the control of you or your partner) such as, the food poisons you, you turn this into a moment of justifiable (to you) anger and annoyance at your partner for choosing such a place. It also absolves the player of any responsibility. There is a Determinism to this commensurate with Script itself. You are setting things up for the reinforcing payoff; you are validating the beliefs you have chosen in your Script-bound state. NIGYYSOB is something I’ve explored with people-pleasing clients. This is often the person (not unlike myself) who will play IWOTTH initially but in doing so invites advancement to NIGYYSOB. Rescuers, healers, those who offer unsolicited help and advice; they might often think that they are consciously just trying to help. However, underlying this is the set-up, the gimmick and the desired pay off. Speaking for myself, I will fawn and aim to help/please (I have been a Support Worker for over a decade, a Rehabilitation Assistant and Psychotherapeutic Counsellor for two years - this is no coincidence) but some part of me will be angling for the payoff of anger and disappointment. The gimmick is the suitable person with which to play this game. This is why certain personalities are attracted to one another; the Avoidant and the Anxious will often spark because the Avoidant doesn’t want to depend on others but needs to feel looked after. The Anxious will look after others but needs to feel secure (looking after them will hopefully keep them close). People who please are typically Anxious and fundamentally scared of being abandoned again. NIGYYSOB provides justification for this position. I have worked with clients who will go out of their way to (over) accommodate others before any of their needs (learned in childhood) and will maintain that they do it just because they’re a good person. Sure, some people are nice and nobody is saying you’re not a good person, but we have to start opening our hearts and minds to the idea that we are sub/unconsciously looking to justify our mode of living. This chronic rescuer who I’ve met in the therapy room several times will invariably end up in a situation whereby the person they’ve rescued/looked after/offered unsolicited advice to hasn’t reciprocated. NIGYYSOB players will be secretly thrilled at this opportunity to ‘capture’ or ‘ensnare’ and possibly even divest of their unlimited anger. Rather than, from Adult, considering that the person they have rescued/looked after/offered unsolicited advice does not owe them anything at all, realistically. You might have cooked a meal for somebody then waited in all day for them to come eat, but then maybe they never really asked to be cooked for, much less agreed a time to eat. But of course, you were just/only trying to help. Anyway, the difference is in the level of anger experienced by the player and the righteously indignant way they respond to being ‘let down’. Adult Ego State recognises that the world is not predicated upon, or at least relationships are not wholly predicated upon a ledger balance. This literally equates to transactional-based relationships, which of course, are not intimate, authentic or connected. Â
Example conversation/transaction
A: I think you look great
B: I don’t need you to tell me that!
One of my least favourite turns of phrase is ‘I was just saying’. Having trained in Transactional Analysis I refuse to believe that anyone ever just says something (or just does anything). In the transaction above for example, A could have been initiating from their Adult, addressing B’s Adult, simply wishing to convey a genuine compliment. Unfortunately, B has had their Child activated and is responding to A’s Parent.  Adult to Adult is a complementary transaction. Communication can flow here. Child to Parent is a crossed transaction. Communication can flourish no more. We struggle for mutual understanding. We struggle to be heard and seen.
Think of the relationship you’re currently in or relationships you’ve been in. Does a transaction like this sound familiar?
A: (Asking a straightforward, genuine question from Adult) Could you help me with this?
B: (Child triggered and responding to A’s Parent) Do you think I do nothing? I’m useless, I know!
If A had intended to activate B’s Child then the cosmic ballet would go on, and no doubt an argument would have flourished. If A, purposefully trying to engage B’s Child, was met with an Adult response though:
A:Â Could you help me with this?
B: I’d be happy to
The transaction becomes crossed and argument is side-stepped. Crossed transactions halt communication, either ineffective conversation or they resolve to effective communication (at least in terms of avoiding conflict).
Ulterior transactions reveal even more about the folly of ‘Just saying’. If you meet somebody and spark with them, you are both more often than not sparking from mutual positions of Child. You have what I need. You might say to eachother:
A: I’ll cook for you
B:Â That would be nice
A, superficially communicating from Adult is literally saying what they’re saying, and vice versa. Both parties though, are possibly communicating on an ulterior level, from Child. A is saying ‘I will look after you’ (don’t leave/reject me) and B is saying ‘I need you to look after me’ (nobody looked after me/don’t hurt me). Â
When conflict arises (as it invariably will do), the common responses we all have are neatly diagramed in 1961 by Stephen Karpman’s Drama Triangle (adopted by TA practitioners along with the other models discussed herein). As you will hopefully discover, our Script intersects with Ego States, Transactions, Attachment, Injunctions/Counter Injunctions, Games, Rackets and the Drama Triangle, making for a broad toolkit with which to try to understand ourselves and others.
Like everything else covered here, please bear in mind that we are human beings and like life itself we are fluid, ever-moving entities. Even though we might spend a lot of time in Child that does not mean we are childish. Even though we play games that does not mean we are disingenuous. Even though we avoid intimacy that does not mean we do not need it. Even though the Drama Triangle talks about Victim, Rescuer and Persecutor we are never simply any one of these. As we move in and out of Attachment Behaviours and Ego States, we shift positions on the triangle. For the benefit of understanding, I feel like the position I often take up is Rescuer. I will often aim to please and make people feel ‘OK’; which, actually, is one characteristic of mine I am very proud of. There is nothing ‘wrong’ with this. However, it can become an unhelpful characteristic when it begins to impact on your relationships and your own sense of self. Starting in Rescuer can be really helpful for me to get where I’m going; Victim. I discuss this more in far greater length in my upcoming publication (‘Victims, Aren’t We All?’). I believe that vying for the victim position offers a good deal of power in our relationships. Like the Games mentioned before, this position eradicates responsibility and can serve to justify a Life Script (even though our individual Life Script may be harmful to us, it is familiar, what we know and is therefore safe). If I move into victim whilst in conflict then my ‘adversary’ might wheel around to Rescuer, in an attempt to (just/only) help. Then I can get to where I’m going; persecutor. Now all that latent, unexpressed sadness and fear can find its fullest expression in unlimited (and obviously, completely unnecessary) anger. Hopefully it becomes clear how my Racketeering, Game playing and dominant Ego State aligns with this movement around the triangle. Consider your own by using simple transactions that you have had with another.
I would like to end by saying I’m somebody who has trained in this theory; somebody who likes to think of himself as hyper-analytical (self-critical) yet I am still learning, even at the time of writing, that my Child is frequently triggered into action - which is typically a shamed, defensive position that utilises anger. I am still learning that I am playing Games and Racketeering with my trading stamps. This was brought into my consciousness many years ago, but clearly this is never enough. I had awareness yet I’ve found myself doing it, still. Just because this post or some Instagram meme might divulge this information to you does not mean you will remedy any of it. That’s OK though, that’s not supposed to be a bummer! All of this talk of ‘being your best self’ and self-improvement espoused by grifters and Diary of a CEO-types is utterly toxic. All we can do is muddle on, as most of us do. Most of us will never consider any of this - and understandably so - it’s absolutely exhausting work, but that’s OK too. But we are here to connect with one another. We are of the world and of one another. Because of the unavoidable trials of childhood that we all traverse, we cannot but see the world through a singular lens. This to me means that true connection and attunement and truly being heard and seen by another are so utterly rare, that even when these relationships move into conflict, they are so incredibly important to inspect and to try to resolve. That begins with the work I’ve mentioned in this article.  We can only hope to resolve our relationships or connect in the first place by using compassion. For our Child. For the Child of the other. For their unmet needs. Unmet needs that drive these sequences of interactions. Move away from the roles of the triangle, into the centre. Meet me there. Let’s meet eachother there.
The song below is by a band called Tool. You could easily swap out the title for another word which is very important to TA, impasse. We'll explore this soon.
Schism
I know the pieces fit
'Cause I watched them fall away
Mildewed and smouldering
Fundamental differing
Pure intention juxtaposed
Will set two lovers' souls in motion
Disintegrating as it goes
Testing our communication
The light that fueled our fire then
Has burned a hole between us so
We cannot seem to reach an end
Crippling our communication
I know the pieces fit
'Cause I watched them tumble down
No fault, none to blame
It doesn't mean I don't desire
To point the finger, blame the other
Watch the temple topple over
To bring the pieces back together
Rediscover communication
The poetry that comes from
The squaring off between
And the circling is worth it
Finding beauty in the dissonance
There was a time that the pieces fit
But I watched them fall away
Mildewed and smouldering
Strangled by our coveting
I've done the math enough to know
The dangers of our second guessing
Doomed to crumble unless we grow
And strengthen our communication
Cold silence has
A tendency to
Atrophy any
Sense of compassion
Between supposed lovers
Between supposed lovers
I know the pieces fit
References
Berne, E., (1957a). Ego states in Psychotherapy. American Journal of Psychotherapy, 11 (2), 293–309 and (1961) Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York. Grove Press, (1964) and Games People Play: The Psychology of Human Relationships. Grove Press, New York (1972) and What Do You Say After You Say Hello. New York. Grove Press
Erskine, R. G., & Zalcman, M. J. (1979). The Racket System: A Model for Racket Analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 9(1), 51-59. https://doi.org/10.1177/036215377900900112
Karpman, S. (1968). Fairy tales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin. 7 (26), 39-43. Retrieved from: https://www. karpmandramatriangle.com/pdf/DramaTriangle. pdf