Transference and Transactions

and : Critique from an Intrapsychic and IntegrativePerspective1

Richard G.Erskine

http://www.integrativetherapy.com/en/articles.php?id=41

In Eric Berne’s writings there are two different explanations of psychologicalfunctioning: the ego,composed of separate states,with intrapsychic dynamicsamong the states;and ego state terminology applied to descriptive behavioralroles.Subsequently,throughout the transactional analysis literature,two viewsof transference and transactions exist that,when applied clinically,are atvariance with each other.

One purpose of this article is to draw a distinction between Berne’s twotheories of ego states and to describe how each theoretical perspective createsa significantly different concept of transactions and transference.The practiceof transactional analysis in psychotherapy is markedly different with each ofthese two theories.

A second purpose is to demonstrate that consistent use of Berne’s developmental,relational,and intrapsychic theory of ego states in understanding the internaldynamics of transactions can lead to a sensitive and effective response totransactions and transference and to a comprehensive and integrativepsychotherapy.

Transference within Psychoanalysis

织梦CMS全自动采集插件’s (1905/1955) identification and specification of the transferencedimension of the psychotherapeutic relationship is his most fundamentaldiscovery (Langs,1981).For the past 90 years psychotherapists have struggledwith the problem of understanding patients’ communications and clarifying thedifference between transactions that are solely in response to the currentsituation and those that are an expression of archaic relationship conflicts.

In the case of Anna O.,Breuer and Freud (1895/1955) discovered the phenomenonof transference when they tried to uncover childhood traumas that were the rootsof hysterical symptoms.They first considered transference as resistance to theuncovering of repressed childhood traumas.However,by 1905 Freud described theimportance of working with the transference and considered transference andresistance (defenses) as the two main elements of psychoanalysis.

Freud (1905/1955) described transference using the metaphor of new editions orfacsimiles of old emotional experiences.In transference patients replace theemotional experience with an earlier person with a similar experience with thepsychotherapist.Within psychoanalysis this description of transference remainsthe basis for treatment.It was echoed by Greenson (1967),who describedtransference as the emotional experience of a person that does not befit thatperson and which actually applies to another.A person in the present isinappropriately reacted to as though he or she were a person in the past.

Freud’s hypothesis about the origin of transference was based on the assumptionthat each individual,through the combined operation of innate disposition andinfluences brought to bear during early years,acquired a somewhat fixed methodor set of methods of living which were evident in all relationships.The patientin analytic treatment was seen as repeating these attitudes and reactions.Freudunderstood transference as the displacement of behavior and feelings onto thetherapist,feelings that were originally experienced and directed towardsignificant figures from childhood (Freud,1912/1958,1915/1958).This earlypsychoanalytic concept of transference is the one most compatible with Berne’s(1961) original writings on ego states and their application to a theory oftransactions and transference.

In the 1910s and 1920s Freud shifted his focus away from a theory ofrelationship conflicts of early childhood,as represented in his original ideas(1905/1955),to a theory that emphasized innate biological drives.Anna Freud(1965),working within this drive theory model of psychoanalysis,described thedefensive,projective aspects of transference as the externalization ofinstinctual drives.She wrote that many of the transference situationsencountered in her work were because the person of the analyst is used torepresent one or another aspect of the patient’s personality.In this view,transference and projection are drive theory concepts that describe the defenseagainst awareness of a specific biological drive.

For example,a patient may project a drive of aggression onto the therapist,thus subjectively attributing it to the therapist while experiencing the self asthe object of aggression from the therapist.The patient then experiences thedisowned and split off drives as being in the other person (Berg,1977;Novik &Kelly,1970).This drive theory concept of transference is not compatible witheither Berne’s (1961) intrapsychic or descriptive theories of transactionalanalysis.

Berne’s (1961) descriptions of transference phenomena are more closely linked tothose of psychoanalytic object relations theorists such as Bollas (1979),Fairbairn (1952),Guntrip (1971),Khan (1974),and (1965).Spotnitz(1969) described the object relations theorists’ view of transference as “thepatient’s attempt to reveal the basic maturational needs for objects that werenot met in the course of his development” (p.139).

Greenberg and Mitchell (1983) described in detail the bifurcation of currentpsychoanalytic theory between a relationship perspective and an instinctualdrive perspective and the correspondingly differing views of transference.AnnaOrnstein (1989) described transference as “current” resistance: “Transferencescontain many elements of the past,but they are not only made of archaicreactions,they also contain a current reaction” to the therapist.When thetransference is used to investigate the intersubjective field between patientand therapist,the behavior and unconscious intrapsychic processes of thetherapist become an important source of information for use in understanding thepatient.From this perspective,what looks like transference is at times acurrent reaction to the behavior and affect of the therapist (Stolorow,Brandchaft,&Atwood,1987).Such insight into the meaning of the transferencerequires an empathic acceptance by therapists of their own childhood experiencesand emotions (Brandchaft,1989).

Kohut (1971) distinguished two types of transference: those based on instinctualdrives and those representing early developmental needs such as approval,mirroring,and echoing.Kohut called the transactions that expressed fixateddevelopmental needs “selfobject transferences” (p.23) and ascribed to them anecessary reparation function within the therapeutic process.In Kohut’s (1977)self psychology the therapeutic goal of working within the transference is thecompletion of interrupted developmental processes.This is a very different goalthan the classical psychoanalytic interpretation of transference as anexpression of instinctual drives.

Other psychoanalytic writers have explored the therapeutic relationship,questioning what distinguishes transference from nontransference.Some arguethat transference pervades the therapeutic relationship (Brenner,1979;Friedman,1969;Langs,1976),while others argue that there are neutral orrational relationships in therapy (Greenson,1967;Lipton,1977).

Baker (1982) described the crucial variable in psychotherapy as “thetransference,which involves components of both the real relationship betweenpatient and therapist and the more irrational components displaced,projectedand externalized from the patient’s history” (p.196) of relationships withsignificant people and their internalized representations.

Greenson (1967) described two types of relationships in therapy that should notbe equated with transference.Both the “working alliance” (p.191) and the “realrelationship” (p.217) are nonarchaic and involve the patient’s reasonable ego.The working alliance is the patient’s cooperation in the therapeutic tasks andmay be tinged with elements of archaic motivation (transference).There is,however,an observing ego that can stand back from the experience temporarilyand reflect on it.The “real relationship is genuine and reality oriented orundistorted as contrasted to the term ‘transference’ which connotes unrealistic,distorted,and inappropriate” (p.217).An example of the realistic relationshipmay be a patient’s concern for or criticism of the therapist.Lipton (1977) usedthe term “cordial relationship” (p.255) to describe the nontransferencetransactions between patient and therapist.In his 1961 theory of transactionsBerne implied the ideas of both a transference and nontransference relationshipbetween therapist and patient.

For the past two decades psychoanalysis has been undergoing a major reevaluationregarding practice and theory.Berne (1961) predated much of the currenttheoretical reframing of psychoanalysis when he dispensed with a theory basedprimarily on innate biological drives and instead viewed human functioning asbased on relationships.Berne (1961,1966) continued to acknowledge primaryinnate human motivations such as stimulus hunger—with its sublimation intorecognition hunger,and later structure hunger—but each of these weremanifestations of the need for human relationship.Berne’s primary contributionto advancing knowledge of psychotherapy theory was his description of states ofthe ego and the use of these concepts to identify which transactions weretransference and which were nontransference.

As reflected in Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy (Berne,1961),transactional analysis began as a reaction to and an advancement ofpsychoanalytic theory.Today there is much that transactional analysts can gainin theoretical perspective and clinical application by reexamining from anintrapsychic and integrative perspective both Berne’s original theoreticalconceptualizations and the current theoretical and methodological debate withinpsychoanalysis.

Berne’s Original Concept of Ego

Berne’s (1961) original conceptualization of ego states appears to this writerto be a logical and creative extension of psychoanalytic structural theory.Heexpanded on Federn’s (1953/1977) concept of ego and elaborated the concept ofthe archaeopsychic and exteropsychic states of the ego.In so doing Berne pavedthe way for an explanation of intrapsychic conflict that is relational anddevelopmental rather than relying on Freud’s drive model of intrapsychicinstinctual-societal conflicts.Berne (1961) eliminated the theoretical conceptsof id (pp.61,194,198) and superego (p.32) by postulating that thesepsychological dynamics are functions of an ego composed of three states ofpsychic organization: fixations from childhood,introjections of elements of thepersonality of others,and an integrating state in full contact with what iscurrently occurring internally and externally.He hypothesized that “an egostate is the phenomenological and behavioral manifestation of the activity of acertain psychic organ,or organizer” (p.24).

Based on the references and footnotes found in Transactional Analysis inPsychotherapy (Berne,1961),one would deduce that Berne was buildingtheoretically on the writings of psychoanalytic authors Breuer and Freud(1895/1955),Fairbairn (1952),Federn (1953/1977),Freud (1949),Klein (1949),and Weiss (1950) and the child developmentalists Piaget (1932,1951,1954) andErikson (1950).Berne (1961) thought of ego function as,in part,composed ofarchaeopsychic states: “the ego state of the actual child” which “hasorganization,unified will,logic and,certainly,negation” (p.198).Thesearchaic ego states consist of fixations of earlier developmental stages.Theyare the entire personality of a person as he or she was in a previousdevelopmental period of time (pp.54-55,192,1964,p.23).The archaic egofixations occurred when critical childhood needs for contact were not met,andthe child’s use of defenses against the discomfort of the unmet needs becamehabitual (Erskine,1980).These fixations became egotized or,in other words,formed separate ego units or states.The archaic or Child ego states (Berne,1964,p.23) are maintained in later life through the current use of defensemechanisms (Erskine &Moursund,1988).

In Berne’s (1961) words,dede自动采集“The Child ego state is a set of feelings,attitudes,and behavior patterns which are relics of the individual’s own childhood” (p.77).When functioning in the Child or archaic ego states the person perceivesthe internal needs and sensations and the external world as he did in a previousdevelopmental age.Although the person may appear to be relating to currentreality,he may actually be experiencing what is happening with the perceptual,emotional,intellectual,and social capacities of the child at the time ofrepression and fixation.It is this theoretical notion of the continuingfixation of Child ego states and the manifestation of a fixated Child ego thatserves as one of the cornerstones for a transactional investigation oftransferences.

Building on his own clinical observations,Berne extended Federn’s (1953/1977)and Weiss’s (1950) concept of the “psychic presence” (Berne,1961,p.19) ofparental figures that influence an individual’s current behavior.He postulatedthe existence of exteropsychic ego states.The exteropsyche or Parent ego statesare the manifestations of introjections of the personality of actual people asperceived by the child at the time of introjection (Loria,1988).

Since the child’s perceptions of the caretaker’s reactions,emotions,andthought processes will differ at various stages of development,so also will theactual content and intrapsychic function of the Parent ego state vary inrelation to the developmental age when the introjection occurred.(Erskine,1988,p.17)

Introjection is a defense mechanism (involving disavowal,denial,andrepression) frequently used when there is a lack of full psychological contactbetween a child and the adults responsible for his or her psychological needs.The significant other is made part of the self (ego),and the conflict resultingfrom the lack of need fulfillment is internalized so the conflict can seeminglybe managed more easily (Perls,1978).

Introjected elements of another’s personality may become egotized andtheoretically form an exteropsychic ego state.Berne’s theoretical premise ofthe existence of exteropsychic ego states is a second cornerstone in anintrapsychic and integrative understanding of transactions and transference.

Berne (1961) contrasted the exteropsychic and archaeopsychic ego states with aneopsychic ego state (Adult) that accounts for and integrates: (1) what isoccurring moment-by-moment internally and externally,(2) past experiences andtheir resulting effects,and (3) the psychological influences andidentifications with significant people in one’s life.This Adult ego stateconsists of current,age-related motor behavior;emotional,cognitive,and moraldevelopment;the ability to be creative;and the capacity for full contactfulengagement in meaningful relationships.This neopsychic state of the egofunctions without intrapsychic control by an introjected or archaic ego.

Berne’s original definitions of ego states provide the conceptual basis for anintegrating psychotherapy (Clarkson &Gilbert,1988;Erskine,1977/1979,1987,1988;Erskine &Moursund,1988;Loria,1988;Massey,1989;Moiso,1985,1988;Novellino,1985;Trautmann &Erskine,1981) that distinguishes nontransferencetransactions (neopsychic ego in origin) from possible transferentialtransactions.It is my understanding that transferential transactions areexternalized expressions of internal ego conflicts between exteropsychic andarchaeopsychic ego states.

Berne’s Illustrations and Descriptions

In each of his writings Berne (1961,1964,1966,1972) augmented his precisetheoretical definitions of ego states and intrapsychic function withillustrations and behavioral examples.Evolving from these explanations was adistinctly different theory of ego states which he called “descriptive” (Berne,1972,p.13).Although his original definitions of ego states emerged from bothclinical experience and an extrapolation of the ideas of psychoanalytic authors,his descriptions of ego states relied not on his theory of “states of mind,Dedecms自动采集插件” buton metaphors that tended to emphasize “their related patterns of behavior”(Berne,1961,p.30).

In providing illustrations of ego state theory in clinical practice,Berneshifted from a relational and developmental theory to a descriptive andbehavioral understanding of ego states.He equated ego states with roles orspecific behavior typical of those roles.For example,Berne (1961) used thephrasing “a Parental response” (p.44) and “the parental role of comforting” (p.95) to imply that the person was transacting from his or her Parent (exteropsychic)ego state.Another time the behavior “rational” (p.132) was equated with theAdult ego state (p.132).There are many other examples of ego statesdescriptively identified (pp.128-135,1964,p.30,1972,p.14).

By shifting to a more descriptive and behavioral orientation,it seems thatBerne greatly diminished his own creative extension of psychoanalytic theory.Helessened the impact of what his relational understanding of intrapsychicconflicts—as they are manifested in transferential transactions—had to offer.Berne (1972) changed perspectives and created an alternative set of theoreticalanalogies of ego states as roles and transactions as numerical probabilities ofthe roles (p.19).

In articulating his theory Berne (1961) specified: “Ego states must bedifferentiated from ‘roles’ ” (p.233);and “Ego states are not roles butphenomena.Therefore ego states and roles have to be distinguished in a formaldescription” (Berne,1964,pp.53-54).Yet throughout his writings he bothdefined the theory of ego states from a developmental,intrapsychic perspectiveand also provided illustrations and descriptions of behavioral roles.At onepoint he acknowledged this theoretical inconsistency: “For the most part,theexamples given have concerned the behavioral and social aspects of the Child”(Berne,1961,p.235).

Berne’s writings contain several such theoretical inconsistencies as a result ofhis use of illustrative descriptions as definitions.Moiso (Erskine,Clarkson,Goulding,Groder,&Moiso,1988) emphasized that Berne was not theoreticallyconsistent: “It isn’t clear when he is giving a definition,a description,or ametaphor” (p.7).In referring to Berne’s likening the Adult to a computer,Moiso added,“That’s a metaphor for the functioning of the neopsyche” (p.7).

Three examples of the use of metaphors as definitions follow:

1.Berne (1961) described the Adult as working “deliberately and consciously”(p.69) as if these two attributes were not possible in a Parent or Child egostate.

2.“The Parent has two main functions.First,it enables the individual to acteffectively as the parent of actual children” (Berne,1964,p.27).With thisdescription of the function of Parent ego state Berne disregarded that it is theAdult ego state that is in contact now with those in the environment.“Automatic” parenting (Berne,1961,p.76),although conserving much time andenergy,is not in contact with the child.Instead,it may often be an activationof an introjection related to some other person in another time and place.Effective parenting requires full contact in the present between parent andchild.

3.“In the Child reside intuition,creativity and spontaneous drive andenjoyment” (Berne,1964,p.27).While this is true of many children,it is nota definition of the Child ego state.Two pages earlier Berne defined Child as“an archaic ego state” (p.25),and elsewhere he said it was “a warped ego statewhich has become fixated” (Berne,1961,p.54).In cases where the child hasbeen neglected and/or traumatized,the Child ego state of the adult may not bespontaneous or intuitive or joyous.The fixation of the archaic child may bedepressed,inhibited,or defended.These symptoms are likely to emerge later inlife in transactions with others and in the course of psychotherapy.

Many of Berne’s descriptions sound as if he were reifying his theoretical ideas.His analogies have become specific entities.In his original developmentaltheory Berne (1961) used “adapted Child” and “natural Child” (p.77) asadjectives to describe (1) the function of an archaeopsychic ego state under theoppressive internal influence of a Parent ego state and (2) the naturalresponsiveness of a child in the absence of such critical or controllingparenting.Berne’s descriptive wanderings from his original theoreticaldefinitions (1961) take their final form in his last writings.The adjectivesused previously to describe intrapsychic functioning became the nouns,“AdaptedChild” and “Natural Child” (Berne,1972,p.104).

A review of the Transactional Analysis Journal reveals that most authors havedescribed ego states in behavioral or descriptive terms (Nurturing Parent,Critical Parent,Adapted Child,Natural Child,and Rebellious Child) or as acategorization of psychological processes (equating Parent ego state withvalues,Adult ego state with thinking,and Child ego state with feelings),or asa mix of these concepts.

When Berne shifted his illustrations of ego states to the descriptive,heignored his own original definitions and the necessary four-part diagnosis(behavioral,social,historical,and phenomenological) that is required forcomplete identification of the state cathected (Berne,1961,pp.75-76,225).

When psychotherapists and authors of articles about psychotherapy do not takeinto account the specific validating procedures that Berne (1961) outlined inhis chapter on diagnosis (pp.68-80),then the validity of Berne’s originaldefinitions and theory is not maintained.Transactional analysis theory losesboth its internal and external consistency.Without such a four-part correlationand a consistent use of Berne’s original developmental and relationship-basedtheoretical definition,ego state theory becomes merely a taxonomy of behaviors.A descriptive taxonomy of behaviors is very useful in a social control orbehavioral therapy,but the elegance of Berne’s logical and creative extensionof psychoanalytic theory is lost.Transactional analysis becomes less adevelopmental,phenomenological,intrapsychic psychotherapy and more a therapyof behavioral adjustment.As a result,the meaning and purpose of analyzingtransactions and the resolving of transference is uniquely different from thepoint of view of each of Berne’s two theories of human functioning.Each theoryand practical approach has a valid place in psychotherapy.And Berne’srole/communication theory has application in nonpsychotherapy fields.Anunderstanding and appreciation of Berne’s early developmental and intrapsychictheory,however,allows for greater theoretical consistency and a more in-depthpsychotherapy.

Loria (1988) highlighted these theoretical contradictions and the difficultiesinherent in mixing concepts and in deviating from stated theoretical definitionswithout a supporting explanation of the new theoretical definitions.At the endof his writings Berne predicted the theoretical and methodological confusioninherent in mixing concepts.He recommended the use of “the Conceptual Grid”(Berne,1972,pp.409-413) so that theoretical discussions and treatmentplanning could remain within a given set of concepts and definitions.Berneconcluded:

If one takes a structural or biological approach to the Child ego state andanother takes a functional and descriptive approach,it is impossible toreconcile the two....One uses structural nouns,the other uses functionaladjectives as modifiers,and the nouns and adjectives do not belong to the sameframework or come from the same viewpoint.(pp.411-412)

Ego State Determinants

In 1964 Berne stated that “transactional analysis is concerned with diagnosingwhich ego state implemented the transactional stimulus,and which executed thetransactional response” (p.29).In order to determine if a particulartransaction is transferential or nontransferential,it is necessary to conduct a“careful and systematic analysis of the psychodynamics of...transactionalstimuli and responses” (Berne,1966,p.154),of ego state cathexis and possibleintrapsychic conflicts.Verification of which ego state is cathected is onlypossible with a four-part correlation of the behavioral,social,historical,andphenomenological determinants of ego states.“The complete diagnosis of an egostate requires that all four of these aspects be available for consideration,and the final validity of such a diagnosis is not established until all fourhave been correlated” [italics added] (Berne,1961,p.75).

Berne (1961,pp.74-76) described the four diagnostic determinants of ego statesin the order he saw them in psychotherapy: behavioral,social,historical,andphenomenological.From a perspective of facilitating an integration of thefragmentation of the ego,I have supplementally defined the identifying criteriaand listed them in the following order of significance (Erskine &Moursund,1988):

1.The identifying criterion of the phenomenological determinant is thesubjective experience of the person.It includes the sensations,desires andneeds,feelings,and beliefs that shape the person’s perspective—the how andwhat it is like to live in his or her experience.Included in thephenomenological criteria are the physiological,emotional,and cognitiveassociations of significant life events and the times when elements of thepersonality of another were introjected.Also included is the subjectiveexperience of the internal defense mechanisms fixated at times of neglect,traumatic experience,or cumulative devaluation.

2.The historical determinant is gleaned primarily from memories of the dynamicevents between oneself and others,or the relationship between mother and fatheror other important family members.These can provide essential informationregarding early conflicts.The who and when of early life may reveal memories ofsimilar feelings and behavior in childhood or memories of the parental personwho offered the prototype behavior.Included is an inquiry into the distinctionbetween the person’s own fixated childhood defenses and the defense mechanismspossibly introjected from significant others.

3.The behavioral determinant involves a developmental focus (Berne,1961,p.154) on gestures,posture,vocabulary,tone of voice,or other mannerisms,andthe content of what is communicated.The assessment of the person’s currentobservable behavior is compared with information about human developmentregarding early mother-child interaction;motor and language development;emotional,cognitive,and social development;defense mechanisms;moraldevelopment;and adult life transitions.All of this comparative informationprovides a background of data to assist in determining the stage of developmentat which emotions,behaviors,or interactions have become fixated.Behavior thatis not congruent with the current context may have been normal and appropriatefor a child at a specific developmental age or may be an indication of how thepatient defended himself or herself in a traumatic situation.

Childlike behavior may be an indication of the person’s own active Child egostate,or just as likely,an indication of the Child ego state of an introjectedparent.Interweaving the developmental assessment with the historical orphenomenological may be necessary to determine if a specific defensive reaction,behavioral pattern,or emotion is the manifestation of an exteropsychic egostate or of an archaeopsychic fixation.

4.The fourth determinant in verifying ego state cathexis is the social ortransactional.The analysis of transactions provides data to indicate which egostate is active,the nature of the intrapsychic dynamics,and what stimulus fromthe psychotherapist served to trigger the cathexis.The intrapsychic dynamicsinclude the influence of the introjected Parent ego state and the Child’s needfor a contactful relationship.Transactions between the person andpsychotherapist,or,in group or family psychotherapy,between any two people,may reflect a transference either from an exteropsychic or archaeopsychic egostate.These transferences may take the form of “roles” such as childlike“compliance,” “impertinence,” or “rebelliousness”;adult-like roles of “problemsolver” or information exchange;or parental roles of “comforting” or“controlling” (Berne,1961,pp.93-96).It is essential in diagnosing ego statecathexis and intrapsychic conflict to evaluate these transactional roles orsocial entities within the context of a correlated phenomenological,historical,and developmental (behavioral) assessment.

Transference transactions are an expression of the intrapsychic processes andego state cathexis.To determine which transactions are nontransference andwhich are transference,it is necessary to validate which ego states areintrapsychically influential and which are active.“Transactional analysisconsists of determining which ego state is active at a given moment in theexhibition of a transactional stimulus by the agent,and which ego state isactive in the response given by the respondent” (Berne,1966,p.223).It isthrough the careful and systematic use of the four-part correlated diagnosisthat it is possible to understand transference transactions and proceed withpsychotherapeutic interventions.

An Intrapsychic and Integrative Perspective

An integrative intrapsychic approach to transactional analysis psychotherapyconsists of deconfusing the archaeopsychic ego states and relaxing fixatedarchaic defenses,emending and/or decommissioning the exteropsychic ego statesto resolve internal conflicts between archaeopsychic ego states andexteropsychic ego states,and facilitating the integration of one’s lifeexperiences into a neopsychic ego.“It is the process of making whole: takingdisowned,unaware,unresolved aspects of the ego and making them part of acohesive self” (Erskine &Moursund,1988,p.40).

This integrative perspective on psychotherapy is an extension and furtherrefinement of Berne’s (1961) original theoretical concepts of ego states,intrapsychic conflicts,and ensuing transferences.These concepts are augmentedby the theoretical premise that it is because of the continued fixation ofdefense mechanisms that the archaic or exteropsychic ego states remain separatestates and do not become integrated into neopsychic awareness.Neopsychic egostate awareness of needs,desires,memories,and external influences remainsblocked through the fixation of childhood defenses.

Fixation refers to a relatively enduring pattern of organization of affect,behavior,or cognition from an earlier stage of development which persists intoand may dominate later life.Defensive patterns of organization are often formedduring an interpersonal conflict in which some psychological gain is achieved atthe cost of the loss of others.The persistence of these childhood patterns oforganization in later stages of development results in an inability to bespontaneous and flexible in problem solving and in relating to people (Erskine,1980).

Intrapsychic conflict is the result of the cathexis of an influencing Parent egostate and an internal reaction by a Child ego state (Berne,1961,pp.32,42,75-78,241,1964,p.26,1966,pp.222-223).For example,the influencing Parentego state is sometimes phenomenologically experienced as a hallucinated voice,acompulsion,and/or an inhibition.It may be observable as a childlikeadaptation,withdrawal,or dependency.In other situations the fixated Child egostate is defending against the intrapsychic influence of a Parent ego state.Itmay be phenomenologically experienced either as an overwhelming sense of need oras a lack of sensation and desires,an incapacity to think,or rage.It may alsobe observable as resistance,defiance,age regression,needy dependence,or alack of full contact internally and externally.The observable behaviors mayprovide data for a partial hypothesis of an adapted Child ego state under theintrapsychic influence of a Parent ego state or states.The subjective orphenomenological experiences reported by the person may provide additionalsupporting data or lead to an alternate hypothesis.

The intrapsychic conflict is in part maintained by the child’s needs forrelationship (Fairbairn,1952),(,1969),or contact (Erskine,1989) and the fixated archaeopsychic ego state’s defense against full awarenessof contact,attachment,and relationship needs.These needs may be manifested aspsychological loyalty to the intrapsychically influencing Parent ego state.

Berne (1961) described the intrapsychic dynamics of ego states as representing“the relics of the infant who actually existed,in a struggle with the relics ofthe parents who once actually existed” for it “reduplicates the actual childhoodfights for survival between real people,or at least that is the way the patientexperiences it” (p.66).

When the archaeopsychic ego state is active (either subjectively reportable orbehaviorally observable),by theoretical inference the exteropsychic ego stateis cathected and intrapsychically influencing (Berne,1961,p.42).I amsuggesting that all transactions from an active adapted Child ego state—whetherdescribed as resistant,rebellious,compliant,or dependent—are aspects oftransference.Transference transactions from a Child ego state are one way ofobtaining relief from the intrapsychic conflict.Such transferences aretheoretically assumed to be accompanied by a projection of elements of either anexteropsychic ego state or of a fantasy of a self-created parental figure (Erskine,1988;Moiso,1985).With projection,the intrapsychic conflict is once againexternalized and then reacted to as though the stimulus were coming from outsidethe person.This provides some momentary relief of the intrapsychic conflict.With transference the intrapsychic conflict may once again be as it was inchildhood,transactional between at least two people,with the hope of finallymastering the old interpersonal conflict.Projection also serves as a defenseagainst awareness of the intrapsychic conflict and/or the actual historicalconflict and the resulting effect on the child.

The active expression of a Parent ego state can also lead to relief from theintrapsychic conflict.The active Parent ego state is a reaction to andexpression of an intrapsychic representation of an internally containedhistorical transaction.This is observable when the person manifests thethoughts,feelings,and behaviors of the introjected person and directs themtoward another person.These active Parent ego state transactions are alsodefined as an aspect of transference.

An essential procedure in an integrative approach is the analysis oftransactions to determine which are transferential and which arenontransferential.The purpose of analyzing transactions is to determine whichego states are active and which are intrapsychically influencing as well as tofacilitate an amelioration of the fixations and intrapsychic conflicts.Manytransactions in psychotherapy do not reflect a transference of early fixationsor introjections.Nontransference transactions are an expression of full contacthere and now between the patient and therapist or between any two people.Theirconversations may include discussion of the life problems of mature adults,reactions to loss or change,existential dilemmas,spiritual searching,and thechallenges faced by aware,responsive,and evolving persons.

Transference transactions are an expression of either an archaeopsychic orexteropsychic ego state and,by inference,reflect an intrapsychic conflictbetween two or more ego states.Nontransference transactions are any expressionof a neopsychic ego uncontaminated by fixations of either archaeopsychic orexteropsychic ego states.

Berne’s Analysis of Transactions

Eric Berne parted company with a classical psychoanalytic theory that regardedall transactions from patient to psychotherapist as transference of childhoodconflicts or wishes.Berne’s original theoretical concept of neopsychic ego madeit possible to understand transactions as Adult-to-Adult—hence,transactionalanalysis,and not only an analysis of transference.Berne’s diagrams of egostates also made it possible to graphically represent that which is transferenceand that which is nontransference.

Berne (1961) began his discussion of the analysis of transactions with a casepresentation of “transference” (pp.91-97) within a therapy group.He describedan Adult-to-Adult ego state set of transactions between Camellia and Rosita,followed by Camellia’s misperception of Rosita’s questions,and a shift inCamellia to a Child ego state.Berne described this as a “crossed transaction”(p.93)

in which the stimulus is directed to the Adult while the response originatesfrom the Child,...probably the most frequent cause of misunderstanding inmarriages and work situations,as well as in social life.Clinically,it istypified by the classical transference reaction.(pp.93-94)

In Berne’s further writings he began each explanation of crossed transactionswith an example of the “classical transference reaction of psychoanalysis”(1964,p.30,1966,p.225,1972,p.14) that loosely fit his original theory ofego states.All his other examples of transactions were from a role theoryperspective.

A review of Berne’s (1961) group case presentations ( pp.91-96) shows that heparted company with his own intrapsychic theory (pp.29-80,191-210) and relatedinterventions (pp.224-231,1966,pp.233-258).His interventions in this casewere “motivated by the ultimate aim of establishing social control” (1961,p.95) and his assessment that the group members were not “ready to attempt adeconfusion of the Child or a resolution of underlying conflicts” (p.95).Hisuse of role analysis as an analogy and substitute for his original intrapsychictheory of ego states corresponded with his switch to behavioral therapy.

On the basis of this motivation Berne changed his theoretical concept of egostates and defined transference and transactions significantly differently fromwhat his original ego state theory would have required for consistency.With histheoretical concepts of exteropsychic,neopsychic,and archaeopsychic egostates,the definitions of transactions and transferences would have had to berelated to the expression of ego,ego fragmentation,and intrapsychic conflict.However,Berne’s use of roles to describe ego states led to definitions oftransactions that described communication from a behavioral perspective.Anevaluation of Berne’s role or descriptive theory reveals consistency between theanalogy of ego states as roles and subsequent definitions of transactions.Withrole theory Berne developed a useful taxonomy of behavior and a theory ofcommunication (1961,pp.128-135) consistent with a social control therapy.Yetthere remains a need for definitions of transactions and transferences that areconsistent with Berne's original conceptualization of ego states.

Function of Defense Mechanisms

In describing the transactions between Camellia and Rosita,Berne (1961,pp.91-97) unfortunately did not discuss two significant theoretical and clinicalaspects of the transference reaction: what he referred to as the “misperception”and the “shift” (p.93) in Camellia’s ego states.Throughout his writings Berneseemed to assume that the reader was familiar with the dynamics of defensemechanisms.A missing link in Berne’s concept of ego states is the lack of adefinition of how defenses are related to ego state theory,such as in the caseof Camellia’s shift to her Child ego state.

An integrative perspective on transactional analysis assumes that it is becauseof the continued presence of active archaic defenses that Child and Parent egostates remain fixated and separate states of the ego that are not integratedinto an Adult ego (Erskine,1988).Any of the elements of the ego that are notintegrated into the neopsychic ego may be denied;if intrapsychic stressincreases,the nonintegrated elements are subject to projection.Projectionreestablishes a shaky set of defenses,which were originally developed to keepthe person somewhat comfortable in a very uncomfortable situation.

Also from an integrative intrapsychic perspective,it is with the dynamics ofthe misperception and shift that a phenomenological and historical evaluation isassumed to yield psychotherapeutically useful information about Camellia’s egostates,intrapsychic processes,and the function of her misperception of Rosita(Erskine &Moursund,1988).Berne (1961) only relied on a social roledescription—“the parental role of comforting and apologizing” (p.95)—and an alltoo limited description of the developmental behavior.There is insufficientinformation with which to make an adequate correlated diagnosis to determinewhich ego states are involved in the transactions.

Berne did not elaborate on the significance of the misperception.Theoretically,it is a likely projection onto Rosita of elements of an introjected person(Parent ego state) in Camellia’s life.This would provide a concomitant reliefof the intrapsychic conflict and a parallel reexperiencing of an externalconflict.Camellia can now enact the internal conflict with another person whocan play the role of a “parental response” (Berne,1961,p.94),that is,oneform of transference.The parental response does not require that the person bein the Parent ego state (exteropsychic ego state),but rather,only that she bea suitable projection screen (Joines,1977;Moiso,1985;Perls,1944/1947).

Transference Analysis

Transference transactions of the type described above involve a denial of and aprojection of elements of exteropsychic ego states and a reaction from an activearchaic ego state.There also may be subsequent transactions from the Child egostate to the misperception of a parental response in the other person.It isalso possible to have a transference that involves projection of elements ofexteropsychic ego states and a reaction or overt transaction from anexteropsychic ego state.

These transferences from historical relationships provide defensive relief fromthe discomfort of the intrapsychic conflict.Memories are deflected of theoriginal transactions,where the person(s) with whom the child needed a primaryrelationship,attachment,and contact were the ones who disappointed,neglected,or abused.In such a transference the interpersonal conflicts of childhood areonce again experienced as originating with people in the environment and thusoffer the opportunity for resolution.

Relief from intrapsychic conflict may also be achieved through a transferencethat involves denial of and projection of elements of an archaeopsychic egostate.To avoid the awareness of discomforting or painful feelings,needs,orexperiences,the original denial or repression must be maintained.One way ofaccomplishing this,particularly when these feelings are stimulated,is byprojecting elements of the repressed Child onto someone else.The transferentialtransactions may take two basic forms: (1) projection of elements ofarchaeopsychic ego states and an overt transaction from an active exteropsychicego state,or (2) projection of elements of archaeopsychic ego states and areaction or overt transaction from an archaeopsychic ego state.

A graphic example of Child ego state projection and transference transactionsfrom an active Parent ego state occurs in some cases of multigenerational childabuse.The primary purpose is to diminish intrapsychic conflict: The painfulexperiences contained in the Child ego state are denied and projected onto asuitable screen,and the verbal or physical cruelty that was historicallyintrojected into a Parent ego state is made externally active and directed atanother person.

A second example illustrates the projection of elements of a Child ego state anda reaction by a Child ego state within the same person.In some clinicalsituations the patient may engage in primary process and magical thinking andproject a fantasy onto the psychotherapist.The projection of an archaic fantasyprovides an opportunity for the patient to express through the transference withthe psychotherapist the Child ego state experiences of intrapsychic conflict.Such early childhood fantasies function as an intrapsychic protection and may beeither terrifying and punitive or wonderful and nurturing,similar to Kohut’s(1971,1977) descriptions of idealizing transferences.Either fantasy servesboth to maintain the denial of the caretakers’ effects on the child and toexpress the need for protection from the intrapsychic conflict (Erskine,1988).Psychotherapists who regularly confront,define as a game,or attempt toeliminate such a projection of either a terrorizing or idealizing transferenceinhibit an intrapsychic and integrative therapy process.

Another aspect of transference,the projection of elements of a Child ego stateand an overt transaction from a Child ego state within the same person,isevident in those psychotherapists who project their own childhood experiencesonto patients.The overt transactions may be an expression of a benevolent,nurturing caretaker fantasy within a Child ego state that functions internallyto protect against awareness of Parent ego state influence (Erskine,1988;Erskine &Moursund,1988;Moiso,1985).As long as there is a suitable screenfor the projection of a troubled child,the intrapsychic conflict can betransferred and the denial contained.This form of transference is commonlyreferred to as countertransference.

Ulterior transactions represent those transactions that are at the psychologicallevel of motivation,outside of Adult ego state awareness,and that are atransferential expression of Parent or Child ego state elements (Berne,1961,pp.103-105).In 1964 Berne described ulterior transactions as the basis ofgames (p.33),and earlier (1961) he defined games as

segments of longer,more complex sets of transactions called scripts.Scriptsbelong in the realm of transference phenomena,that is they are derivatives,ormore precisely,adaptations,of infantile reactions and experiences.But ascript does not deal with a mere transference reaction or transferencesituation;it is an attempt to repeat in derivative form a whole transferencedrama,often split up into acts,exactly like the theatrical scripts which areintuitive artistic derivatives of these primal dramas of childhood.(p.116)

Life script is the macro expression of transference;games are a subset ofscript,ulterior or psychological level transactions are the substance of games,and the analysis of transactions is dependent on the concept of the ego dividedinto states with ensuing intrapsychic dynamics.

Transactional analysis is a theory of personality and social action,and aclinical method of psychotherapy,based on the analysis of all possibletransactions between two or more people,on the basis of specifically definedego states....Any system or approach which is not based on the rigorousanalysis of single transactions into their component specific ego states is nottransactional analysis.(Berne,1972,p.20)

Psychotherapy of Transference

The psychotherapy of transference occurs in part when the therapist does notsimply take the patient’s words or behavior at face value but also looks for theunaware meaning of what patients are saying or not saying,doing or not doingthrough their affective communication and bodily gestures.The understanding oftransference from an integrative intrapsychic perspective on transactionalanalysis requires a multifaceted focus.Transference can be viewed as:

1.the means whereby the patient can demonstrate his or her past,thedevelopmental needs that have been thwarted,and the defenses that were erectedto compensate;

2.the resistance to full remembering and,paradoxically,an unaware enactmentof childhood experiences;

3.the expression of intrapsychic conflict and the desire to achieve intimacy inrelationships;or

4.the expression of the universal psychological striving to organize experienceand create meaning.

Novellino (1985) expanded on the importance of understanding the function oftransference:

In any psychotherapeutic relationship the unsatisfied childhood need will beprojected onto the therapist who will be experienced by the patient as thesource of the possible satisfaction of the need (positive pole of transference)as well as its frustration (negative pole of transference).In every case thetransference will be characterized by the simultaneous presence of both poles.(p.204)

Trautmann (1985),in a Transactional Analysis Journal editorial summarizing thetransactional analysis literature on transference,said:

Therapy is effective when the internal Parental influence or dialogue isexternalized (transferred),allowing for the resolution of childhood impassesand traumas,and the emergence of a stronger,uncontaminated,more integratedAdult.The specific approach used to effect this resolution depends on the levelof childhood fixation: the more symbiotic the Child,the more actively thetherapist needs to take on the transference relationship.(p.190)

Conclusion

Berne’s (1972) application of the principle of “Occam’s Razor” (p.20) gave tooclose a shave to the theory of analysis of transactions.In his attempt atconceptual “simplicity” (Preface,p.xvi) and theoretical “economy” (p.21),Berne cut the theoretical concepts to their most simplified explanation and inso doing,I believe,lost the significance and profundity within his own theory.No longer is there either internal or external theoretical consistency.

When Berne redirected the emphasis of ego state theory from the originaldefinitions to behavioral descriptions,he created a fundamental change in theanalysis of transactions.With the shift in the theoretical metaphor of egostates the focus of the psychotherapist moved to the effect of the communication(transaction) on the receiver and on the patient’s options for changing behaviorto produce more effective communication.

The methodology stemming from this change of theoretical emphasis often resultedin the patient’s improving social skills,but the inherent meaning of thetransactions,particularly those that are transferential,was lost.No longerwas there a theoretical basis in the psychotherapist’s mind for a sensitivity tothe internal psychological message or the desperate communication in the unawareexpression of the existential position (Berne,1964) or script beliefs (Erskine&Zalcman,1979).Berne’s original theoretical postulates,which led to anunderstanding of intrapsychic functioning and psychological versus social levelsof transacting,was diminished,and a form of transactional analysis as abehavioral therapy emerged.This shift defined the task of the transactionalanalyst as improving communication and social effectiveness rather thanunderstanding and ameliorating the intrapsychic conflict that is communicatedthrough transference.

Berne developed two distinctly different theories of ego states andtransactions.Each has a specific and valuable clinical purpose,and Berne’sdescriptive theory has many applications in the social world of human behaviorand communication.It has been my goal in this article to show that the use ofBerne’s developmental,relational,and intrapsychic theory of ego states and theconsistent use of that theory in understanding the internal dynamics oftransactions can lead to a sensitive and effective response to transactions andtransference and to a comprehensive psychotherapy that results in theintegration of ego state fragments.

REFERENCES

Baker,E.(1982).The management of transference phenomena in the treatment ofprimitive states.Psychotherapy: Theory,Research and Practice,19,194-197.

Berg,M.(1977).The externalizing transference.International Journal ofPsychoanalysis,58,235-244.

Berne,E.(1961).Transactional analysis in psychotherapy: A systematicindividual and social psychiatry.New York: Grove Press.

Berne,E.(1964).Games people play: The psychology of human relationships.NewYork: Grove Press.

Berne,E.(1966).Principles of group treatment.New York: Grove Press.

Berne,E.(1972).What do you say after you say hello?: The psychology of humandestiny.New York: Grove Press.

Bollas,C.(1979).The transformational object.International Journal ofPsychoanalysis,60,97-107.

Bowlby,J.(1969).Attachment.Vol.1 of Attachment and loss.New York: BasicBooks.

Brandchaft,B.(1989,October).Countertransference in an intersubjectiveperspective: A case presentation.Panel discussion,12th annual conference onthe psychology of the self,San Francisco.

Brenner,C.(1979).Working alliance,therapeutic alliance,and transference.Journal of the American Psychoanalytic Association,27,137-158.

Breuer,J.,&Freud,S.(1955).Studies on hysteria.In J.Strachey (Ed.andTrans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works of SigmundFreud (Vol.2,pp.1-305).London: Hogarth Press.(Original work published 1895)

Clarkson,P.,&Gilbert,M.(1988).Berne’s original model of ego states: Sometheoretical considerations.Transactional Analysis Journal,18,20-29.

Erikson,E.(1950).Childhood and society.New York: Norton.

Erskine,R.G.(1979).Fourth-degree impasse.In C.Moiso (Ed.),T.A.in Europe:Contributions to EATA summer conference 1977/1978.Geneva,Switzerland: EuropeanAssociation for Transactional Analysis.Workshop conducted at the EuropeanAssociation for Transactional Analysis Congress,Seefeld,Austria,July,1977.

Erskine,R.G.(1980).Script cure: Behavioral,intrapsychic and physiological.Transactional Analysis Journal,10,102-106.

Erskine,R.G.(1987).A structural analysis of ego: Eric Berne’s contributionto the theory of psychotherapy.In Keynote speeches: Delivered at the EATAconference,July,1986,Noordwijkerhout,The Netherlands.Geneva,Switzerland:European Association for Transactional Analysis.

Erskine,R.G.(1988).Ego structure,intrapsychic function,and defensemechanisms: A commentary on Eric Berne’s original theoretical concepts.Transactional Analysis Journal,18,15-19.

Erskine,R.G.(1989).A relationship therapy: Developmental perspectives.In B.R.Loria (Ed.),Developmental theories and the clinical process: Conferenceproceedings of the Eastern Regional Transactional Analysis conference (pp.123-135).Madison,WI: Omnipress.

Erskine,R.G.,Clarkson,P.,Goulding,R.L.,Groder,M.G.,&Moiso,C.(1988).Ego state theory: Definitions,descriptions,and points of view.Transactional Analysis Journal,18,6-14.

Erskine,R.G.,&Moursund,J.(1988).Integrative psychotherapy in action.Newbury Park,CA: Sage Publications.

Erskine,R.G.,&Zalcman,M.(1979).The racket system: A model for racketanalysis.Transactional Analysis Journal,9,51-59.

Fairbairn,W.R.D.(1952).An object-relations theory of the personality.NewYork: Basic Books.

Federn,P.(1977).Ego personality and the psychoses.London: MaresfieldReprints.(Original work published 1953)

Freud,A.(1965).Normality and pathology in childhood: Assessments ofdevelopment.New York: International Universities Press.

Freud,S.(1949).An outline of psychoanalysis.New York: Norton.

Freud,S.(1955).Fragments of an analysis of a case of hysteria.In J.Strachey(Ed.and Trans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works ofSigmund Freud (Vol.7,pp.1-122).London: Hogarth Press.(Original workpublished 1905)

Freud,S.(1958).The dynamics of transference.In J.Strachey (Ed.and Trans.),The standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.12,pp.97-108).London: Hogarth Press.(Original work published 1912)

Freud,S.(1958).Observations on transference—love: Further recommendations onthe technique of psychoanalysis,III.In J.Strachey (Ed.and Trans.),Thestandard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund Freud (Vol.12,pp.157-173).London: Hogarth Press.(Original work published 1915)

Friedman,L.(1969).The therapeutic alliance.International Journal ofPsychoanalysis,50,139-159.

Greenberg,J.R.,&Mitchell,S.A.(1983).Object relations in psychoanalytictheory.Cambridge,MA: Harvard University Press.

Greenson,R.R.(1967).The technique and practice of psychoanalysis.New York:International Universities Press.

Guntrip,H.(1971).Psychoanalytic theory,therapy and the self.New York: BasicBooks.

Joines,V.(1977).An integrated systems perspective.In G.Barnes,(Ed.),Transactional analysis after Eric Berne: Teaching and practice of three TAschools (pp.252-272).New York: Harper &Row.

Khan,M.M.R.(1974).The privacy of the self.London: Hogarth Press.

Klein,M.(1949).The psychoanalysis of children.London: Hogarth Press.

Kohut,H.(1971).The analysis of the self.New York: International UniversitiesPress.

Kohut,H.(1977).The restoration of the self: A systematic approach to thepsychoanalytic treatment of narcissistic personality disorder.New York:International Universities Press.

Langs,R.(1976).The therapeutic intervention: Vol.II.A critical overview andsynthesis.New York: Jason Aronson.

Langs,R.(1981).Classics in psychoanalytic techniques.New York: Plenum.

Lipton,S.(1977).The advantages of Freud’s technique as shown in his analysisof the rat man.International Journal of Psychoanalysis,58,255-273.

Loria,B.R.(1988).The parent ego state: Theoretical foundations andalterations.Transactional Analysis Journal,18,39-46.

Massey,R.(1989).Script theory synthesized systemically.TransactionalAnalysis Journal,19,14-25.

Moiso,C.(1985).Ego states and transference.Transactional Analysis Journal,15,194-201.

Moiso,C.(1988).Eric Berne memorial scientific award acceptance speech: Egostates,transference and the TA psychodynamic approach—an overview.Transactional Analysis Journal,18,4-5.

Novellino,M.(1985).Redecision analysis of transference: A TA approach totransference neurosis.Transactional Analysis Journal,15,202-206.

Novik,J.,&Kelley,K.(1970).Projection and externalization.PsychoanalyticStudy of the Child,25,69-95.

Ornstein,A.(1989,October).Countertransference in an intersubjectiveperspective: A case presentation.Panel discussion,12th annual conference onthe psychology of the self,San Francisco.

Perls,F.S.(1947).Ego,hunger and aggression: The beginnings of Gestalttherapy.New York: Vintage Books.(Original work published 1944 as Ego,hungerand aggression: A revision of Freud’s theory and method.Durban: KnoxPublishing)

Perls,L.(1978).An oral history of Gestalt therapy.Part I: A conversationwith Laura Perls,by Edward Rosenfeld.The Gestalt Journal,1(1),8-31.

Piaget,J.(1932).The moral judgment of the child.New York: Harcourt Press.

Piaget,J.(1951).Play,dreams and imitation in childhood.New York: Norton.

Piaget,J.(1954).The construction of reality in the child.New York: BasicBooks.

Spotnitz,H.(1969).Modern psychoanalysis of the schizophrenic patient.NewYork: Grune &Stratton.

Stolorow,R.D.,Brandchaft,B.,&Atwood,G.(1987).Psychoanalytic treatment:An intersubjective approach.Hillsdale,NJ: Analytic Press.

Trautmann,R.(1985).Letter from the editor.Transactional Analysis Journal,15,188-191.

Trautmann,R.L.,&Erskine,R.G.(1981).Ego state analysis: A comparativeview.Transactional Analysis Journal,11,178-185.

Weiss,E.(1950).Principles of psychodynamics.New York: Grune &Stratton.

Winnicott,D.W.(1965).The maturational processes and the facilitatingenvironment: Studies in the theory of emotional development.New York:International Universities Press.

Notes

1This article was originally published in the Transactional Analysis Journal,Volume 21,Number 2,April 1991,pp.63-76.The author wishes to gratefullyacknowledge the members of the Professional Development Seminar of the Institutefor Integrative Psychotherapy,New York,for their valuable suggestions in theformulation of this article.