I've been thinking more about my rediscovery of Transactional Analysis. (If you don't know about TA, please take a look at my recent blog entry about this.)
First, I was troubled with my too facile explanation for the semi-demise of TA. I attributed it to the increasing rejection of all the playful, intuitive and creative ideas of the 1960s and 1970s. With the coming of the "hard-nosed" rationalist, "me first", "taking care of number one", anti-sexuality, conservativism of the 1980s (I know, much of it was the self-delusion of the Reagan right wing.) creativity was not so valued. I do think that is part of the answer.
However, I think an even more important reason TA dropped out of sight even as Cognitive Behavior Therapy became more and more recognized as the therapy of choice for many emotional and behavioral problems is that, unlike Albert Ellis, originator of CBT/REBT, Eric Berne, the father of TA, did not fully abandon his Freudian tendencies. Many of his students and followers likewise had been trained in the same psychoanalytic, Freudian ideology.
Freudian theology believed in an invisible group of mental parts including id, ego and superego. The more dogmatic insisted on these parts as a reality. Even the most progressive still tended to reify this doctrine. So Berne and his followers initially tended likewise to conceive of the ego-states as something real, rather than as a way of conceptualizing behavior and mental processes.
As the TA therapy and theory progressed however, it became more and more behavioral. Even Berne himself, tried to distinguish the Parent, Adult and Child from Superego, Ego and Id, by stating that one could see the PAC in action; that they were behavioral. The process of counseling began with hammering out a "contract for change" which stated how "Others can see that you have changed," that is very behavioral and results oriented. Furthermore, the focus of therapy moved toward making a "decision" and then learning to follow-through on that decision by behaving (Defining emotions too as behavior) consistently in new ways.
This new understanding has led me to consider TA as one more, albeit hidden, Cognitive Behavior Therapy. Taken as simile, PAC maps very well into rational and irrational beliefs or automatic negative thoughts. There are some pieces of the TA schema which are less useful, but many more which help clients understand their habits of thought and action. Critical Parent messages are certainly mapped as irrational beliefs. The Adult is the more healthy Critical and Nurturing Parent, etc.
But it is in the realm of interpersonal dynamics that these come to life. CBT has to stretch greatly to include relational dynamics. Just as intrapersonal functions are the natural realm of REBT, CT and other CBT, interpersonal dynamics are well mapped by TA. Working with families and couples one can watch in amazement the Games play out. Ain't it awful! Let's you and him fight! Why don't you; yes but! "Now I've got you, you SOB!" and "I'm only trying to help you. Careful observation can help people see how their irrational beliefs lead them to the games and the payoff when the Victim becomes a Persecutor and the Rescuer becomes the new Victim. (For more information, search the web for the Karpman Triangle.)
The payoff for the client and therapist is that the client gets a better understanding of where to discover the wording of the irrational belief. For a couple, they can understand how their respective beliefs inter-twine to sour their relationship.
Of course, in the end, the solution is for the clients to learn to challenge their beliefs and find better rational ones. In TA terms, putting the Adult ego state in charge of the Parental and Child ego states.
I have begun incorporating my old TA training into my CBT practice and find that this is enriching my work and making it easier for clients to "get it." I have not yet, however, made a strong move toward working under "contract." And I have not been rigorous about identifying the "decision" a client needs to make. CBT does not really use the decision language very strongly, but in fact it is part of the work. I do think TA misunderstood how a decision needs to be constantly renewed. Clients who failed to fulfil a decision were too easily dismissed--at least by me and some of my TA colleagues. I have enough humility to think other TA practitioners may have done much better.
I will return to this subject from time-to-time. If you would like to learn more about Transactional Analysis, there are few better introductory books than Born To Win, by Muriel James and Dorothy Jongeward. Originally published in 1971 and updated in a 25th anniversary edition in 1996, it is still an excellent aid to self-understanding and a clear explication of Transactional Analysis.
No comments:
Post a Comment