Getting Well With
Transactional Analysis
Get-On-With, Getting Well
and Get (to be) Winners
by
Franklin H. Ernst Jr.,
M.D.
Getting Well With
Transactional Analysis
Get-On-With, Getting Well
and Get (to be) Winners
by
Franklin H. Ernst, Jr.,
M. D.
First
Edition, Copyright © 1971, 2004
Second
Edition, Copyright © 2008
Addresso’Set
Publications
Getting Well With
Transactional Analysis
Get-On-With, Getting Well
and Get (to be) Winners
by
Franklin H. Ernst Jr., M.D.
A
life time has
Each
person, in the act of “being a people,” is possessed of a variety of
conflicting, diverse and divergent qualities of reasoning-feeling. These
include the multitude of activities-inactivities with which to spend one's
“time of day.” Putting it differently, the man who gets the most of what he
wants with his time and in his encounters with other persons is the one who
(1) has decided on his goals and makes a
commitment to these objectives;
(2) then specializes in the use of his time toward the end of
his perfecting techniques useful in obtaining his goals;
(3) uses these techniques and his time to
get to his goal;[2]
(4) uses the fullest range of the other (personality) qualities
within himself at appropriate times and as these latter are adaptable toward
his goals and then finally;
(5) gives satisfaction to his other life sustaining drives in a
manner and at a time that will least detract from the attainment of his
ambitions. In getting-well a person becomes a winner.
The
first business to becoming a winner is the decisive commitment to the goal. In
treatment, this is the commitment to the get-well contract.
The
second order of business to becoming a winner is to improve the capacity to sort
and classify one's own Adult qualities of self from ones Child self. This
improved capacity to sort and classify Adult from Child is requisite for
managing self.
The
best method developed to date for organizing personality qualities is
represented by the three stacked circles. Paraphrasing Caesar: “Ommia personae
est divisa in partes tres.” In the terminology of transactional analysis: “He
who owns his own (transactional) diagram can better become the master of his
own destiny!” This is diagrammatically represented in Figure No. 1.
Whether he is the
initial stimulator or the initial responder in the transaction (a “stroking
exchange”) of an encounter, the “me,” in being able to sort and classify, can
better determine “what-is-the-best-solution-for-now-for-me.”
The
most important business for becoming winners is the decisive commitment to become winners. This
provides the basis for establishing a hierarchy of priorities among the
multitude of private and public objectives each person has in mind. Since it is
literally not feasible, let alone possible, to be a winner with each and every
situation in a day or in a year, it then becomes a matter of selecting which of
the objectives and which of the qualities of transactional outcomes (forms of
resolution) will have priority on a given occasion. A person decisively
committed to becoming a success and winner with his own family will have his
priorities in a different hierarchal arrangement than, e.g., the person with a
creative genius for building a new system of transmitting (electric) power or
the founder of a new psychotherapy system.
Encounter Resolutions
A person's
day to day life is filled with a variety of encounters, one after another, with
a variety of persons and circumstances. Some encounters are a simple greeting,
a single transaction such as “Hi-Hi!”
Other encounters will involve varying numbers of words being exchanged.
At the conclusion of each encounter, no matter how many transactions between
the parties, the outcome is resolved in one of the four categories of encounter
resolutions.
Each social
encounter will have a different value for the particular person. An encounter
with a spouse or playmate will have a higher personal value than one with a
casual office or grocery store acquaintance. Nevertheless, a person experiences the outcome of each encounter with another
person, as one of the FOUR QUALITIES OF PERSONAL EXPERIENCE:
“I Am OK AND You Are OK” or
“I Am OK AND You Are Not OK” or
“I Am Not OK AND You Are OK” or
“I AM Not OK AND You Are Not OK.”
1. Get-On-With (GOW): This comes from the personal stroking
experience concluding with “I-Am-Okay-AND-You-Are-Okay.” This is a social
operation of Get-On-With, get-well-of, becoming a winner with the other party.
2. Get-Away-From (GAF): This comes from the personal stroking
experience concluding with “I-Am-Not-Okay-AND-You-Are-Okay.” This is the social
operation of Get-Away-From the other party.
3. Get-Rid-Of (GRO): This comes from the personal stroking
experience concluding with “I-Am-Okay-AND-You-Are-Not-Okay.” This is the social
operation of Get-Rid-Of the other party.
4. Get-Nowhere-With (GNW): This comes from the personal
stroking experience concluding with “I-Am-Not-Okay-AND-You-Are-Not-Okay.” This
is the social operation of Get-Nowhere-With the other party.
The four ways of concluding social
encounters are also shown in Figure No. 2.
The
OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening
Persons
familiar with this method of classifying their social operations (GOW, GAF, GRO,
GNW) report using each of these at least once a day.[3]
An example of a Get-Nowhere-With (GNW) resolution to an encounter:
Stimulus (Bob): “Hey, Al, will you sign this page for us right
away? I have got to hurry up and get it down to the boss.”
Response (Al): “Oh, hey, Bob. Let me think on it a little while
first. I won't be able to do it right now, OK?” This is a reasoned (temporary
style) Get-Nowhere-With (GNW) resolution.
The responder
is saying “I-am-not-OK,-yet-(I am not ready to do it yet) AND-You-are-not-OK
(with me yet on this). I am going to wait and study the situation a little
more, first. Could be I will see it your way after I look at it.” This is the situation of postponing. Bob got
nowhere with Al for now and Al wasn't ready yet to get somewhere with Bob. “I
am not-OK to handle it now AND you are not-OK with me, yet, as far as settling
this item one way or another.”
An example of a Get-Away-From (GAF) resolution of an encounter:
Stimulus
(Al): “Hi, Bob! Good to see you.”
Response (Bob): “Yeah, good to see you too! Hey, I want to talk
to you a minute now, if you got it.”
(Al):
“Sorry, Bob. There's a meeting down the hall I have to get to. Maybe later in
the day, though, we can do it. Okay? (leaving).”
In
this encounter, Al is resolving it operationally by getting-away-from Bob. (AND
it might be said also that Bob is essentially getting-rid-of Al).
An example of a Get-Rid-Of (GRO) encounter:
Stimulus (Al): “Well,
let's see. I think that covers all the points we had to go over here at this
staff conference today. I see the time is up for this meeting. Good to have met
with you. We will be getting together again here next week. See you then,
Good-bye for now!”
Response
(Bob): “See you.”
An example of a Get-On-With (GOW) encounter:
Stimulus (Al): “Well, the
papers here look like they are all in order. I'll sign here and you can sign
there, OK?”
Response:
(Bob): “OK!”
Position and “The
Professor”
The term "position" refers to the favored Childhood method of resolving encounters with the intimates in the particular person’s life.
"How do I handle my mommy?”
“How do I approach my sweetie, if I can get one?”
“How will I handle (a potential for) getting an award?”
“Will I get sick instead of going to collect it?"
This Child position, “favorite” method of concluding personal social events is one of the four categories of social operation. For example a “Get-Away-From” could be his/her favored Childhood method (position) for resolving high value social encounters, e.g. be embarrassed.
The Adult in the Child takes a “position” as a result of that childhood decision. This is diagrammatically represented by Figure No. 3. The “favored life position” is chosen by the Adult in the Child. This Adult in the Child is also called The Professor.
As the person becomes older, this Child and his “Professor decision” is diagramed as in Figure No. 4. The social problems, e.g. a psychoneurosis which results from this personally made early-in-childhood decision with its position is the decision and position which often brings individuals into psychotherapy as they get older. This position arises out of a very specific important behavior-modifying decision early in life. Considerable amount of personality resources (libidinal investment) was spent by the Adult of the very young person in his childhood in order to back up his childhood commitment to this decision which then becomes his “Childhood Position”.[4], [5] The decision is about what "I will never, ever, again give away about myself to anybody because when I do, then ... happens!" [6]
Position and Script
The Oedipal
era of life, say three to four years old, is concerned with adopting the
particular Script which will furnish the drama potential for the rest of life
and offer the basic methods for organizing one's time of life, a lifetime. A
person’s life script usually closely resembles some myth, legend, or fairy
tale.
Each person, in selecting his script, learns all the character
roles in this script. More specifically, he learns at least one of the
character roles for each of the four major OK Corral positions in his selected
script,[7],
[8]
i.e. GOW, GAF, GRO, GNW. (See Figure No. 5)
With the
diagramed quadrant method of organizing events, then it becomes possible not
only to organize encounter resolutions, but also, it is possible to sort out
the characters and players of each Script (fairy tale, myth, or legend) story
into the four categories of social operation, i.e., how does each of the
characters in the story resolve his intimacy encounters.[9] In this instance, the scripts referred to are
those fairy tale stories, myths, or legends that have been told from generation
to generation, that have been read to children from books; those stories that
have not only survived, but flourished in the appeal generated in their telling
year after year, generation after generation.
It is
possible to place the various characters, the various players of a script story
within the OK Corral: Grid for What’s
Happening. Each individual character in a fairy tale, script story, can be
placed into one of the four (position) quadrants, as with the example of the
story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears.” Goldilocks is the person (usually a
girl) who breaks into a home, tries out everything, e.g. the different chairs,
the different clothes, the beds, the different foods, different …
. And with each different
category she tries out all the articles: air conditioning, settings, the rooms,
the sizes and styles of clothing in the hunt to find in each selection of
articles, foods, rooms, etc. …. the hunt
is to find what is “just exactly right,
just exactly fits her, or pleases her the best.”
So then after
some time in the house, Goldilocks runs out and back to home.
When the
three bears return home, the Papa bear, Mama bear, and Baby bear note the
disarray and … of their dwelling. Little bear develops a sense of kinship with
Goldilocks in part of the story.
The key
attribute through the story is that Goldilocks finds things which are “just
exactly right” and what is “not just exactly right.” Thus the attribute for OK
in this script, i.e. what makes for OK
is “just exactly right” and not-OK is “not just exactly right”; for
example too big, too small, too much, not enough, too hot, too cold, etc.
So Goldilocks
characteristically is classified as handling events in the Get-Away-From (GAF)
manner. Mama and Papa bear (“Who’s been eating my porridge?”) are seen as
individuals who get-rid-of other persons in their encounters. Baby Bear
characteristically gets-nowhere-with situations. This poor little kid (bear)
gets his belongings used up, gets his things broken, gets robbed of his
goodies; he just can’t seem to get anywhere in his life events.
Figure No. 6
shows the characters of Goldilocks and the Three Bears “sorted,” into the
quadrants of the OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening.
In
shortened versions of fairy tales there are individuals who are not
specifically mentioned by name.[10] In the Goldilocks story, the mother of Goldilocks
is such a person. The mother of Goldilocks could for example be a woman who,
when asked about, is seen as a person who gets rid of people who are important
to her. Why? Because for example, she can be pictured as “a big fat lady” who's
reading her True Confessions at home while eating chocolates. Mother has two
things in mind. One, she wants to read
and eat. And two, what to do with that “brat that I have to take care of” (her
daughter Goldie)? Goldilocks is a girl (or a boy) who intermittently returns to
the house where her mother lives. Her mother greets her on her returns by
either saying “Go away kid, get lost, don't be pestering me so much, get out of
my hair, you are driving me crazy” or, alternatively, if mother happens to look
up between stories and misses Goldilocks, then she says on Goldie's return home
“Where the hell have you been, I told you not to wander away from home where I
can't see you!” Bam! Bam! Bam! Either way, Goldilocks feels nobody ever wants
her around, only wants to GRO her, so she wants to get away from her mother.
Goldilocks as
a real person is quite difficult to get a commitment from. Goldilocks is
characteristically a person who is difficult to work with. To quote one therapist “They run in and then
they run out of your office. They come in for an interview or two and then take
off, and you don't see them again for a while. And they really do run very
fast.” One Goldilocks was a woman who would enter into the group conversation
talking very fast. (She spoke the language referred to as “Speedish.”) “When I
was small, I could run faster than anyone else in my neighborhood,” to which
someone in the group responded, “Yeah, the fastest girl on the block.”
Assigning
characters to the different quadrants in the OK Corral, however, leaves no
identified individual assigned to the get-on-with quadrant. (See Figure No.
6) But as with all fairy tales studied
in this manner to date, there is someone, at least one characterization for
each of the four quadrants (positions). In the instance of Goldilocks, it is
“The Forest Owners,” Mr. and Mrs. Forest Owner, who are the GOW persons in the
drama.
A person can
live in and come to make peace with his own script during the trip and
adventure of getting well. To condense this: This is done by identifying one’s
own fairy tale, script and classifying each of the characters in his particular
fairy tale into one of the four positions of the OK Corral: Grid for What’s
Happening. Identify what the unique value for that particular fairy tale is which
makes for “okayness,” one character to the other in the story, the social
events of each character in their encounters. A person who has identified his
script and the Okay value for his script, can then identify which character he
is “coming on in the manner of” and then shift, if he decides it is desirable.[11] Persons who have gotten well using this
strategy have done so by moving a percentage (as much as 3%) of their encounter
resolutions into the GOW category of resolution. So then it becomes important
in getting-well that the value of what makes for Okayness be located. What is
the quality, the item, the unique, innate social value that counts for Okayness
and Non-Okayness in the story; and therefore, in the particular person's life.
The value for Okay is multifaceted like a quality diamond.
For those
persons who have the same script-story (fairy-tale) the value for Okay does not
change from person to person. The Okay value varies from fairy tale to fairy
tale.
The Okayness
value (for persons with) the script-story of “Goldilocks and the Three Bears,”
is the multifaceted value of “(not) just exactly right.”
In each
instance of dealing with a “Goldilocks and the Three Bears” to date, the “Okay”
value of “just exactly right,” has been a workable key whereby a get-well has
become achievable.
The Frog Prince
One couple recognized that their games (of Games People Play) were regularly ending with reciprocated Get-Away-From (GAF) and Get-Rid-Of (GRO) payoffs. Allegorically, this Frog Prince, Simon, was repetitively going down to the bottom of the pool and retrieving Sue’s ball for her. When he gave the ball to her he would also provocatively act gruff, play Pounce ("bwwrrraaawwwaaawwk" like a Frog should). This would frighten Sue again into running away from him. One night after fleeing from home, she thought to herself:
"How am I going to get-away-from him? I
was furious at him for scaring me again. How was I going to get-away-from Simon
so that he would never, ever, ever again find me, to scare me. Then I began to
think (say) to myself: ‘Hey, wait a
minute! What am I doing here? This looks familiar. This is what I have been doing all
along. This isn't what I want to
do. If I get-away-from him then that's
the get-away-from outcome and I don't want to do that. What am I supposed to be wanting to
do?’ Then I figured to myself: ‘What I
want to do is get-on-with him. Oh,
gee! Shucks! Heck!’
So I thought to myself: ‘This is my fighter Child. I give up. What I want to do is to
get-on-with Simon, not get-away-from him.’
So I went home."
Once Sue decided to let her husband
be OK he became a “King” in her thinking about him, AND she “grew up”, became a
Queen in her own life. The terminology (“get-on-with”, “get-away-from”,
“get-rid-of”, “get-nowhere-with”) was a part of her get-well tool kit.
“Problem” or “Talent”
Getting
well means to validate the authenticity of one’s own Childself; not be mad at
one’s own Childself for his traits. Each game move and payoff of one’s own
Child can be valued.[12]
This includes the so-called "bad traits." Instead, locate how these
traits can be incorporated, integrated into the vivacity, creativity and
spontaneity of his Childself: “Hate,” “violence,” “meanness” … .
These each have large chunks of vitality as they are expressed. The
treater's job is to vindicate the Child and his “traits,” not disavow, not
get-rid-of these qualities. “Hate” can be seen as strength of perseverance;
“stubborn” can be seen as strength of purpose, decisive determination;
“violence,” a capability for a rapid summoning of all personal resources for an
immediate action, for example “throwing yourself into a job.” “Meanness” can be
seen as the ability to get “into” the other person, “get under the other
person's skin.” As a talent, it is the ability to stimulate another person into
goal-directed responsiveness; built out of the same capabilities as
seductiveness. Cross-eyedness, as a way of thinking, is the essence of humor
where views are overlapped. "Goopy marshmallow giving" can be
modified into mechanical generosity in order to get responsiveness. These
“problem traits,” however, do need to be refocused.
Get-Well Mechanical Style:
“Getting
well mechanical style” is Adult programmed Get-On-With (GOW) in order to
activate the Position for Getting Well.
The
point of this is that after the decisive commitment is made to get-on-with
getting well of a problem and becoming a winner (“get winners”), the treater
and “patient” then become increasingly desirous of locating and
identifying the person's script story and the story's method (value) for conferring “Okayness,”
“not-Okayness” on people close to the person with “the problem”
in the intimate encounters of life. The treater, however, need not be at a
standstill waiting for the script and Okay Value to be found. Shortly after the
PAC (Parent-Adult-Child) sorting has been initiated, treater begins to draw
patient's attention to the “Okayness about me and you” encounters. Then the
treater shows a patient how to use his own Adult to program some GOW
operations, to activate the POSITION FOR GETTING WELL more often.
In
group this is called “getting well mechanical style” because of the oft
announced “but I don't feel it.” The identified patient is told that the
Childhood part of himself may not have changed his mind yet about another person.
But his Adult self who wants to get well of his problem is able to carry
through some business like transactions in a manner with the other person
(nevertheless even though still angry at him) in order to selectively increase
the frequency of getting-on-with this particular person in his social
encounters. The person being treated is already using each one of the four
operational solutions shown in his OK Corral at least once each day.
After a person has made the decisive commitment to get-on-with getting well of a problem (such as forgiving somebody he has been holding a grudge against), the therapist and the patient become increasingly desirous of locating and identifying ways of conferring more "Okayness" into some of the person’s (patient's) Adult oriented encounters.
An individual can initiate the use of his own Adult to bring about “in a thoughtful manner” some more Get-On-With operations with selected persons he encounters, in order to activate “the position for getting well” (get-on-with) in himself more often. In group treatment this is called "getting well mechanical style" because of the oft announced “but I don't feel like it,” “It feels artificial when I do it.”
The person can be told that the Childhood part of himself may not have changed his mind, yet, but that his Adult self is able to carry out some transactions in a manner to selectively increase the frequency of getting-on-with some situations and persons. His own Adult can make decisions which differ from his own Child self’s view of the same situation.
By changing a percentage (3%) of the
resolutions into GOW instead of vain attempts at changing his script, (the
basis for his time of life), the individual can keep the same value for Okaying
of self and others. He can keep most of his same intimates and polish up his
already developed ways of getting “glowing” GOW intimacy satisfactions;
techniques developed before the age of seven, which had fallen into disuse
since the early in life “not-give-myself-away” program began. He can keep the
same games and the same positions, can keep the same rituals, the same other
activities in his life.
In other words:
1.
Sort Adult and Child 
2.
Increase the frequency of Get-On-With in personal life. 
Increase by 3%.
Taking Advantage of Encounters/Opportunities with Other People:
Life is one
opportunity (encounter) after another. Opportunities come in the form of
encounters with other people. These opportunities with other individuals can be
taken advantage of in some manner or other, either by personal (Adult) design
or at the whim of the "unconscious feeling" of one or both persons.
Encounters are opportunities to exploit in some way, in some manner. To take
advantage of the opportunities that come along during a day's time means to
advantageously exploit the individual encounter opportunity in one of the four
methods of “getting along with each other,” i.e., either to GOW, to GAF, to GRO
or to GNW. Consciously deliberate,
objectively computed “manipulations” to procure a GOW for one's self AND the
other person can only add to the zest of the other person's life, e.g., a
reciprocated glowing smile.[13]
In a prison
therapy group, Terry had been “leading the therapist on.” After some ten
transactions,
Bob: “Hey,
Doc! Doc!”
Therapist:
“Yeah! What?”
Bob: “Doc,
you been HAD!”
Therapist,
then: “What? Oh no! Not Terry! Terry, you wouldn't?”
Bob,
repeating: “Doc, you been HAD.”
Therapist
reflected a few seconds and then noticed he had, in fact become quite warm. For
sure, Bob was right. Therapist thought some more afterward, to then discover
that by deciding that it was “okay to be HAD,” that there could be an enjoyment
and pleasure in “being HAD.” After all, the first person who ever HAD anyone
was his “Mommy.”
In
another example Harry described how he dealt with a work “problem.” Harry
turned a mythical label placed on him into a Get-On-With advantage for everyone.
He had been cornered into working 10 to 14 hour days, 6 days a week. And then
the talk among people around him was that he was “stressed out.” Harry figured
out that by joining up with the mythology he could de-mythologize, become less
stressed, and reduce his work load. He invented a mythical, invisible dog and
occasionally played like it tugged on it’s mythical leash, straining, and
snarling at the end of a make believe leash. After that, whenever Harry
appeared to be getting into a stressful situation he motioned, gave away by his
body language to others as if pulling on the leash of his dog, reigning in the
dog, sometimes saying: “easy, easy, easy boy.” He told people his dog’s name
was “Stressed Out.” When Harry told Teresa this she giggled and smiled. The
laughter and smiles were reassuring for everyone. He was OK. What a relief to
be able to reign in “Stressed Out” for everyone to see and get-on-with
business.
General
George Patton named his dog “Coward.”
Techniques for Getting Well
Techniques
that increase the frequency of GOW resolutions of encounters with others can be
called “prescriptions for getting well,” and can be used for “getting well
mechanical style.” This is also referred to as “Get well first and find out why
later!” The more mechanical -- the more thoughtful, schematically plotting,
programming and planning ahead for “getting well”, the better and faster a
“get-well” can be accomplished.
For example,
“Give more thank-you’s to more people. And you can start doing it now.” The
Adult of the identified person at first is not practiced in the technique of
Okaying another person in order to secure a reciprocated OK for himself. The
Adult in the person at first “feels stiff.” Often when first trying out “Get
Well Mechanical Style” the person says: “It feels phony. I feel like a phony. I
feel insincere when I am doing it.” But after some practice, this person
committed to “getting well” quite often says: “I feel OK now when I am giving
these thank you’s and I see the other person warming up back to me. It works.”
The initial mechanical stiffness is similar to playing a musical instrument for
the first time.
Josephine, in
her first group session, was noted repeatedly ending her words with an “I don't
know” in a subdued voice at the end of sentences. She was given the
prescription: “Cut back your ‘I don't knows’ maybe as much as 1 in 10. Don't stop them, keep them and count
them.” This had the effect of stimulating her own Adult into “counting” and
thus becoming more in charge of herself while away from the treatment setting.
Her Child self was not alienated, was not told to get-rid-of “I don't know” nor
that "I don't know" was bad. Her Adult was given the chance to take over
some management of her transactions with other people, this through the next
week by the straight-forward mechanical act of counting (her “I don’t knows”).
For those to whom “get-well mechanical style” is strange, there is this to say:
Get-Well Mechanical Style is a functional form of the Adult ego state in the
person leading the inside “troubled Child” to obtain a GET-WELL (of the
symptom), “Get well first.”
Some of the
prescribed techniques (“prescriptions”) are:
(1) “Get-a-level (head),”
(2) “Gently rub you teeth over each
other,”
(3) “Give with more audibles
(vocals) when listening,”
(4) “Give a named Hello to 15 people
a day,”
(5) “Make-a-(name)-Seating-Diagram
at your meetings and in your classrooms,”
(6) “Give him his name more often.”
Recall that a
game player, by carefully timing when he is most likely to be rebuffed, can
choose to then give out with an audible expression in spoken words:
“I-am-OK-and-You-are-OK also.” By “correctly” timing this expression of good
will you can instead guarantee getting yourself rebuffed. This can be done in
order to be rebuffed by someone and ultimately to prove the validity of the particular person’s own
non-winner position and thesis, that it doesn't pay to give-yourself-away:
“See! See there! It just doesn't pay to try to be Okay with You! There, that
proves it!”
The OK
person, committed to “getting well,” will time his GOW efforts better, rather
than to prove “it doesn’t help, it doesn’t work.”
Efficiency In Wanting:
“YOU JUST
CAN'T BE FRIENDS WITH EVERYBODY!” nor afford to give an OK to everyone. At
times a GOW solution to an encounter is not consistent with efficiency in
wanting, the essence of winning.[14]
Another
aspect of the goal of “getting well” is to decrease the “stamp collecting” and
“stamp issuing”; in order to reduce the frequency and the intensity of “burning
your bridges behind you,” of “standing up for my rights (and on top of the
other guy's)” or of “telling him off.”
A Get-well, Get Winners, Becoming a Winner:
In group Mrs.
Fair Thare More was coming to get well of longstanding high blood pressure.
“And-nothing-more-was-said” was the usual payoff to her game of “Furthermore.”
For a long time she rarely talked to someone in group unless in derision (“a
shitty remark”) or to give a “troubled mouth” in her group a soothing-toned
“Why don't you?” (“marshmallow”) which on decoding meant “go practice drowning”
or “get lost.” Her Adult ego state began on prescription (at first haltingly),
to give more “okays,” “thank you’s,” “good for you’s,” “you're okays” to other
persons in her group. One day, seemingly out of context, in a clear, focused
voice, with level countenance and a warm face, she told Teenie Athena: “Teenia,
that lipstick you're wearing sets your complexion off the best I have ever seen
you!” Teenia, surprised out of her
usual: “Oh, it's nothing!” get-rid-of cross-up, came level herself and without
affectation gave a: “Why, thank you very much Fair!” Both looked warmly at each
other for one full second as group quietly watched.[15]
Schematically:
1. A GOW encounter resolution will most often get a GOW response
back,
2. A GAF resolution will be complementary to a GRO resolution,
3. A GRO will be reciprocated by a GAF, and
4. A GNW will be reciprocated by a GNW.
“WINNERS” Defined:
Losers call
it blushing, being embarrassed, getting-red-in-the-face, being (made to feel)
self-conscious. For Winners, it is “glowing,” it is warm. To be a winner is to
be “now and here,” with someone else. It is to be the best. It is to be seen,
identifiable, to be awarded. A winner has given himself away for others to
know. He has earned an award, demonstrated a skill, an ability of merit. This
award is given by another person, the awarder. On arriving in center circle,
there to be awarded, the winner meets the awarder. In receiving the award, the
winner visibly glows, manifests pleasure, gives himself away to the awarder
(plus any onlookers). The winner is glowing for and at the awarder. He shows
"now and here" that the awarder is also a winner; the awarder glows
responsively for the so-called primary winner. The winner is an authentic
person, winning is the essence of authenticity. A winner gets cheers and he
gets jeers from onlookers; but more acclaiming than defaming.[16]
The Warm Face Experiences in the OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening are shown
in Figure No. 9. [17],
[18]
Varieties of Intimacy
Intimacy is
one of the six ways of structuring time. [19] It is game-free. It is one which is free of
pastimes, it is a non-work activity. It is an event which is non-withdrawal
from the other person.[20],
[21] It is an encounter activity free of ritual,
often carried out within “the 22-inch” intimacy distance between persons.
Intimacy, however, need not occur within this twenty-two (22) inch zone of personal space.
Intimacy, of
and in itself, is not intrinsically a “good” activity.
It is here
proposed that acts of an intimate nature, can be classified into the four major
operational solutions for life events as follows:
(1) Get-On-With (the other person): This is intimacy for a
maximal quality of I-Am-Okay-AND-You-Are-Okay, given to each other and
returned. These are the warm, the “glowing,” the “winner” acts of intimacy.
This quality of intimacy can be divided into the reversible quality of intimacy
such as when the act is not witnessed, not productive of a dividend (pregnancy)
or when not legalized. Examples of irreversible acts are inferred from the
preceding, i.e. (a) a “fifteen minute quickie” between a married couple and (b)
the “one night stand” between a “casual” couple.
(2) Get-Away-From intimacy is portrayed by Jerry in Edward
Albee's one-act play “The Zoo Story.” [22]
(3) Get-Rid-Of category of intimacy is carried out from the
position of I-Am-Okay-AND-You-Are-Not-Okay. It is typified in examples reported
by (spouse-killer) patients in a prison psychotherapy treatment group, as they
told of their own acts of killing a mate. To quote from one, “I looked at her,
into her eyes as she saw me raising my gun and I saw her...” (then describing
the act of watching each other, her eyes going dead as she wilted, dying in the
describer's arms). Examples of a reversible style of Get-Rid-Of type of
intimacy are regularly available to witness in Superior Courts during divorces
(reversible because the couples not infrequently do later get back together
again).
(4) The Get-Nowhere-With style of intimacy, has several literary
examples. To name a few: (a) the suicide-homicide pact carried out by the
runaway wife and the AWOL soldier at the end of the movie “Elvira
Madigan,” (b) the end of the opera
“Aida” where the queen meets her lover, the sentenced general, inside the
sealed tomb of his execution, (c) the sergeant and his Japanese wife with their
double suicide in the movie “Sayonara.” Newspapers at intervals will have a
story titled, “Couple in Love Pact Deaths.”
A
reversible quality of get-nowhere-with-each-other act of intimacy would be that
of the “hangover” alcoholic. He is acutely, painfully sensitive to all peopled
sights and sounds during his hangover. He allows no one to give him sympathy,
allows no one to make noise around him, but demands that he not be left alone.
The implication being that another drink would help the hangover if he is left
to himself.
As some
readers will already have determined the above descriptions show that an act of
intimacy often follows as the payoff of a game. Probably more frequently than
clinicians are aware, get-on-with acts of intimacy (style of payoff) do occur
in first and second degree games. And it is reasonable that the psychotherapist
does not hear of these inasmuch as this “glowing” intimacy does not furnish the
clinician with any problem to treat.
Among other
things “A game is the bridge to intimacy between people ... .” (
Bibliography
1. Berne, Eric, M. D.,
“Research: More About Intimacy”, Transactional Analysis Bulletin, April 1964,
Vol. 3, No. 10, Page 125, San Francisco Social Psychiatry Seminars, Inc.
2. Berne, Eric, M. D.,
“Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, Grove Press, Inc., New York, 1961.
3. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Encounter, A Get-Well”, The Encounterer, August 20, 1969,
Volume 1, No. 13, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
4. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Efficiency in Wanting Is Measurable”, The
Encounterer, February 20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 4, Golden Gate Foundation for
Group Treatment, Inc.
5. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Social Operations and Encounter Solutions”, The
Encounterer, September 20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 15, Golden Gate Foundation
for Group Treatment, Inc.
6. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Okayness Value for the Pinocchio Script: 'Okay'
Equals Self-Directed, Able to Manage Self”, The Encounterer, May 5,
1970, Volume 2, No. 29, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
7. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Facial Warm-Up”, The Encounterer, May 20,
1970, Volume 2, No. 30, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
8. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Get-Well
Matrix for the script Princess-And-The-Pea”, The Encounterer, November
20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 19, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
9. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Script: Theory
of Getting-Well: In the Script of Little-Red-Riding-Hood”, The Encounterer,
April 5, 1969, Volume 1, No. 7, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment,
Inc.
10. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Theory of
Getting Well: Part 1, Positions Within Scripts”, The Encounterer,
February 5, 1969, Volume 1, No. 3, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment,
Inc.
11. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Varieties
of Intimacy Are Classifiable: Intimacy Organized”, The Encounterer,
April 5, 1970, Volume 2, No. 27, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment,
Inc.
12. Ernst, Franklin H, Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Theory of
Getting Well: Part 3, Script and Gender”, The Encounterer, June 5, 1969,
Volume 1, No. 11, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
13. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Winners
Defined”, The Encounterer, April 20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 8, Golden Gate
Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
14. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Handbook of Listening /
Transactional Analysis of the Listening Activity” Second Edition, Addresso’Set
Publications, Vallejo, California, 2008.
15. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “OK Corral: Grid for What’s
Happening / Eric Berne Memorial Scientific Award Acceptance Speech, Boston,
Mass, 1981.”
16. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “The Game Diagram”
Second Edition, Addresso’Set Publications, Vallejo, CA, 2008.
17. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Transactional
Analysis in the OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening.” Addresso’Set
Publications, Vallejo, California, 2008.
18. Harris, Thomas A., M.D., “I'M OK, YOU'RE OK”, Harper and
Rowe, New York and Evanston, 1969.
Footnotes:
1. Related papers by Franklin H. Ernst Jr., M.D.:
(a) “Transactional Analysis in the OK
Corral: Grid for What’s Happening”,
(b) “OK Corral: Grid for What’s Happening /
Eric Berne Memorial Scientific Award Acceptance Speech,
Boston,
1981.”
(c) “Handbook of Listening / Transactional
Analysis of the Listening Activity”
2. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Efficiency in Wanting
Is Measurable”, The Encounterer, Vol. 1 No. 4, 2-20-1969, Golden Gate Foundation for Group
Treatment, Inc.
3. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Social Operations
and Encounter Solutions”, The Encounterer, Vol..1, No. 15, 9-20-1969,
Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
4. Berne, Eric, M.D.: “Transactional Analysis in
Psychotherapy”, Grove Press, New York, NY, 1961.
5. Harris, Thomas, M.D.: “I'M OK, YOU’RE OK”, Harper-Row, New York, NY, 1969.
6. Ernst, F.H. Jr., M.D.: “Leaving Your Mark, Use of the Graffito in Group Treatment”, Addresso’Set Publications, Vallejo, California, 1968.
7. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Theory of Getting Well: Part 1, Positions Within
Scripts”, The Encounterer, February 5, 1969, Volume 1, No. 3, Golden
Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
8. Ernst, Franklin H,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Theory of Getting Well: Part 3, Script and Gender”, The
Encounterer, June 5, 1969, Volume 1, No. 11, Golden Gate Foundation for
Group Treatment, Inc.
9. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Get-Well Matrix
for the Script Princess-And-The-Pea”, The Encounterer, November 20,
1969, Volume 1, No. 19, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
10. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Script: Theory of
Getting-Well: In the Script of Little-Red-Riding-Hood”, The Encounterer,
April 5, 1969, Volume 1, No. 7, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment,
Inc.
11. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Okayness
Value for the Pinocchio Script: 'Okay' Equals Self-Directed, Able to Manage
Self”, The Encounterer, May 5, 1970, Volume 2, No. 29, Golden Gate
Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
12. Ernst, F.H. Jr.,
M.D.: “The Game Diagram”, Second Edition, Addresso’Set Publications, Vallejo,
California. 2008
13. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Facial
Warm-Up”, The Encounterer, Vol. 2, No. 30, May 20, 1970 Golden Gate
Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
14. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Social Operations and Encounter Solutions”, The
Encounterer, September 20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 15, Golden Gate Foundation
for Group Treatment, Inc.
15. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Encounter, A Get-Well”, The
Encounterer, August 20, 1969, Volume 1, No. 13, Golden Gate Foundation for
Group Treatment, Inc.
16. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: Winners Defined” The Encounterer, April 20,
1969, Volume 1, No. 8, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
17. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Encounter, A Get-Well”, The Encounterer, August 20, 1969,
Volume 1, No. 13, Golden Gate Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
18. Ernst, Franklin H., Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Facial Warm-Up”, The
Encounterer, May 20, 1970, Vol. 2, No. 30, Golden Gate Foundation for Group
Treatment, Inc.
19. Ernst, Franklin H.,
Jr., M.D., “Formulation: The Varieties of Intimacy Are Classifiable: Intimacy
Organized” The Encounterer, April 5, 1970, Volume 2, No. 27, Golden Gate
Foundation for Group Treatment, Inc.
20. Berne, Eric, M. D.,
“Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy”, Grove Press, Inc., New York, 1961.
21. Berne, Eric, M. D.,
“Research: More About Intimacy”, Transactional Analysis Bulletin, April 1964,
Volume 3, No. 10, Page 125, San Francisco Social Psychiatry Seminars, Inc.
22. This 14-minute play
is also one of the best dramatic presentations of a social encounter between
two people progressing from Withdrawal, to a (greeting) Ritual, through a
Pastime and then a Game and then end in an act of Intimacy. In this drama,
Jerry brings events to the point of getting “Peter" to knife him to death
as he looks into the eyes of his self-selected, unwilling, horrified executioner.