Scripts People Live

by Claude Steiner

  This exercise is especially good for people, particularly men, who have a Joyless script which is associated with the inability to use their Nurturing Parent on themselves and others.

  4) Massage. Occasionally a group member is so stroke-starved that she can’t take any verbal strokes offered. In those cases it is useful to suggest a group massage. Anonymous, clearly non-sexual strokes in large quantities along the head, the neck, the back, legs, and feet. This “emergency stroke ration” is occasionally the best stroking for a person to get and paves the way for his being able to accept more specific strokes from specific people. Often it is the only way for a person to be able to cathect her Adult so as to work.

  All of the above described exercises are for use in a group therapy situation. However, asking for, giving, accepting, and rejecting strokes, as well as self-stroking, can be practiced and rehearsed in the world at large. As has been mentioned before, it is necessary for people to take their experiences and learning from group into their everyday lives. Every one of these exercises can be practiced at home, at work, on the bus, while shopping, and so on. To be sure, the situation isn’t as safe and protected as the group therapy situation, but if some care is exercised it is possible to successfully break down the stroke economy outside of the group, too.

  It may be necessary to revise one’s vocabulary and use words like compliments and hugs instead of strokes, and it is always important to be ready for a rejecting reaction from people. But while it is true that to attempt to break down the stroke economy in the “cruel world” could be met with an occasional rejection or discount, the facts are that most people are interested in strokes and warm fuzzies, willing to react generously, and able to enjoy attempts at freeing strokes.

  In people’s intimate lives outside of group, it is important that cooperative agreements about the desirability of freeing up the stroke economy be made. For instance, Mary, a group member, early in the therapy discussed with her husband Jack the ideas of strokes, warm fuzzies, and the injunctions against their free exchange. He agreed that these notions made sense and that he was willing to work cooperatively with her. His problem was a difficulty in giving nurturing verbal strokes, and hers was in giving sexual non-verbal strokes. Mary and Jack agreed to work cooperatively in these two areas of difficulty and succeeded in giving each other the strokes that they wanted, even though Jack was not himself in a therapy group.

  Occasionally it happens that a person who, like Jack, is not involved in this type of therapy rejects and actually is unwilling to cooperate with strokes. When that is the case, and Mary has made every possible effort to no avail, it may be that Mary will not be able to continue in a relationship with Jack if she wants to give up her Loveless script, since the main source of strokes in her life is inadequate and likely to keep her in a stroke-starved state.

  23

  The Therapy of

  Madness

  As has been explained before, madness is the result of systematic discounting, over a long period of time.

  Discounting is a transaction. Like any other interpersonal situation the discount involves both the discounter and the discountee equally. The discounter refuses to react to the discountee’s statement. The discountee, on the other hand, is willing to go along with the discounter’s lack of reaction and does not pursue the matter, letting the discount be. This is why certain people are discounted more than others; because they are willing to accept and compromise on being discounted. This is not to disregard an important additional fact, however, namely that discounters use power plays to back up their discounts so that the discountee is often one-down and unable to deal with the power used against her. Thus, people who are frequently discounted, and come to experience the disorientation and perhaps the eventual madness that is the result of discounts, need to learn the antithesis to the discount which I called Accounting, and to deal with power plays.

  Accounting

  Accounting is a process whereby a discount is neutralized and the feelings that need to be accounted for are responded to. Let us reconsider one example given previously:

  JILL: You think I’m stupid.

  JACK: I don’t think you’re stupid.

  This time Jill is not willing to accept the discount and the ensuing confusion in her mind. She can now attempt to give an accounting of her feelings and demand that they be accounted for.

  JILL: Well if you don’t think I’m stupid, then why do I feel that you think I’m stupid? I would like to tell you. Do you want to know?

  JACK: Yes.

  JILL: The reason why I think so is that you continually interrupt me in the middle of sentences and that you often disagree with my point of view. When I try to explain something to you you often get a vacant look in your eyes and you stare through me. Finally, you repeatedly call me, albeit in jest, “dummy,” “stupid,” “dingbat,” and refer to me that way to your friends. Because of this I have come to think that you think I’m stupid. So, I would like to know. Do you think I am stupid?

  You will notice that Jill’s reaction to Jack’s discount is no longer a series of confused and confusing internal or external statements. It is, instead, a systematic accounting of the reasons for her feelings and a demand that Jack respond to this accounting.

  Jack now has to respond and either admit that he thinks Jill is stupid or, if he doesn’t, he has to explain why he acts as if he does. In any case, he can hardly discount her feelings, and as a consequence Jill avoids the confusion that comes from being discounted.

  One of the most frequent discounts happening in relationships is when one person asks another for strokes. Take as an example the following:

  JILL: Do you love me?

  JACK: What is love?

  Jill may now try again.

  JILL: Actually, I don’t think you love me.

  JACK: For God’s sake, how many times do I have to tell you that I love you?

  The above is a power play designed to stop Jill from asking that question. It is also a discount.

  Let’s assume that Jill is not stopped by Jack’s power play and proceeds.

  JILL: I don’t think you love me, and I’ll tell you why. You haven’t told me that you love me in the last five years unless I asked you and then you did so in a most grudging tone. You have not given me a single special present except on my birthdays. You have acted as if I was married to you, but not as if you are married to me. You seem to resent everything you do for me. And as a consequence I feel that perhaps you don’t love me any more. I’d like to know, one way or another.

  Accounting is best taught in the group situation through role playing. The person learning Accounting acts out the situation with a discounter who does everything he can to evade the Accounting. Very often, when role playing, the discountee is dumbfounded at every renewed discount and has no idea how to proceed. At this point the rest of the group members can fill in suggestions on the best strategy to deal with the particular discount.

  Discount Power Plays

  Learning to account for one’s feelings usually includes with it learning how to deal with power plays since discounters will often use cascading power plays (see Chapter 17) to back up their discounts. Thus, it isn’t only necessary to know how to present one’s feelings so that they are accounted, but it is also important to be able to use power maneuvers to stop the discounter’s power plays.

  Very often the discounter will refuse to continue a conversation when an accounting is demanded. She may stomp out of the room in a huff; she may refuse to discuss the matter any further; or she may change the subject. In every one of these cases, the discount is being backed up with a power play. Thus, it is important that the discountee learn how to deal with power plays.

  The essential approach to discounts that are backed up with power plays is to stay in the Adult and to refuse to engage in any further cooperative aspects of the relationship until the discount is taken care of. For example, let us say Jill asks for an accounting of her feelings, having b
een hurt when Jack criticized the food she cooked, and he discounts her by storming out of the dining room. This is a unilateral decision by Jack to end the discussion, a frequent one-up power play called “The Meeting Is Adjourned.” Later, when Jack wants to go to bed and have sex, Jill needs to bring up the discount and asks for an Accounting again and refuses to proceed with “business as usual” until an accounting of her feelings is forthcoming. The reader will perceive that this can become a highly emotionally charged procedure, and a person who is working on accounting for her feelings needs a great deal of support and backup (Permission and Protection) from her group.

  Accounting is most likely to go smoothly and to be a rewarding experience between people who are in a cooperative relationship (see Chapter 25). It is quite possible, if the discounter is not committed to cooperate, that an accounting may never be forthcoming, as every attempt is stopped with a one-up power play. When that is the case, the person who is being discounted has no other choice but to terminate the relationship since as long as Accounting does not occur the relationship is one which necessarily feeds the madness script. Of course, some people would rather be driven mad than be alone; this can only be decided by the person himself. Yet, just as depression cannot be defeated without breaking down the rules of the stroke economy, so madness cannot be defeated without obtaining an Accounting for every discount that is absorbed.

  Accounting for Paranoia

  It is not possible for a therapist who herself discounts the people she works with to do effective work with the Mindless script. Therapists discount the people they work with in a number of different ways. For instance, it is not unusual in the first stages of therapy for a therapist to form a notion of what is wrong with the person and what the reasons are for his unhappiness, quite apart from and even in disagreement with the person’s own ideas of what is wrong. For example, the person might feel that his difficulty is the result of having a bad boss and living in the wrong part of town. The therapist may conclude that the “real” reasons are quite different.

  In this instance, the therapist might decide that the person’s problem at work is the result of a homosexual attraction toward his boss, and that what the person needs to do is to come to terms with his attraction. As far as changing residences, the therapist might decide that it is an evasion of what is “really” wrong (latent homosexuality) so that the person should not even think about changing residence.

  Or the therapist, a transactional analyst, might decide that the problem is that the person isn’t getting enough strokes. If the therapist comes to and holds his opinions irrespective of the person’s differing opinions about what’s wrong, this is a discount. If the therapist takes the discount to the point of not even communicating these opinions to the person, then this constitutes a lie in addition to the discount. The discount and the lie together will be perceived by the person’s Little Professor and will only add to his feeling of confusion, suspicion, and despair. As a consequence, it is absolutely necessary that therapists do not discount the people they work for in any of the ways exemplified above and that they be accountable to them.

  The therapist must see the relevance of the person’s ideas and feelings in a situation. If the therapist can’t, then it is necessary for the therapist to demystify this fact. For instance, in the case described above of the person who comes to group and speaks of his discomfort only in terms of how mean and ugly his boss is, the therapist may have a different opinion and express it as follows:

  JACK: I’m still really upset. My boss is getting worse. Yesterday he chewed me out for a mistake that somebody else made. I can’t stand the guy. The other day he actually …

  THERAPIST (interrupting): Jack, what I want to know is if you are getting any strokes this week.

  JACK: Strokes? Are you kidding? I can’t stand people! What I need is to get away from people. I have to move somewhere else.…

  THERAPIST: Well, I think that the real problem is that you’re not getting strokes. Until you get strokes you are not really going to get better.

  This is a transactional analysis discount of Jack’s feelings. It may be in fact true that Jack needs to get strokes. But the therapist will not succeed in making this point because a much more important fact is being ignored, namely Jack’s actual perceptions and feelings regarding the situation. These feelings are important; they have at least a grain of objective validity, and they must be taken seriously and accounted for. Consider the following alternative.

  JACK: I’m still really upset. My boss is getting worse. Yesterday he chewed me out for a mistake that somebody else made. I can’t stand the guy. The other day he actually …

  THERAPIST: Jack, I want to interrupt. I know that you’re having problems with your boss and that it’s hard for you to live where you are living. I am having some difficulty thinking that your boss and your living situation are the real reasons for your unhappiness. I believe that things would be a lot better for you if you were getting some strokes, and I don’t see you getting any. Instead, I see you being so upset about your boss and your neighbors that you’re getting fewer and fewer strokes.

  JACK: Well, I want to get strokes, but I just can’t stand the situation. And you should see my neighborhood. It’s nothing like where you live. I’ll tell you.…

  THERAPIST: Well, perhaps we need to figure out some way in which you can handle your boss and your neighbors and eventually move out of your neighborhood. I’m willing to help you work on that, but I would like to know that you are willing to work on your stroke situation as well, because I don’t think things are going to get better permanently unless you do that. Is that a deal?

  JACK: O.K., but I’ve got to take care of my boss first.

  THERAPIST: O.K. Let’s work on it.

  A therapist must account for people’s feelings and must realize (unless the person is simply lying, which occasionally happens in public mental health agencies where people are compelled to see therapists and therefore lie about what’s going on) that whatever the person says he feels and perceives as the reason for his difficulties is important information that needs to be used and accounted for.

  The most extreme case of Accounting that therapists will need to do is the accounting that is necessary with cases of paranoia. The usual reactions of therapists to paranoid delusions and fantasies in their clients is to decide that they are psychotic symptoms, completely unfounded in reality. Thus they either ignore them, try to work around them, or try to systematically disprove them. None of these approaches is likely to have any success whatsoever. I have found in my work that the only approach that works with paranoia is to account for whatever grain or large measure of truth exists in the paranoid fantasies.

  If a woman comes to therapy in the grips of paranoid jealousy about her husband in which she accuses him of having sexual intercourse with every woman in the apartment house and of trying to poison her, it is important that the therapist, no matter how blatantly paranoid the woman is, concentrate and focus not on the obvious untruth of her views about her husband, but on the possible truth about them. The therapist should investigate closely why she thinks that her husband is having intercourse with all of the neighbors or why the husband is trying to poison her. I have found, time after time, that in the case of such paranoia, there is always a grain of truth which is being discounted. The husband may not be actually having intercourse with all of the neighbors, but he flirts with a number of them and is very attracted to one of them! When his wife confronts him with this fact he denies it repeatedly and admits to no attraction or interest at all. The husband may not be trying to kill her, but he may be entertaining fantasies of divorce or of having her committed to a mental hospital, to which she is attuned and, once again, he may completely deny these thoughts. Both of these actions by the husband backed up by discounts are sufficient to lay the foundation for acute paranoia in the woman, and if demystified and accounted for will bring her paranoia to an end.

  Therapists need t
o have a healthy respect for the mental lives of the people they work with. All of their “bizarre” fantasies, “inappropriate affects,” “thought disorders,” are part of the legitimate mental life of people whose minds have been battered by discounts and lies. Any person exposed to similar discounts and lies will eventually react similarly. A therapist who regards these reactions from the detached, one-up position of seeing them as symptoms of some underlying mental illness is simply going to make the situation worse and is certainly not going to be able to help.

  I have found the above approach to madness, or what is called in psychiatric circles “schizophrenia,” to be speedily effective in the cases of people coming to me for help, when they are relatively untouched by the destructive machine of psychiatric hospitalization, drugging, and shock therapy. An excessive dose of this kind of oppressive, damaging treatment can, in my estimation, make success in therapy a more difficult task. The torture of psychiatric commitment leaves a deep mark upon the souls of people, one that may take much love, nurturing, and devotion to neutralize and replace with feelings of trust and well-being. People who have Madness scripts should avoid involvement with psychiatric commitment, especially if it isn’t completely voluntary. By completely voluntary, I mean that there are no locked doors and the person can call out or leave with all of his belongings at will, at any time, and that no “therapeutic” procedures (individual or group therapy, medication, shock therapy, etc.) will be administered against the person’s will or be a requirement of his stay in the hospital. If entering a hospital is necessary, it is a good idea to have the name and phone number of a lawyer sympathetic to the person’s rights as a “mental patient,” who can intercede speedily in her behalf if the treatment “suddenly” becomes involuntary. Even so, it will be difficult for a person in a mental hospital to resist the subtle pressure applied for voluntary “informed consent” to oppressive psychiatric procedures.