Monday, January 17, 2011

Transactional Analysis
Part 1

Transactional Analysis is a branch of Psychology (a Social Psychology) that was developed by Dr. Eric Berne as a means to critique the social interactions between People. He wanted to design a system of analysis that was easy to understand and use for the common person. People, he said, were threefold and consist of a Parent, Adult, and a Child (PAC) EGO State. The Parent represents the socialization data we received from our Caretakers. The Child represents our reaction to this data, and the Adult represents our response and interpretation of this data. Dr. Berne suggested that in any social “transaction”, you can always discern who you are (Parent, Adult, or Child?), and who you’re communicating with (Parent, Adult, or Child?). Here’s an example to illustrate the following “transactions”. Keep in Mind that these transactions reflect Parent, Child, or Adult (PAC) exchanges of People who are physically mature (18 years +):

Parent: You need to stop talking like that.
Child: I don’t care.

Adult: What time are you getting off of work?
Adult: Around 4pm.

Child: I got the Supreme Wisdom Book from The Leader himself!
Child: Well I got 120 from First Born Prince!

Parent: The food in the Cafeteria is always nasty.
Parent: I know, and it’s always cold too.

Child: She will never like me.
Adult: So what are you going to do about that?

Parent: Christians worship a White Jesus.
Adult: Not all Christians. The National Catholic Reporter sponsored an International Art Competition to come up with an image of ‘Jesus of 2000’. A White Woman named Janet McKenzie won and her picture is a Black Jesus.

Based upon the above examples, you can cee where the Communication can easily break down, how Communication will only go in a circle, and how Communication can be something progressive. The Communication that does break down is defined as ‘crossed transactions’ because People are coming from two different places. Someone may be striving to have an Adult conversation and we may be responding like a Child. We may be discussing something as a Parent, and the other person is just being an Adult about it. It’s like Bob Dylan says in his song Shelter from the Storm’, “I got my signals crossed.” One thing Dr. Berne also suggested is that as long as the transactions are complementary (Adult-Adult, Child-Child, Parent-Parent), then these interactions can go on indefinitely. Complementary transactions ARE NOT only defined as Adult-Adult, Child-Child, and Parent-Parent either. Sometimes a complementary transaction can be considered Parent-Child: which is oftentimes the 1950’s, Male/Female, Eurocentric-styled Patriarchal Dynamic that Original People have often adopted in the Conscious Community. In The NGE, this Dynamic expresses itself as a God coming home to be greeted by his barefoot, meek, unintelligible Earth. She usually knows little to nothing about our Culture, is alienated from his social equality, and has his vegetarian dinner and 5 Percenter Newspaper ready for him when he walks in the door. It also goes the other way around where Gods play the role of a Child and the Earth plays the role of Parent (Mother). In this Dynamic the God usually doesn’t work or has never had a consistent work history. So he sits at home or stays in the streets while the Earth takes care of basically everything, including him, with the rest of her other children.

One thing you’ll also notice about the (PAC) is this: based upon how a person predominately interacts with others, they can be either heavily influenced by the Parent, or heavily influenced by the Child. If they’re heavily influenced by The Parent, they tend to be ‘prejudiced’ in their perspectives because they’re running off of some archaic data they received from their Parents: “Don’t trust nobody”, “All Men cheat”, “Light skin is more beautiful”, “Jehovah is God”, etc.. A person heavily influenced by their Parent is also overly serious, lacks fun and sense of humor. If a person is heavily influenced by The Child, they tend to be delusional in their perspectives because they’re running off of data in reaction to their Parents: “When I met you 2 weeks ago, I fell in love you. Will you marry me?”, “When I finish this demo tape I’ll be on Oprah.”, “I know you were talking about me, you’re laughing”, “When I hit this number tonight, I’m gonna buy you a Lamborghini!” A person heavily influenced by their Child also lacks a conscience, responsibility, and makes a lot of decisions off of whim with very little regard for the consequences. They’re more concerned about having fun more than anything. Sometimes you have a person who has what is called ‘a blocked out Adult’. This person is deemed psychotic because they didn’t consciously process the socialization they received from their Parent nor have they processed how they reacted as a Child. Therefore, they have no clear sense of right versus wrong.

In the positive sense, and with proper balance, the Parent influence brings order, stability, and tradition. The Adult brings responsibility, discernment, and options. The Child brings creativity, flexibility, and growth. In order to access these positive characteristics, a person must be in an Adult Position of ‘responsibility’ to ‘discern’ these ‘options’. The Adult serves as the cognitive, psychological, and emotional filter of our Parent and Child data. Within 120, one of these Adult Positions is characterized by the phrase, “so we put them on the worst part and kept the best part preserved for ourselves.” Although I don’t advocate that a person has three separate components to the Self, I can cee the importance of being a responsible Adult about recognizing possible Parental ‘prejudices’ we’ve adopted (Religion: “said other than10/1-10), and Childlike ‘delusions’ (Misled: “there is no Mystery God10/1-40) that make us “easily led in the wrong direction, and hard to be led in the right direction.” (14/1-40) All of us were children at one point in our physical growth & development. That Child was shaped and molded by the experiences via our Caretakers (Parent). As we’ve grown into Adults, we decide for ourselves how we want to use these experiences to shape/define our life.

According to Dr. Thomas Harris in his Book I'm O.K., You're O.K. , based upon our Parent, Adult, Child (PAC) socialization, there are four Psychological Positions that People have in Life:

1.) I’m NOT O.K. and you’re O.K.
I’m NOT O.K. and you’re NOT O.K.
I’m O.K. and you’re NOT O.K.
I’m O.K. and you’re O.K.

I’m NOT O.K. and you’re O.K. (You’re better than me!)
This type of person can be defined as a Chronic Complainer, Anti-Social, Hater, a Solicitor for Pity, Competitor, and Malcontent. They’re NOT O.K. because they never received an adequate amount of stroking/reassurance, or came to terms with preverbal/formative experiences and Trauma they suffered in childhood and throughout their lives such as: molestation, abuse, neglect, poverty, bullying, disenfranchisement, Parental Alienation, Racism, and other experiences that reinforced those initial impressions of NOT being O.K. as a baby. Because they’re NOT O.K. and look at others as being O.K., they may find comfort in alienating themselves from People who are O.K. because it hurts to be around “O.K.” People. Being around O.K. People only magnifies that they’re NOT O.K.. These type of People usually alienate themselves; anonymously existing on “an island” (27/1-40), and fail to maintain significant relationships with others because they never learned how to. You may find them living in rural/out of the way places, completely detached from Family and a Community, stewing in their own psychological juices. Because of their sense of detachment, this type of person is inclined towards fiction (“lies”: 4/1-14). Using fiction in the form of fictitious names, people, places, and things, they manufactures a Fantasy World around themselves, and usually have none to very few valid sources to verify any of their actual exploits, adventures, or endeavors.

Another thing that’s characteristic of a person who’s Life Position is ‘I’m NOT O.K. and you’re O.K.’ is that they’re ultra-insecure if/when they’re around others. They thrive on Competition and always feel a need to prove how better, smarter, wealthier, attractive, etc. they are than everybody else. All of this is a transparent “shield” (5/1-14), because deep down inside, they’re really NOT O.K. and it’s always made obvious by the fact that they go out of their way to try to prove to People that they are. Some People are under the impression that competition/adversity, whether real or imagined, is a motivating factor to make them achieve their goals. The reality is, it’s not really the competition/adversity that’s motivating NOT O.K People. If it was, then they would be O.K. when the dust clears. Unfortunately this is usually not the case, and when the dust clears, you’ll cee/hear this person still talking about their next battle, expressing how they’re still NOT O.K.! In their case, no matter what they do, they’re NOT O.K., and when everything seems to be going alright, “it’s always something!”

I’m NOT O.K. and you’re NOT O.K. (I ain’t *hit and nobody else is either!)
This type of person suffers from stroking deprivation and childhood Trauma. Their Caretaker(s) ESPECIALLY their Mother neglected them during their preverbal/formative years, and this is when they began to learn that they’re NOT O.K. and no one else is either. This type of person never learned to bond with others, and isn’t open to learn. Since they’re NOT O.K. and no one else is either, no one can help them. Why? Because the person offering help is NOT O.K. too! The Trauma they suffered as a child such as: molestation, abuse, neglect, poverty, bullying, disenfranchisement, Parental Alienation, Racism, a Handicap, etc.., and lack of stroking/assurance, conditioned them to think it’s impossible for them to ever be O.K. or for any other human being either. Another characteristic of this type of person can be chemical/substance abuse, chronic belligerence, inconsideration, contempt for themselves/others, and a ready to die ‘Menticide’ philosophy towards life. This is the type of person that walks into bar frequented by off-duty Police Officers just to start a fight while he’s on Probation.

Because the only stroking/assurance they received was the basic creature comforts of a baby, in the early years of their development, and over time, this person learned to live without it. Therefore they gave up on relationships entirely, and consequently determined that others are just as incapable of forging relationships as they are. This type of person advocates a NOBODY’S O.K. Philosophy, systematically looks for blemishes in others to prove NOBODY’S O.K., and uses statements such as “nobody’s good”, “hug your imperfections”, “God is just a man”, “I’m only human”, etc. to try to justify their own psychological (and often physical) handicap. They also use this as a method to ostracize concepts and People who are being/doing O.K. in order to get people to buy into their dysfunction as a standard of normalcy: (“…also to deceive the People so that they would believe in them.5/1-14, “To make our People of North America believe that the People of that Continent are the only People they have and are all savages.7/1-14). In addition to opposing those who strive to be O.K., such a person may also “do everything within their -limited- power” (40/1-40) to try to prove how NOT O.K. others are by striving to destroy them. Deep down inside, this person never learned to care about his/her “ownself” (13/1-36), and that’s why it’s so easy to show how much they don’t care about others.

I’m O.K. and you’re NOT O.K. (I'm strait! Everybody else is f*cked up!)
This type of person was also deprived of stroking and often suffered severe emotional and physical abuse at the hands of their Caretaker(s). In response to this, and in order to survive, they learned to ‘self stroke’ (comfort/assure themselves) by licking their own wounds. It’s been said that the early history of criminal psychopaths are People who hold this Psychological Position. As such a person grows, gains more strength to survive, and begins to feel O.K., their hatred also grows for those who severely abused them. Hence the Position of I’m O.K. and you’re NOT O.K. is born.

The danger of this Psychological Position is the fact that the Trauma has caused them to not look inward. So anything that happens is always someone else’s fault, and they never learn to take responsibility for their own conditioning. This Psychological Position whittled away their conscience, bred a narcissistic personality, and no matter what they do it’s somehow O.K. -in their own Mind. Although a person who believes that “I’m NOT O.K. and you’re NOT O.K.” is suicidal and capable of hurting themselves/others based upon a “I don’t give a f*ck about nothing!” attitude, a person who believes “I’m O.K. and you’re NOT O.K.”, is capable of hurting others based upon the idea that, “I don’t give a f*ck about you, and whatever I do -to you- is O.K..”

Because this person was deprived of strokes and learned to ‘self stroke’, they never learned to recognize nor appreciate a stroke from someone else. Therefore, the only person they’re capable of keeping a relationship with is the distorted image of themselves, and this is also exemplified in a preoccupation with violence, porn, and chronic masturbation; all characteristics typical in the profile of criminal psychopaths and serial killers. Even if they do develop a pseudo-relationship with others, it’s only a matter of time before they reject them because they’re not O.K. (never good enough), something’s wrong with them, and it’s always their fault why they’re not friends/partners anymore. In the most extreme cases, this person is criminal psychopath who murders these People.

I’m O.K. and you’re O.K. (We’re all good!)
This type of person has grown and developed to the point where they’ve made sense of their own conditionings to the point where they’re O.K.. Not only are they O.K., b.u.t. they can appreciate how others are O.K. too. Transactional Analysis suggests that the first three Psychological Positions are based upon feelings while the fourth Psychological Position (I’m O.K. and you’re O.K.) is based upon thought and action. The reason being is because the first three Psychological Positions were forged during our preverbal/formative years and childhood upbringing. These Positions were not taken based upon a critical analysis of our social circumstances because we didn’t have the cognitive ability. As we grow to Adulthood, hopefully we develop this cognitive ability to make sense out of our social conditionings. “I’m O.K. and you’re O.K.” is fundamental to healthy, functional relationships with ourselves, with others, and with the Planet Earth.

How does (PAC) and these four Psychological Positions apply to us as Original People? How does this relate to the Culture of The NGE, and how can Gods/Earths use this Social Psychology to help improve their lives?

To be continued…

Post a Comment