Games People Play_ The Psychology of Human Relationships - Eric Berne [35]
Antithesis. The therapist says to the husband, ‘You’re absolutely right!’ If the husband relaxes complacently or triumphantly, the therapist asks: ‘How do you feel about my saying that?’ The husband replies: ‘Fine.’ Then the therapist says, ‘Actually, I feel you’re in the wrong.’ If the husband is honest, he will say: ‘I knew that all along.’ If he is not honest, he will show some reaction that makes it clear a game is in progress. Then it becomes possible to go into the matter further. The game element lies in the fact that while the plaintiff is overtly clamouring for victory, fundamentally he believes that he is wrong.
After sufficient clinical material has been gathered to clarify the situation, the game can be interdicted by a manoeuvre which is one of the most elegant in the whole art of antithetics. The therapist makes a rule prohibiting the use of the (grammatical) third person in the group. Thenceforward the members can only address each other directly as ‘you’ or talk about themselves as ‘I’, but they cannot say, ‘Let me tell you about him ‘or’ Let me tell you about her’. At this point the couple stop playing games in the group altogether, or shift into ‘Sweetheart’ which is some improvement or take up ‘Furthermore’ which is no help at all. ‘Sweetheart’ is described in another section (page 94). In ‘Furthermore’ the plaintiff makes one accusation after the other. The defendant replies to each ‘I can explain’. The plaintiff pays no attention to the explanation, but as soon as the defendant pauses, he launches into his next indictment with another ‘furthermore’, which is followed by another explanation – a typical Parent-Child interchange.
‘Furthermore’ is played most intensively by paranoid defendants. Because of their literalness, it is particularly easy for them to frustrate accusers who express themselves in humorous or metaphorical terms. In general, metaphors are the most obvious traps to avoid in a game of ‘Furthermore’.
In its everyday form, ‘Courtroom’ is easily observed in children as a three-handed game between two siblings and a parent. ‘Mummy, she took my candy away.’ ‘Yes, but he took my doll, and before that he was hitting me, and anyway we both promised to share our candy.’
ANALYSIS
Thesis: They’ve got to say I’m right.
Aim: Reassurance.
Roles: Plaintiff, Defendant, Judge (and/or Jury).
Dynamics: Sibling rivalry.
Examples: (1) Children quarrelling, parent intervenes. (2) Married couple, seek ‘help’.
Social Paradigm: Adult-Adult.
Adult: ‘This is what she did to me.’
Adult: ‘The real facts are these.’
Psychological Paradigm: Child-Parent.
Child: ‘Tell me I’m right.’
Parent: ‘This one is right.’ Or: ‘You’re both right.’
Moves: (1) Complaint filed – Defence filed. (2) Plaintiff files rebuttal, concession, or good-will gesture. (3) Decision of judge or instructions to jury. (4) Final decision filed.
Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological – projection of guilt. (2) External Psychological – excused from guilt. (3) Internal Social – ‘Sweetheart’, ‘Furthermore’, ‘Uproar’ and others. (4) External Social – ‘Courtroom’. (5) Biological – stroking from judge and jury. (6) Existential – depressive position, I’m always wrong.
3 · FRIGID WOMAN
Thesis. This is almost always a marital game, since it is hardly conceivable that an informal liaison would present the required opportunities and privileges over a sufficient length of time, or that such a liaison would be maintained in the face of it.
The husband makes advances to his wife and is repulsed. After repeated attempts, he is told that all men are beasts, he doesn’t really love her, or doesn’t love her for herself, that all he is intersted in is sex. He desists for a time, then tries again with the same result. Eventually he resigns himself and makes no further advances. As the weeks or months pass, the wife becomes increasingly informal and sometimes forgetful. She walks through the bedroom half dressed or forgets her clean