Scripts People Live

by Claude Steiner

  STIMULUS HUNGER

  Considerable research indicates that stimulation is one of the primary needs of higher organisms. Based on these findings and on clinical evidence, Berne evolved the concepts of stimulus hunger and stroking.

  A stroke is a special form of stimulation one person gives to another. Because strokes are essential to a person’s survival, the exchange of strokes is one of the most important activities people engage in. Strokes can vary from actual physical stroking to praise, or just recognition. To be effective, a stroke must be suited to its recipient. For example, Spitz1 has shown that a very young child needs actual physical stroking to survive. On the other hand, adults may require only occasional, symbolic strokes such as praise, or an expression of appreciation, to remain alive. However, while it is possible to survive on minimal strokes, stroke scarcity is unhealthy both physically and emotionally; thus stroke hunger is a major driving force in people.

  Stimulus hunger is satisfied by stroking or recognition. Stroking is a more basic need than recognition and it is said that a person needs stroking “lest his spinal cord shrivel up.” Usually, the need for actual physical stroking can be complemented with symbolic stroking or recognition. Thus the average adult can satisfy her hunger for stroking through, among other things, a ritual which is essentially an exchange of recognition strokes. For example, the following is a six-stroke ritual:

  A: Hi

  B: Hi.

  A: How are you?

  B: Fine, and you?

  A: Fine. Well, see you.

  B: Yeah, see you around.

  A game is transactionally more complex than the above ritual but it is still an exchange of strokes. It should be noted that “Go to hell!” is as much a stroke as “Hi” and people will settle for the former, negative strokes when they cannot obtain the latter positive ones.

  Certain persons are prevented by their Parent from accepting overt or direct recognition, requiring more disguised forms instead. Such an example is the woman who rejects all admiration of her looks, interpreting them as sexual advances, but accepts compliments about her sewing ability while secretly resenting them. People who cannot obtain or accept direct recognition for one reason or another will tend to obtain it by playing games which are a rich source of strokes.

  STRUCTURE HUNGER

  The satisfaction of structure hunger is the social advantage of the game. To satisfy structure hunger, the individual seeks social situations within which time is structured, or organized, for the purpose of obtaining strokes. Structure hunger is the need to establish a social situation within which the person can transact with others. This need for time structure is an elaboration of stimulus hunger, and therefore just a more complex form of that basic need. A game structures time in many ways. For instance, a game of “If It Weren’t For You” provides for considerable time structure with its endless face-to-face recriminations. It provides for additional time structure in that it makes possible the pastime1 of “If It Weren’t For Him (Her),” played with neighbors and relatives, and “If It Weren’t For Them,” played at bars and bridge clubs.

  POSITION HUNGER

  The satisfaction of position hunger is the existential advantage of the game. Position hunger is the need to vindicate certain basic, lifelong, existential positions. These existential positions can be illustrated with a sentence, such as, “I am no good,” “They are no good,” or “Nobody is any good.” They are satisfied by internal transactions which take place in the mind of the player between himself and another person, usually a parent. Position hunger is satisfied by stroking or recognition received internally, from the Parent.

  Thus, after a game of “Rapo”1 the players go home and White may say to herself, “That proves men are beasts just like Dad said!” and her Parent will answer, “That’s my good little girl!” This internal transaction has stroking value, and at the same time reinforces the existential position of the player. As will be elaborated later, every game has the added effect of advancing the script, or life plan of the person.

  A game provides strokes for the player, without the threat of intimacy. The theory postulates that two or more persons can only structure time together with work, rituals, pastimes, games, withdrawal, or intimacy. Intimacy, which is a social situation free of these other time-structuring elements, is one in which strokes are given directly, and therefore most powerfully. Intimacy can be frightening to the person because it goes counter to Parental prohibitions about the exchange of strokes. Thus, a game is a carefully balanced procedure to procure strokes that are safe from Parental criticism.

  It should be noted that strokes can be obtained without resorting to games, which are basically subterfuges, and that games are learned in childhood from parents as a preferred method of obtaining stimulation. Thus, a person giving up a game has to develop an alternate way of obtaining strokes and structuring time, and until he does he will be subject to despair resembling the marasmus2 observed by Spitz in children who do not receive enough stroking.

  Two games will be described in detail. The first is a “soft” (first-degree) version of the game called “Why Don’t You—Yes, But,” and the second is a “medium hard” version (second-degree) of “Rapo.” The softness or hardness of a game refers to the intensity with which it is played and its harmfulness. First degree is the “soft” version, and third degree the “hard” version of a game.

  “Why Don’t You—Yes, But” (YDYB) is a common game played whereever people gather in groups, and generally proceeds as follows:

  Black and White are mothers of grade-school children.

  WHITE: I sure would like to come to the PTA meeting but I can’t get a baby sitter. What should I do?

  BLACK: Why don’t you call Mary? She’d be glad to sit for you.

  WHITE: She is a darling girl, but she is too young.

  BLACK: Why don’t you call the baby-sitting services? They have experienced ladies.

  WHITE: Yes, but some of those old ladies look like they might be too strict.

  BLACK: Why don’t you bring the kids along to the meeting?

  WHITE: Yes, but I would be embarrassed to be the only one to come with children.

  Finally, after several such transactions there is silence, perhaps followed by a statement by another person, such as:

  GREEN: It sure is hard to get around when you have kids.

  YDYB, the first game analyzed by Berne, fulfills the three parts of the definition of a game. It is a series of transactions with a beginning (a question) and an end (an irritated silence). It contains an ulterior motive because, at the social level, it is a series of Adult questions and Adult answers, whereas at the psychological level it is a series of questions by a demanding, reluctant Child unable to solve a problem and a series of answers by an increasingly irritated Parent, anxious to help and in a quandry.

  Finally, the payoff of the game is as follows: It is a rich source of strokes as it provides a readily usable form of time structure wherever people congregate and it reinforces the existential positions of people in the group. The position, in this case, is exemplified by Green’s statement, “It sure is hard to get around when you have kids.” For White, the game proves that parent types (advice givers) are no good and always want to dominate you, and at the same time proves that children are no good and prevent you from doing things. For Black, the game proves that children, or grownups who behave like children, are ungrateful and unwilling to cooperate. For both Black and White, the existential advantage fits into their script. Both White and Black come away from the game feeling angry or depressed according to what their favorite feeling racket (see below) is. After a long enough succession of YDYB and similar games, White or Black may feel justified in doing something drastic such as getting drunk, going to a mental hospital, attempting suicide, or simply giving up.

  While YDYB can be played by almost anyone, the psychological content of “Rapo” attracts fewer persons. It is a sexual game, so it requires a man and a woman, alth
ough it may be played between members of the same sex.1 It proceeds, typically, as follows:

  At a party, after considerable flirtation, White and Black find themselves in the bedroom with Black reading from the Joy of Sex.2 Aroused by the inviting situation, Black makes an advance and attempts to kiss White. White rebuffs Black and leaves abruptly.

  Again we have a series of transactions, this time beginning with a sexual invitation and ending with a sexual rebuff. On the social level, the game looks like a straightforward flirtation ended by Black’s breach of etiquette, self-righteously rebuffed by White. On the psychological level, between Child and Child, White has first enticed and then humiliated Black.

  The payoff, again, consists of strokes, a way to structure time, and existentially, a validation of the position “Women (men) are no good,” followed by feelings of anger or depression, according to the feeling racket (see below) called for by the script. Again, the script is advanced since enough episodes of this game may justify a murder, rape, suicide, or depression for the players.

  Related to the payoff in games is the concept colloquially called “trading stamps.” Trading stamps, or enduring, non-genuine feelings such as sadness or guilt3 are “collected” and saved up by persons who play games so that when enough are accumulated they can be traded in for a “free” blow-up, drunken binge, suicide attempt, or some other script milestone.

  A racket is the person’s basis or reason for collecting trading stamps. The person, for instance, whose existential position is “I’m no good” can continually promote her low self-esteem racket by collecting gray stamps, while the person whose position is “You’re no good” can do the same through the collection of anger stamps (red stamps) in an anger racket.

  ROLES AND DEGREES

  As mentioned above games can be played soft or hard. The example of YDYB given is the softest (first-degree) version of the game because it is relatively harmless. The hard (third-degree) version of this game might be played by an alcoholic who “Yes, buts” every suggestion to his dying moment.

  Third-degree games involve tissue damage. The game of “Rapo,” described above, is a second-degree game. The first-degree of “Rapo” is often played at cocktail parties in the form of a series of flirtations and put-downs, while the much more rare, third-degree level of the game might end up in a courtroom or even at the morgue.

  Each person playing a game is playing a role in it. For instance, the Alcoholic game has five roles: the Alcoholic, the Rescuer, the Persecutor, the Patsy, the Connection. There are three basic game roles, however, as noted by Karpman,1 and they are the Persecutor, the Rescuer and the Victim.

  2 Second-Order Structural Analysis

  Script Analysis requires an understanding of second-order structural analysis, or the analysis of the structure of the Child.1

  Let us consider a five-year-old child, Mary (Figure 2A), who is capable of operating in three ego states. In her Parent ego state (P1) she scolds and cuddles her little brother as she sees her mother do; in her Adult ego state (A1), the Little Professor, she asks difficult questions (“What is sex, Daddy?” “What is blood for?”); in her Child ego state (C1) she behaves as she did when she was two years old—she talks baby talk, throws a tantrum, or rolls around on the floor.

  Thirty years later, Mary (Figure 2B) is still capable of behaving in three separate ego states. The Parent (P2) cares for her husband or nurses her newborn baby; her Adult (A2) knows how to cook, perform an appendectomy, and make accurate predictions about events and people; her Child (C2) is identical with the five-year-old Mary described above. Of the three modes of the Child in the thirty-five-year-old Mary, one of them is likely to be apparent more often than the other two; Mary’s personality, as it is known to others, will depend on which of the three possible Child ego states is usually cathected.

  If her Child (C2) is primarily P1, she is likely to have a script which is the result of her parents’ behavior when Mary was, say, five years old. She will behave in ways exemplified and forced on her by her parents. This Child ego state, P1 in C2, has also been called the Adapted Child because it is molded to parental demands. In the case of persons with self-destructive scripts it is also called the “electrode” because of the electrifying manner in which it seems to control the person’s mental life and behavior. In these cases P1 in C2 is also called the “witch” or “ogre” because it seems to have supernatural qualities similar to the witches

  and ogres in fairy tales. The P1 in C2 is also called the Pig Parent because it makes people feel not O.K. and because its function is to force them to do things they don’t want to do. Its only usefulness is in situations in which people need to oppress or take things away from each other.

  Figure 2

  If Mary’s Child (C2) behaves mostly as Al, the Little Professor, she will be inquisitive and lively (“bright-eyed and bushy-tailed”) as contrasted to the more emotive, powerful, perhaps overwhelming behavior of C1 which is called the Natural Child, or the “prince” or “princess.” The Little Professor is the ego state which Berne first explored in his studies on intuition when he guessed the occupations of people by using his own intuition (see p. 11).

  When in the Natural Child ego state (C1) the individual is “turned on” or in a “peak experience.” Some people’s Child is exclusively the Natural Child; but as societal strictures against this form of behavior are strong, the Child of very few people operates at that level. The acute “psychotic” state in which a confused Natural Child takes over completely is, in essence, the breakthrough of the Natural Child after a period of domination by the Parent.

  It is important to distinguish, in thirty-five-year-old Mary, the Parent (P2) from the Parent in the Child (P1 in C2). Both ego states are superficially similar in that they both involve certain behavior which is parental, such as finger wagging and certain words such as “ought, “should,” etc. Upon close examination, however, important differences become clear. P1 in C2 is a little girl acting like a mother while P2 is a mother.

  P1 in C2 wants to be like mother and imitates her (“Johnny, you better be good”), all the while checking for reassurance from the parents (“How am I doing, Mommy?”).

  The difference between the Parent (P2) and the Pig Parent, bad witch mother ogre, electrode, or Adapted Child (P1 in C2) needs to be closely examined.

  Superficially, they are similar; they both are Parent ego states and share the fact that they are taken whole from others. They both have nurturing and protective qualities. The fundamental difference between them is their potency, their value in human relationships, or, for lack of a “scientific” word, their goodness.

  The Parent (P2) is also called the Nurturing Parent. Its function (see Figure 3) is nurturance and protection and it is both convincing and potent in these functions, while the Pig Parent is neither truly nurturing nor protective.

  Figure 3

  For example, the Nurturing Parent will say, “Take care of yourself, don’t love a man who doesn’t respect you,” while the Pig Parent will say, “Take care of yourself, men are pigs.” Inside of the head the Nurturing Parent defends the Natural Child from the Pig Parent; for instance, if the Pig Parent says, “You’re stupid,” the Nurturing Parent says, “Don’t listen to that, you’re very smart and I love you.”

  The difference between P2 and P1 in C2 can be seen clearly in policemen who because of their work have to operate in their Parent ego state a great deal of the time. Some habitually operate from their Nurturing Parent and then they are Peace Officers, who are protective and nurturing to the people they work for who in turn will respect and appreciate them. Others operate from their Pig Parent and then they “protect” people from what does not harm them or even from what is good for them. Their “protection” is oppressive, often based on bribes, and they are angry and scared and therefore feared and hated by people, which tends to keep them scared and angry.

  To be sure, any policeman who has to uphold oppressive laws, or whose back is
up against the wall, is very likely to get angry or scared and lapse into the Pig Parent so that his behavior depends a great deal on the conditions of his work. The point here is that the difference between Pig Parent and Nurturing Parent is especially clear in the case of policemen.

  A person in their Pig Parent is neither convincing nor potent except to someone over which it has power. No one is impressed by the “hell and damnation” of Holy Hubert, a fundamentalist street preacher in Berkeley. He is O.K. as long as he is powerless; but if he had power in the community, as many such Pig Parent dominated persons have had throughout history, he would be frightening indeed. Many men and a few women have had such power, and caused untold miseries to millions. Without power they would have been small, frightened, and crazed by their Pig Parents; and, it must be remarked, always well-meaning and convinced that they were being nurturing and protective in their actions. Power is what makes the Pig Parent dangerous, oppressive, and destructive. Stripped of their power evil persons can, once again, be seen as O.K. though angry or scared.

  To summarize, the Pig Parent is a scared or angry Child ego state that attempts to protect or nurture and is a failure at it, while the Nurturing Parent is confident, loving, and competent in the nurturing and protective functions.