2 COURTROOM.

Thesis. Descriptively this belongs to the cla.s.s of games which find their most florid expressions in law, and which includes 'Wooden Leg' (the plea of insanity) and 'Debtor' (the civil suit). Clinically it is most often seen in marital counselling and marital psychotherapy groups. Indeed, some marital counselling and marital groups consist of a perpetual game of 'Courtroom' in which nothing is resolved, since the game is never broken up. In such cases it becomes evident that the counsellor or therapist is heavily involved in the game without being aware of it.

'Courtroom' can be played by any number, but is essentially three-handed, with a plaintiff, a defendant and a judge, represented by a husband, a wife and the therapist. If it is played in a therapy group or over the radio or TV, the other members of the audience are cast as the jury. The husband begins plaintively, 'Let me tell you what (wife's name) did yesterday. She took the ...' etc., etc. The wife then responds defensively, 'Here is the way it really was ... and besides just before that he was ... and anyway at the time we were both ...' etc. The husband adds gallantly, 'Well, I'm glad you people have a chance to hear both sides of the story, I only want to be fair.' At this point the counsellor says judiciously, 'It seems to me that if we consider ...' etc., etc. If there is an audience, the therapist may throw it to them with: 'Well, let's hear what the others have to say.' Or, if the group is already trained, they will play the jury without any instruction from him.

Ant.i.thesis. The therapist says to the husband, 'You're absolutely right!' If the husband relaxes complacently or triumphantly, the therapist asks: 'How do you feel about my saying that?' The husband replies: 'Fine.' Then the therapist says, 'Actually, I feel you're in the wrong.' If the husband is honest, he will say: 'I knew that all along.' If he is not honest, he will show some reaction that makes it clear a game is in progress. Then it becomes possible to go into the matter further. The game element lies in the fact that while the plaintiff is overtly clamouring for victory, fundamentally he believes that he is wrong.

After sufficient clinical material has been gathered to clarify the situation, the game can be interdicted by a manoeuvre which is one of the most elegant in the whole art of ant.i.thetics. The therapist makes a rule prohibiting the use of the (grammatical) third person in the group. Thenceforward the members can only address each other directly as 'you' or talk about themselves as 'I', but they cannot say, 'Let me tell you about him 'or' Let me tell you about her'. At this point the couple stop playing games in the group altogether, or shift into 'Sweetheart' which is some improvement or take up 'Furthermore' which is no help at all. 'Sweetheart' is described in another section (page 94). In 'Furthermore' the plaintiff makes one accusation after the other. The defendant replies to each 'I can explain'. The plaintiff pays no attention to the explanation, but as soon as the defendant pauses, he launches into his next indictment with another 'furthermore', which is followed by another explanation a typical Parent-Child interchange.

'Furthermore' is played most intensively by paranoid defendants. Because of their literalness, it is particularly easy for them to frustrate accusers who express themselves in humorous or metaphorical terms. In general, metaphors are the most obvious traps to avoid in a game of 'Furthermore'.

In its everyday form, 'Courtroom' is easily observed in children as a three-handed game between two siblings and a parent. 'Mummy, she took my candy away.' 'Yes, but he took my doll, and before that he was. .h.i.tting me, and anyway we both promised to share our candy.'

a.n.a.lYSIS.

Thesis: They've got to say I'm right.

Aim: Rea.s.surance.

Roles: Plaintiff, Defendant, Judge (and/or Jury).

Dynamics: Sibling rivalry.

Examples: (1) Children quarrelling, parent intervenes. (2) Married couple, seek 'help'.

Social Paradigm: Adult-Adult.

Adult: 'This is what she did to me.'

Adult: 'The real facts are these.'

Psychological Paradigm: Child-Parent.

Child: 'Tell me I'm right.'

Parent: 'This one is right.' Or: 'You're both right.'

Moves: (1) Complaint filed Defence filed. (2) Plaintiff files reb.u.t.tal, concession, or good-will gesture. (3) Decision of judge or instructions to jury. (4) Final decision filed.

Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological projection of guilt. (2) External Psychological excused from guilt. (3) Internal Social 'Sweetheart', 'Furthermore', 'Uproar' and others. (4) External Social 'Courtroom'. (5) Biological stroking from judge and jury. (6) Existential depressive position, I'm always wrong.

3 FRIGID WOMAN.

Thesis. This is almost always a marital game, since it is hardly conceivable that an informal liaison would present the required opportunities and privileges over a sufficient length of time, or that such a liaison would be maintained in the face of it.

The husband makes advances to his wife and is repulsed. After repeated attempts, he is told that all men are beasts, he doesn't really love her, or doesn't love her for herself, that all he is intersted in is s.e.x. He desists for a time, then tries again with the same result. Eventually he resigns himself and makes no further advances. As the weeks or months pa.s.s, the wife becomes increasingly informal and sometimes forgetful. She walks through the bedroom half dressed or forgets her clean towel when she takes a bath so that he has to bring it to her. If she plays a hard game or drinks heavily, she may become flirtatious with other men at parties. At length he responds to those provocations and tries again. Once more he is repulsed, and a game of 'Uproar' ensues involving their recent behaviour, other couples, their in-laws, their finances and their failures, terminated by a slamming door.

This time the husband makes up his mind that he is really through, that they will find a s.e.xless modus vivendi. Months pa.s.s. He declines the negligee parade and the forgotten towel manoeuvre. The wife becomes more provocatively informal and more provocatively forgetful, but he still resists. Then one evening she actually approaches him and kisses him. At first he doesn't respond, remembering his resolution, but soon nature begins to take its course after the long famine, and now he thinks he surely has it made. His first tentative advances are not repulsed. He becomes bolder and bolder. Just at the critical point, the wife steps back and cries: 'See, what did I tell you! All men are beasts, all I wanted was affection, but all you are interested in is s.e.x!' The ensuing game of 'Uproar' at this point may skip the preliminary phases of their recent behaviour and their in-laws, and go right to the financial problem.

It should be noted that in spite of his protestations, the husband is usually just as afraid of s.e.xual intimacy as his wife is, and had carefully chosen his mate to minimize the danger of overtaxing his disturbed potency, which he can now blame on her.

In its everyday form this game is played by unmarried ladies of various ages, which soon earns them a common slang epithet. With them it often merges into the game of indignation, or 'Rapo'.

Ant.i.thesis. This is a dangerous game, and the possible ant.i.theses are equally dangerous. Taking a mistress is a gamble. In the face of such stimulating compet.i.tion, the wife may give up the game and try to initiate a normal married life, perhaps too late, On the other hand, she may use the affair, often with the help of a lawyer, as ammunition against the husband in a game of 'Now I've Got You, You Son of a b.i.t.c.h'. The outcome is equally unpredictable if the husband undertakes psychotherapy and she does not. The wife's game may collapse as the husband grows stronger, leading to healthier adjustment; but if she is a hard player, improvement on his part may result in divorce. The best solution, if available, is for both parties to go into a transactional marital group, where the underlying advantages of the game and the basic s.e.xual pathology can be laid bare. With this preparation both spouses may become interested in intensive individual psychotherapy. That may result in a psychological remarriage. If not, at least each of the parties may make a more sensible readjustment to the situation than they might have otherwise.

The decent ant.i.thesis for the everyday form is to find another social companion. Some of the shrewder or more brutal ant.i.theses are corrupt and even criminal.

Relatives. The converse game, 'Frigid Man', is less common, but it takes much the same general course with some variations in detail. The final outcome depends upon the scripts of the parties involved.

The crucial point of 'Frigid Woman' is the terminal phase of 'Uproar'. Once this has run its course, s.e.xual intimacy is out of the question, since both parties derive a perverse satisfaction from 'Uproar' and have no need of further s.e.xual excitement from each other. Hence the most important item in anti- 'Frigid Woman' is to decline 'Uproar'. This leaves the wife in a state of s.e.xual disatisfaction which may be so acute that she will become more compliant. The use made of 'Uproar' distinguishes 'Frigid Woman' from 'Beat Me Daddy', where 'Uproar' is part of the foreplay; in 'Frigid Woman', 'Uproar' subst.i.tutes for the s.e.x act itself. Thus in 'Beat Me Daddy', 'Uproar' is a condition of the s.e.xual act, a kind of fetish which increases the excitement, while in 'Frigid Woman', once 'Uproar' has taken place, the episode is finished.

An early a.n.a.logue of 'Frigid Woman' is played by that type of prissy little girl described by d.i.c.kens in Great Expectations. She comes out in her starched dress and asks the little boy to make her a mud pie. Then she sneers at his dirty hands and clothing and tells him how clean she is.

a.n.a.lYSIS.

Thesis: Now I've got you, you son of a b.i.t.c.h.

Aim: Vindication.

Roles: Proper Wife, Inconsiderate Husband.

Dynamics: p.e.n.i.s envy.

Examples: (1) Thank you for the mud pie, you dirty little boy. (2) Provocative, frigid wife.

Social Paradigm: Parent-Child.

Parent: 'I give you permission to make me a mud pie (kiss me).'

Child: 'I'd love to.'

Parent: 'Now see how dirty you are.'

Psychological Paradigm: Child-Parent.

Child: 'See if you can seduce me.'

Parent: 'I'll try, if you stop me.'

Child: 'See, it was you who started it.'

Moves: (1) Seduction-Response. (2) Rejection-Resignation. (3) Provocation-Response. (4) Rejection-Uproar.

Advantages: (1) Internal Psychological freedom from guilt for s.a.d.i.s.tic fantasies. (2) External Psychological avoids feared exhibition and penetration. (3) Internal Social 'Uproar'. (4) External Social What do you do with dirty little boys (husbands)? (5) Biological inhibited s.e.x play and belligerent exchanges. (6) Existential I am pure.

4 HARRIED.

Thesis. This is a game played by the harried housewife. Her situation requires that she be proficient in ten or twelve different occupations; or, stated otherwise, that she fill gracefully ten or twelve different roles. From time to time semi-facetious lists of these occupations or roles appear in the Sunday supplements: mistress, mother, nurse, housemaid, etc. Since these roles are usually conflicting and fatiguing, their imposition gives rise in the course of years to the condition symbolically known as 'Housewife's Knee' (since the knee is used for rocking, scrubbing, lifting, driving and so forth), whose symptoms are succinctly summarized in the complaint: 'I'm tired.'

Now, if the housewife is able to set her own pace and find enough satisfaction in loving her husband and children, she will not merely serve but enjoy her twenty-five years, and see the youngest child off to college with a pang of loneliness. But if on the one hand she is driven by her inner Parent and called to account by the critical husband she has chosen for that purpose, and on the other unable to get sufficient satisfaction from loving her family, she may grow more and more unhappy. At first she may try to console herself with the advantages of 'If It Weren't For You' and 'Blemish' (and indeed, any housewife may fall back on these when the going gets rough); but soon these fail to keep her going. Then she has to find another way out, and that is the game of 'Harried'.

The thesis of this game is simple. She takes on everything that comes, and even asks for more. She agrees with her husband's criticisms and accepts all her children's demands. If she has to entertain at dinner, she not only feels she must function impeccably as a conversationalist, chatelaine over the household and servants, interior decorator, caterer, glamour girl, virgin queen and diplomat ; she will also volunteer that morning to bake a cake and take the children to the dentist. If she already feels hara.s.sed, she makes the day even more harried. Then in the middle of the afternoon she justifiably collapses, and nothing gets done. She lets down her husband, the children and their guests, and her self-reproaches add to her misery. After this happens two or three times her marriage is in jeopardy, the children are confused, she loses weight, her hair is untidy, her face is drawn and her shoes are scuffed. Then she appears at the psychiatrist's office, ready to be hospitalized.

Ant.i.thesis. The logical ant.i.thesis is simple: Mrs White can fill each of her roles in succession during the week, but she must refuse to play two or more of them simultaneously. When she gives a c.o.c.ktail party, for example, she can play either caterer or nursemaid, but not both. If she is merely suffering from Housewife's Knee, she may be able to limit herself in this way.

If she is actually playing a game of 'Harried', however, it will be very difficult for her to adhere to this principle. In that case the husband is carefully chosen; he is an otherwise reasonable man who will criticize his wife if she is not as efficient as he thinks his mother was. In effect, she marries his fantasy of his mother as perpetuated in his Parent, which is similar to her fantasy of her mother or grandmother. Having found a suitable partner, her Child can now settle into the hara.s.sed role necessary to maintain her psychic balance, and which she will not readily give up. The more occupational responsibility the husband has, the easier it is for both of them to find Adult reasons to preserve the unhealthy aspects of their relationship.

When the position becomes untenable, often because of official school intervention on behalf of the unhappy offspring, the psychiatrist is called in to make it a three-handed game. Either the husband wants him to do an overhaul job on the wife, or the wife wants him as an ally against the husband. The ensuing proceedings depend on the skill and alertness of the psychiatrist. Usually the first phase, the alleviation of the wife's depression, will proceed smoothly. The second phase, in which she will give up playing 'Harried' in favour of playing 'Psychiatry', is the decisive one. It tends to arouse increasing opposition from both spouses. Sometimes this is well concealed and then explodes suddenly, though not unexpectedly. If this stage is weathered, then the real work of game a.n.a.lysis can proceed.

It is necessary to recognize that the real culprit is the wife's Parent, her mother or grandmother; the husband is to some extent only a lay figure chosen to play his role in the game. The therapist has to fight not only this Parent and the husband, who has a heavy investment in playing his end, but also the social environment, which encourages the wife's compliance. The week after the article appears about the many roles a housewife has to play, there is a How'm I Doing? in the Sunday paper: a ten-item test to determine 'How Good A Hostess (Wife) (Mother) (Housekeeper) (Budgeteer) Are You?' For the housewife who plays 'Harried', that is the equivalent of the little leaflet that comes with children's games, stating the rules. It may help to speed up the evolution of 'Harried', which, if not checked, may end in a game of 'State Hospital' ('The last thing I want is to be sent to a hospital').

One practical difficulty with such couples is that the husband tends to avoid personal involvement with the treatment beyond playing 'Look How Hard I'm Trying', because he is usually more disturbed than he cares to admit. Instead he may send indirect messages to the therapist, through temper outbursts which he knows will be reported by the wife. Hence 'Harried' easily progresses to a third-degree life-death-divorce struggle. The psychiatrist is almost alone on the side of life, a.s.sisted only by the harried Adult of the patient which is locked in combat that may prove mortal against all three aspects of the husband, allied with her own inner Parent and Child. It is a dramatic battle, with odds of two against five, which tries the skill of the most game-free and professional therapist. If he quails, he can take the easy way out and offer his patient on the altar of the divorce court, which is equivalent to saying 'I surrender Let's you and him fight.'

5 IF IT WEREN'T FOR YOU

Thesis. The detailed a.n.a.lysis of this game has already been given in Chapter 5. It was historically the second game uncovered, after 'Why Don't You Yes But', which up to that point had been regarded merely as an interesting phenomenon. With the additional discovery of IWFY, it became clear that there must be a whole department of social action based on ulterior transactions. This led to a more active search for such goings-on, and the present collection is one outcome.

Briefly, a woman marries a domineering man so that he will restrict her activities and thus keep her from getting into situations which frighten her. If this were a simple operation, she might express her grat.i.tude when he performed this service for her. In the game of IWFY, however, her reaction is quite the opposite: she takes advantage of the situation to complain about the restrictions, which makes her spouse feel uneasy and gives her all sorts of advantages. This game is the internal social advantage. The external social advantage is the derivative pastime 'If It Weren't For Him', which she plays with her congenial lady friends.

6 LOOK HOW HARD I'VE TRIED

Thesis. In its common clinical form this is a three-handed game played by a married couple with a psychiatrist. The husband (usually) is bucking for a divorce, despite loud protestations to the contrary, while the spouse is more sincere in wanting to continue the marriage. He comes to the therapist under protest and talks just enough to demonstrate to the wife that he is cooperating; usually he plays a mild game of 'Psychiatry' or 'Courtroom'. As time pa.s.ses he exhibits either increasingly resentful pseudo-compliance or belligerent argumentativeness towards the therapist. At home he initially shows more 'understanding' and restraint, and finally behaves worse than ever. After one, five or ten visits, depending on the skill of the therapist, he refuses to come any longer and goes hunting or fishing instead. The wife is then forced into filing for divorce. The husband is now blameless, since his wife has taken the initiative and he has demonstrated his good faith by going to the therapist. He is in a good position to say to any attorney, judge, friend or relative, 'Look how hard I've tried!'

Ant.i.thesis. The couple is seen together. If one let us say the husband is clearly playing this game, the other is taken into individual treatment and the player is sent on his way, on the valid ground that he is less ready for therapy. He can still get a divorce, but only at the expense of abandoning his position that he is really trying. If necessary, the wife can start the divorce, and her position is much improved since she really has tried. The favourable, hoped-for outcome is that the husband, his game broken up, will go into a state of despair and then seek treatment elsewhere with genuine motivation.

In its everyday form this is easily observed in children as a two-handed game with one parent. It is played from either of two positions: 'I am helpless' or 'I am blameless'. The child tries, but bungles or is unsuccessful. If he is Helpless, the parent has to do it for him. If he is Blameless, the parent has no reasonable grounds for punishing him. This reveals the elements of the game. The parents should find out two things: which of them taught the child this game; and what they are doing to perpetuate it.

An interesting, though sometimes sinister, variant is 'Look How Hard I Was Trying', which is usually a harder game of the second or third degree. This can be ill.u.s.trated by the case of a hardworking man with a gastric ulcer. There are many people with progressive physical disabilities who do the best they can to cope with the situation, and they may enlist the help of their families in a legitimate way. Such conditions, however, can also be exploited for ulterior purposes.

First Degree: A man announces to his wife and friends that he has an ulcer. He also lets them know that he is continuing to work. This elicits their admiration. Perhaps a person with a painful and unpleasant condition is ent.i.tled to a certain amount of ostentation as a poor recompense for his suffering. He should be given due credit for not playing 'Wooden Leg' instead, and deserves some reward for continuing to a.s.sume his responsibilities. In such a case, the courteous reply to 'Look How Hard I'm Trying' is, 'Yes, we all admire your fort.i.tude and conscientiousness.'

Second Degree: A man is told that he has an ulcer, but keeps it a secret from his wife and friends. He continues working and worrying as hard as ever, and one day he collapses on the job. When his wife is notified, she gets the message instantly: 'Look How Hard I Was Trying. 'Now she is supposed to appreciate him as she never has before, and to feel sorry for all the mean things she has said and done in the past. In short, she is now supposed to love him, all previous methods of wooing her having failed. Unfortunately for the husband, her manifestations of affection and solicitude at this point are more apt to be motivated by guilt than by love. Deep down she is likely to be resentful because he is using unfair leverage against her, and has also taken unfair advantage of her by keeping his illness a secret. In short, a diamond bracelet is a much more honest instrument of courtship than a perforated stomach. She has the option of throwing the jewellery back at him, but she cannot decently walk out on the ulcer. A sudden confrontation with a serious illness is more likely to make her feel trapped than won over.

This game can often be discovered immediately after the patient first hears that he has a potentially progressive disability. If he is going to play it, the whole plan will very likely flash through his mind at that point, and can be recovered by a careful psychiatric review of the situation. What is recovered is the secret gloating of his Child at learning that he has such a weapon, masked by his Adult concern at the practical problems raised by his illness.

Third Degree: Even more sinister and spiteful is the sudden unheralded suicide because of serious illness. The ulcer progresses to cancer, and one day the wife, who has never been informed that anything serious is amiss, walks into the bathroom and finds her husband lying there dead. The note says clearly enough, 'Look How Hard I Was Trying.' If something like this happens twice to the same woman, it is time for her to find out what she has been playing.

a.n.a.lYSIS.

Thesis: They can't push me around.

Aim: Vindication.

Roles: Standfast, Persecutor, Authority.

Dynamics: a.n.a.l pa.s.sivity.

Examples: (1) Child dressing. (2) Spouse bucking for divorce.

Social Paradigm: Adult-Adult.

Adult: 'It's time to (get dressed) (go to a psychiatrist).'

Adult: 'All right, I'll try it.'

Psychological Paradigm: Parent-Child.

Parent: 'I'm going to make you (get dressed) (go to a psychiatrist).'

Child: 'See, it doesn't work.'