• DOI:10.1177/036215378801800404
• Corpus ID: 52906124

Whither Scripts ?

@inproceedings{English2002WhitherS,
  title={Whither Scripts ?},
  author={Fanita English},
  year={2002}
}

• F. English
• Published 2002
• Psychology

Script theory, on careful examination, has become restrictive, simplistic, and inaccurate. The author connects Berne’s narrow deterministic view of scripts to his erroneous view of games. Existential Pattern Therapy (EPT) (English, 1987), the author’s own form of script analysis emphasizing creativity and the balance of unconscious drives, is described. A case presentation using EPT is discussed following which an evaluation of the relationship between unconscious drives (survival, creative, restful), stroke economy, and the ego states concludes the analysis. I applaud Cornell’s (1988) courage in challenging the constricting tenets on which current script theory is built. I too, have noted with concern how many TA therapists are shackled to a procrustean bed of unproven beliefs that suggest that injunctions determine narrow linear scripts which patients are expected to rid themselves of through therapy. When held by therapists, such beliefs often generate self-fnlfilling prophecies for suggestible patients or lead to false “script cures” involving problems that did not exist in the first place! Cornell states: Script theory has become more restrictive than enlivening. Script analysis as it has evolved . . . is overly psychoanalytic in attitude and overly reductionistic in what it communicates. . . . The incorporation of developmental theory into script theory has too often been simplistic and inaccurate, placing primary emphasis on psychopathology rather than on psychological formation. (p. 281) Although agreeing with the thrust of Cor294 nell’s statement and his implied criticism of the psychoanalytic emphasis on fixation at childhood developmental stages, I do not accept a blanket condemnation of psychoanalytic tbinking. Clearly the methodology of psychoanalysis is cumbersome and outdated, something Berne recognized even though he continued using analysis with some patients almost to the end of his life. Emphasizing linear childhood development without noting interactionist influences, and believing that childhood experience is the exclusive cause of later behavior, is both limiting and counterproductive. For example, clinical experience shows that it is false to assume that a person ‘ ‘fixated’ ’ at one developmental stage cannot progress emotionahy to another until alI issues at the first stage are resolved. Even Freud’s (1915/1957) own writings offer openings to the kind of broader views advocated by Cornell. However, although I agree that psychological formation can be better understood by considering healthy rather than pathological development, as therapists we also need theory which helps us to understand distortions of normal processes. Resilience in the Face of Childhood Experience Early childhood influences and events as understood (or misunderstood) by the growing child have a powerful impact on both healthy development and specific pathology. They influence the formation of character as well as subsequent attitudes, feelings, relationships, and views on the future. However, the resilience of children (and indeed of humans at all ages) must not be underestimated. To do so implies that children can be conditioned in a simplistic, Pavlovian manner. Many individuals overcome difficult, even tragic, Transactional Analysis Journal childhood experiences successfully without the benefit of therapy. Life has a way of offering many corrective opportunities. As mental health professionals we all too often forget about healthy development, thus discounting the human ability to symbolize, to transform, to create, to seek freedom even at some risk, and, ultimately, to let go. Survival Conclusions Children are dependent and sense that their survival depends on their caretakers. As is emphasized in TA, positive strokes convey the gratifying message that care is forthcoming, although sometimes conditionally, at the price of adaptation, We are born with several drives, including the drive to survive. This survival drive pushes us to adapt and learn whatever seems necessary in order to acquire and maintain approval and new skills. Our learnings become what I call “survival conclusions” (English, 1977c, p. 332). These are integrated into our organism as our “second nature” by means of the alternating processes of assirnilation and accommodation to achieve what Piaget calls “equilibration” or balance (Cowan, 1978, pp. 24-25). In brief, assimilation implies “taking in” by adapting what is out there to fit what is already known subjectively, and accommodation refers to modifying one’s behavior/thinking to adjust to reality as understood from external stimuli and the reactions of caretakers (Cowan, 1978, pp. 22-23). Equilibration goes on during the constant process of growth through assimilation and accommodation, and it is a complex process that cannot be reduced to simple conditioning. Eventually one’s existential position, basic character structure, and ways of relating to others will be established, although changes continue throughout the individual’s lifetime. Survival conclusions are established at each stage of development (English, 1977~). They compensate for the fact that our genes do not carry the specific programs we need in order to survive as independent beings. The survival drive operates throughout our lives to bring on survival conclusions in situations resembling the one that stimulated the original conclusion. Many survival conclusions are necessary and beneficial throughout life (e.g., not gulping down hot liquid before testing it), and others Vol. 18, No. 4, October 1988 WHITHER SCRIPTS? have important socializing value even though they are not life-saving (e.g., not defecating on the living room floor). Some have only temporary value and, if not later reinforced, remain latent. Once survival conclusions are set, the survival drive continues to bring them on without discriminating between those that have lifesaving or socializing value and those that no longer apply. Thus therapy may be required to reduce conclusions that are too powerful or harmful (e.g., phobias, irrational anxiety, inhibitions, obsessions, compulsions, etc.). Although the operation of such survival conclusions may resemble injunctions or attributions, survival conclusions are more restricted in scope. We collect thousands of survival conclusions at various stages of development, and they affect specific issues rather than the total life script; we do not take on one or two major ones to transform our entire life course. In addition, most survival conclusions are useful, even essential, and not to be dropped lest our lives be in danger. Although some may reinforce each other or combine to form a dysfunctional “syndrome,” new conclusions are integrated at all successive developmental stages, including adulthood. With a patient seeking therapy, various behavior patterns may be involved, each associated with different survival conclusions. Therapy may consist of separating out the strands of different conclusions, some of which may be important and still useful even though interwoven with others that are currently dysfunctional. A conclusion that is dysfunctional for a person’s current life generates anxiety and/or projection which, in turn, impairs the person’s ability to cope. Because many conclusions remain dormant in a grown person, a particular event or situation can revive a conclusion that has been inoperative for a long time. Then contamination to other situations may set in, even when such situations were not previously disturbing. However, although certain archaic survival conclusions can generate problems requiring treatment, they are not the principal determinants of script. We cannot ascribe scripts to conditioned response to alleged injunctions assumed to exist in a hypothetical “electrode” (Berne, 1972, p. 115) in the Child. As Cornell (1988) appropriately suggests, many more