INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY

IN ACTION
INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY
IN ACTION

By Richard G. Erskine
and Janet P. Moursund

KARNAC
First published in 1988 by Sage Publications, Inc.

This paperback edition published in 2011 by

Karnac Books Ltd

118 Finchley Road
London NW3 5HT

© 2011 to Richard G. Erskine and Janet P. Moursund

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in

a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic,
mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior written
permission of the publisher.

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data

A C.I.P. for this book is available from the British Library

ISBN: 978-1-85575-830-8

Printed in Great Britain

www.karnacbooks.com
 Contents

Preface
1. Introduction
2. Conrad:
Regression and Redecision
3. Chris:
Discovering a Self-Created Parent
4. Ben:
Therapy with the Parent Ego State
5. Frankie:
The Absent Father
6. Robert:
Challenging a Cultural Script
7. Emily:
From Dream to Script
8. Sarah:
The Emerging Plan
9. Bill:
Replacing a Destructive lntroject
10. Glenda:
The Empty House
11. Charles:
A Study in Contact
12. Jon:
Putting It All Together
Index
About the Authors
To my mother, my wife, and
my daughters
-Richard

To Sue, Lance, and Roberta,

with my respect and my love
 Preface

In order to talk about what a psychotherapist does, there must be a

context, a background. Our work as therapists is rooted in our
assumptions about what people are like, how they get that way, why
they change or stay the same. And, unlike the quantitative sciences,
physics or chemistry or mathematics, these assumptions in psycho-
therapy cannot be easily specified. They don't hold still; they are
not always the same for each of us. Each therapist borrows from
theory and past experiences in a different and subjective way. Over
the years, we each construct our own unique, personal ideas of
human behavior; we base our understanding of our clients, as well
as of ourselves, on these ideas. What we, the authors of this book,
believe or disbelieve about personality, about human development,
about the way change occurs, shapes our beliefs and practices in
psychotherapy, and will certainly affect the way we talk about it.
What you believe-and what you believe we believe-will shape
the way in which you understand us. So explanations and foun-
dation-laying are important. But where to begin?
It really is an endless progression, this business of describing how
we have come to understand our human condition. As long as
people have been self-aware-have been able to think about
themselves-they have been building assumptions about how
those selves operate: why we do what we do, how we learned to do
it, whether and why and how we might do it differently. These kinds
of interests form the basis for most, if not all, literature. The ancient
storytellers, Biblical prophets, and Greek playwrights were really
the first to describe human functioning. Psychologists came later-
8 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

much later-and psychotherapists, as we understand the term,

were later still.
Integrative Psychotherapy is one of the most recent of psycho-
therapeutic schools. The term integrative refers both to the full
synthesis of affective, behavioral, cognitive, and physiological
theory and methods of psychotherapy and also to the outcome of
psychotherapy-the integration or assimilation within the client of
the fragmented or fixated aspects of the personality. In developing
this approach, we have built extensively on the work of three of our
predecessors, two men and a woman who were psychotherapists
and theoreticians and, in their own ways, poets as well. This preface
seems a fitting place to acknowledge our gratitude and respect for
them.
Eric Berne was originally trained as a psychoanalyst. Berne was
interested in how people structured their identities (egos), in the
transactions between people, and in how people organized their
life courses. His published work in what became known as
Transactional Analysis began in 1957 with the appearance of a
paper, "Ego States in Psychotherapy," in the American journal of
Psychotherapy. The term transactional analysis (TA) appeared in
print a year later.
During that same year, 1958, Berne also began what was to
become a laboratory for developing and applying transactional
analysis theory: the San Francisco Social Psychiatry Seminar. This
seminar grew, split, grew again: Debate, consultation, and training
in theory and treatment were then and are now a primary concern
of TA therapists. Berne was the quintessential teacher, delighting in
the arguments, the case presentations, the vehement discussions
that often lasted until the small hours of the morning. His
enthusiasm and excitement were contagious, and though he died
in 1970 he remains the euhemerist leader of the International
Transactional Analysis Association.
Frederick Perls, another therapist/theorist who has shaped our
work, was born and educated in Germany. He summarizes his
career as a progress: "From an obscure middle class Jewishboy to a
mediocre psychoanalyst to the possible creator of a 'new' method
of treatment and the exponent of a viable philosophy which could
do something for mankind." Fleeing Germany at the outset of Nazi
oppression, he went to South Africa to train psychoanalysts and
then emigrated to the United States in 1948.
 Preface 9

Perls became intrigued by the idea that Sigmund Freud, in

developing his theories, had neglected the importance of early oral
aggression: the teething stage, during which children first begin to
resist, to aggressagainst actively, and to say "no" to that which they
dislike. He maintained that this is a crucial developmental period in
the formation of ego. For Perls, this ability to resist is an essential
aspect of mental health. His interest in the relationship of ego to
healthy aggression and resistance led him to consider resisting and
pushing against as a form of contact, and this, in turn, led to
exploration of the whole notion of contact and withdrawal in
human relationships. The capacity for contact, he concluded, is
health; the absence of that capacity is nonhealth. Analyzing and
correcting the ways in which a client distortsand denies contact i s a
major-perhaps the major-goal of Gestalt therapy, the school of
psychotherapy developed by Frederick and Laura Perls and their
trainees.
While Frederick Perls was the major author of the early Gestalt
therapy literature, his wife Laura, a Gestalt psychologist and
practicing psychoanalyst, also made important contributions. The
publications that bear her name are limited; therefore, the full
extent of her influence is not often appreciated, but it is clear that
the theory was significantly shaped by her training in existential
philosophy and in Gestalt psychology, and her interest in child
development. Laura was quiet, calm; Fritz (as he came to be known)
was dramatic. Fritz became the guru of Gestalt therapy and the
humanistic psychology movement, and Laura moved into the
background, intent on training competent psychotherapistsin New
York City. The reader is invited to recall the unsung, but neverthe-
less important, influence that Laura has had on the developing
theory of Gestalt therapy. In these pages we shall refer to both
Perlses' contributions.
Although we have highlighted these three psychotherapists and
theorists whose work has stimulated much of the theoretical
exploration in this book, I (Richard Erskine) would like to express
my gratitude to several other psychologists who have had an
important influence in my training and supervision-an influence
that has truly been an integrating of approaches. i n 1967, while Iwas
teaching psychology at Chicago City College, two very different
psychotherapists left their indelible mark: Fritz Perls stimulated my
excitement with his unique approach to psychotherapy,and Robert
10 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Neville, through his consistent consultation, made client-centered

and child psychotherapy come alive. My appreciation extends to
David Kupfer for his teaching of transactionalanalysis theory and to
Hedges Capers for his uplifting sense of how to reach people
gently; to Hobart Mowrer and Sid Beajeau for their interpretation
of behaviorism; to Georgia Pitcher (Baker), who expertly taught
applied child development; to Laura Perls and lsidore From for
their personal interest and exploration of Gestalt therapy theory
and practice; to Herman Eisen for stressing the importance of deep
affective psychotherapy; and, most of all to my mother, Lucille
Koniecki, who set a healthy model of respect for the Child in all of
us. There are countless numbers of authors whose ideas have been
borrowed and augmented and scores of students and clients with
whom integrative psychotherapy emerged and continues to be
refined. Thanks to the members of the Professional Development
Seminar at the Institute for Integrative Psychotherapy for their
input on theoretical ideas and to Kate Barton for her thorough
reading of the manuscript, and to Alan Jacobs for his thought-
provoking position.
I (JanetMoursund) also owe a debt of gratitude and affection to
those who have shaped and stimulated my thinking as a psycho-
therapist. First among these is Roy Heath, who opened my eyes to
the very existence of psychology as a discipline. Carl R. Rogers, with
whom I worked as a graduate student, and Eugene Gendlin,
coworker and friend during those student years at the University of
Wisconsin, gave me much more than I knew at the time. Later-
much later, after years of working in the field of educational
psychology and learning theory-I was introduced to the ideas of
TA and Gestalt therapy through a program known as the Quest
Fellowship, developed by Dale Jamtgaard of the Lutheran Family
Service agency in Portland, Oregon. Dale developed the Quest
Fellowship as a way of making the concepts of Gestalt therapy and
TA available to healthy folks, folks who were functioning adequately
in their relationships; Quest was,for meand for manyothers,a truly
life-changing experience.
Since those first, heady days of discovering a whole new way of
looking at myself and others, and of developing a new professional
identity as a psychotherapist, I have had many mentors: Claudette
Hastie, Carol Ormiston, Mari Panzer, Norma Ragsdale, to name a
few. My colleagues at the University of Oregon have supported my
 Preface 11

efforts, making it possible for me to read and learn and integrate the
new and the old; my students have helped me to remain a student
myself as I share their excitement, their confusion, and their
growing competence.
Both of us, Richard and Jan, owe a special debt to Rebecca
Trautman, cotherapist in much of the work to be presented in this
book. Personally and professionally, she has literally made our
collaboration possible; she has provided a kind of quiet energy that
pervades the work we have done together. Her continual discus-
sions of theory and treatment planning and, most important, her
relentlessly seeing the OK-ness in people, has shaped integrative
psychotherapy as it is today.
Finally, we have both grown in many ways from our association
with each other in creating this book. The long hours of discussion,
argument, agreement, and challenge have helped both of us to
clarify our ideas, to defend our theories, and to organize what we
do in a form that can be understood and communicated to each
other-and, by extension, to you the reader. As the writing process
draws to a close, we want to acknowledge publicly the warmth and
respect that we have come to have for each other.

-Richard G. Erskine
-)anet P. Moursund
 1

INTRODUCTION

Most psychotherapists date their beginnings from the work of

Sigmund Freud. It was Freud who first attempted a detailed
explanation of the way in which unconscious processes affect
behavior and of the way in which early patterns of feeling and
believing continue to shape how we think and feel as adults. Freud's
"psychodynamic" approach became a touchstone of modern
psychology. Except for the strictest of behaviorists, no psycho-
therapy is unaffected by Freud's work, though some schools of
thought borrow from and build upon it more directly than others.
During the early decades of the twentieth century, Freud's
version of psychotherapy dominated clinical practice in both
Europe and America. To be sure, there were occasional excep-
tions-physically oriented treatments like complete bed rest,
regimens of strenuous exercise, education and exhortative pro-
grams, or the use of hypnosis in treating mental disturbance-but
these were small islands in a sea of treatment by "psychoanalysis."
14 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

By the 1930s, a new generation of therapists was emerging: among

them Carl lung, Alfred Adler, Wilhelm Reich, Otto Rank, Karen
Horney, and Harry Stack Sullivan. As their voices and influence
grew stronger, they not only expanded the vision of psychotherapy
beyond Freud's vision (Geiwitz & Moursund, 1979) but also
contributed many of the essential concepts of integrative
psychotherapy.
The first obvious break in the monolithic structure of psycho-
analytic and neo-psychoanalytic dominance occurred in the 1940s.
Perhaps we should say "breaks," for there were suddenly not one
but two major alternatives to psychoanalytic thinking: humanistic
psychology, articulated by Abraham Maslow (1954,1962) and Carl
Rogers (1942, 1951), and the behavioral approach to therapy that
grew out of the experimental work of Ivan Pavlov (1927) and B. F.
Skinner (1938,1953) and the learning theory of 0. Hobart Mowrer
(1950).
Behaviorism has traditionally involved itself in demonstrating
that universal laws govern the behavior of all organisms, from
microbe to man. Understanding these laws would allow the
creation of a technology of behavior, by means of which all
undesirable behaviors could be eliminated. The early behaviorists
were explicitly and vehemently uninterested in "thoughts" or
"motives" or "emotions" as such. If it couldn't be measured, or
somehow observed by someone else, then it was nonexistent-or at
least of no real importance. "Don't talk about being depressed,"
said the behaviorist, "tell me what you do when you're depressed
and I'll help you to find a way to stop doing that and start doing
something else instead." When the behavior changes, went the
theory, the internal experience (whatever that is) will also change.
The behavioral approach to therapy (Bandura, 1969; Dollard &
Miller, 1950) considered many of the concepts developed by
Freud-instincts, defense mechanisms, the unconscious, focusing
on the historical "why"-to be irrelevant. What mattered were the
contingencies that maintained a "problem" behavior and what the
new behavior would be. The model was clear and logical. Moreover,
it was research-based: Behaviorists could prove that their methods
worked. Study after study claimed dramatic changes in client's
behavior in a variety of problems ranging from agoraphobia to
voyeurism.
 Introduction 15

In contrast to the relatively mechanical approach of the behav-

iorists, the humanistic psychology movement focused on the
uniquely human attributes of the individual. Human beings are
more than machines, are qualitatively different from rats or
pigeons. Yet humans are not, as Freud would have us believe,
driven relentlessly by sexual and aggressive urges, helpless to do
more than make the best of a whirling chaos of animal instincts.
Abraham Maslow saw men and women as self-actualizing creatures,
motivated by the need to become the best that we can be. The basic
premise of humanistic psychology is that people must be under-
stood in the context of their unique humanness. Health, growth,
and fulfillment, rather than the temporary surcease of drives or the
achievement of reward, are the human goals; the quest for one's
own potentiality i s the human birthright. People are born healthy
and, given good growth conditions, will stay that way. Things go
awry and dis-ease occurs when those growth conditions are not
met. Carl Rogers (1951) applied these humanistic concepts in his
formulation of client-centered therapy, in which cure isa matter of
restoring the conditions of growth-understanding, unconditional
acceptance, genuineness of relationship. Given these necessary
conditions, people will naturally and automatically begin to respond
in healthy ways.
Maslow's and Rogers's ideas were exciting to a new generation
of psychologists, tired of the limitations of psychoanalysis and
behaviorism. Their position wassimple, direct, optimistic. It offered
hope. Moreover, Rogers offered a clear and understandable set of
directions for actually working with clients. Carl Rogers's non-
directive approach-client-centered therapy-changed the face of
psychotherapy forever. Nearly every psychiatrist, psychologist,
counselor, and social worker now practicing, of whatever orienta-
tion, began his or her training by learning basic active-listening
techniques that grew directly out of Rogers's work.
Thus the stage was set for the Great Psychological Debate of the
1950s (Rogers & Skinner, 1956)) a debate that still rages among
psychologists (albeit somewhat more quietly now). It was called
humanism versus behaviorism, and it pitted the people-are-
unique-and-unquantifiable group against the behavior-can-be-
measured-and-predicted-and-controlled group. The softheads
against the hard-noses. The poets against the pragmatists. The
16 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

development of the nondirective and behaviorist schools had

another effect as well: It was the breach in the dam through which
eventually poured an ocean of alternative theories and therapeutic
approaches. The admixture of ideas from Freud and his colleagues,
from Skinner and the behaviorists, and from the client-centered
school begun by Rogers provided a fertile ground for the growth of
therapeutic practice. And it i s at this point that our story, until now
somewhat academic and removed, becomes directly and immedi-
ately related to the ideas to be presented in this book. For three of
the newer theorists-each emerging from and trained in the
discipline of psychoanalysis, yet all inevitably affected by the
climate of the Great Psychological Debate-contributed two spe-
cific psychotherapeutic models upon which integrative psycho-
therapy rests. These theorists were Frederick and Laura Perls and
Eric Berne.

PERLS AND GESTALT THERAPY

Frederick and Laura Perls's contribution is known as Gestalt

therapy, taking its name and underlying ideas from the Gestalt
psychology of Wertheimer, Kohler, and Koffka (Perls, 1947; Perls,
Hefferline, & Goodman, 1951). Gestalt psychology is concerned
with the experiencing organism's tendency to perceive and remem-
ber wholes rather than collectionsof parts. The tendency extends to
the "closing" of perceptions or experiences in memory, even
though the actual stimuli may not form a completed whole. Four
unjoined lines, arranged in a roughly square pattern, will be
perceived as a square or a box. A story will be recalled with missing
elements neatly filled in. So it is, said Perls, with our emotional
experiences. The normal and natural human pattern i s to complete
an experience and with completion comes a sense of wholeness
and of being finished. We are then free to move on to the next thing
that claims our attention.

Primarv and Secondarv Gestalts

A need is felt, it is met; the whole is completed and we are done

with it. We do not tolerate incompletion, and if the environment
 Introduction 17

fails to provide us with the means for completing our experiences

(our gestalts), we will fill them in artificially-for example, with
substitute satisfactions, feelings, and fantasies. Such artificial closure
results in a "secondary gestalt" in which the self-generated closure
brings short-term relief from tension, but the individual must
inevitably repeat the pattern because the closure is not one that
allows him or her to move on to deal with the next natural and
organically occurring experience (L. Perls, 1978a). Over time, these
secondary gestalts tend to rigidify and become fixed patterns of
perceiving, of thinking, of feeling, and of behaving. In part, the
"fixed" perspective serves to keep old desires, unmet needs, and
uncomfortable experiences out of present awareness. The fixed
gestalt does not allow for full contact here and now between the
current needs of the person and the people or objects in the
environment.
As an example, consider Gordon, an obese 36-year-old man. In
childhood, Gordon tended to be slow and clumsy and had trouble
making friends. He often came home from school in tears because
of the way his classmates alternately ignored or tormented him. His
mother's response was always the same: "Don't feel so bad; it will
be all right. Let's sit down and have a little snack together."
Gradually, Gordon learned to stifle his natural craving for peer
contact, his need to grow into healthy interdependence with
others, by stuffing down food and leaning on Mother for comfort.
Today, whenever Gordon finds himself feeling "frustrated" (the
only word he can find to identify that archaic, formless need for
social contact), he turns to food and/or the maternal comfort that
his wife obediently provides. Indeed, he truly experiences and
identifies his contact need at such times as a feeling of physical
hunger. For the moment, food and the soothing presence of his
wife help; the "hunger" is satisfied. But the discomfort always
returns, as mysterious and as confusing as ever.
Like the thirsty man who puts a pebble in his mouth because he
has no water, the temporary relief that Gordon gets from eating
must eventually give way to an even greater sensation of need. The
pebble serves as a secondary, artificial relief of the sensation of
thirst, but the primary need for water remains, even though the
man is less consciously aware of it. In a similar way, Gordon has set
up an artificial means of dealing with his unmet psychological and
social needs, finding temporary relief or distraction while contin-
uing to repeat what is unfinished from the past.
18 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

The Structure of Personalitv

In addition to the concepts of primary and secondary gestalts,

Gestalt therapy continues to draw upon a number of psychoanalytic
ideas, particularly the concepts of "ego" and "id" (Freud, 1923/
1961) and the notion of defense mechanisms and how they are
manifested in contact interruptions (Perls, Hefferline, & Goodman,
1951). The ego is defined as the identifying and alienating aspect of
self. It is the sense of "me" or "not me." It internalizes and
discriminates and is the organizing factor whereby people interact
with the external world. As needs, appetites, and desires of the
organism-the collection of urges that psychoanalysts refer to as
"id"-come intoawareness, it is the identification with or alienation
from these sensations that in part constitutes the ego. When a
person knows that he or she is hungry, or wants to sit down, this
awareness of bodily sensations in part defines who he or she i s at
that moment-ego. The constant shuttling back and forth between
awareness of internal experience and awareness of the environ-
ment, along with accepting or rejecting what the environment
offers, is the essence of ego. Healthy ego, then, is a process, a verb
rather than a noun. It is ongoing movement. It is a shifting, a
changing, an existing in the endless moment of "now." It evaluates
what the current environment presents and assesses internal
sensations, bringing the internal and the external together in a
never-ending series of experiences.
Although the notions of ego and id are basic to Gestalt therapy,
the other structural division of psychoanalysis-the superego-is
not. Nor is Freud's notion of the unconscious, a reservoir of
memories barred from conscious awareness, useful to Gestalt
therapists. Instead, Gestalt therapy (Perls, 1947) emphasizes how
introjection and repression-basic defense mechanisms-serve as
interruptions tocontact. In an attempt to cope with needs not being
met, and with a lack of needed contact with people, we suppress
our awareness of both internal and external events. The result isthat
we are then unable to be in full contact with ourselves or with what
is going on around us. This loss of awareness of needs, feelings,
experiences, and memories is repression-a defensive, active
"forgetting" or shutting down of some part of our thinking and
feeling. Repression always involves a corresponding muscular
inhibition within the body as an active means of maintaining
distraction from full awareness.
 Introduction 19

As a consequence of active repression, the possibility exists for

introjection, an unaware defensive internalization of elements of
the personality of other people. With introjection, we metaphor-
ically "swallow whole" that which is presented to us by others; we
are unable to integrate it so that it becomes a part of the responsive,
changeable, ongoing self. It sits within the ego like an indigestible
lump, neither contacting nor contactable.
lntrojection is only one of a set of contact-interrupting defenses
that maintain repression. A second is projection, wherein a part of
the self-thoughts, motivations, feelings-is perceived as being in
another person. The projecting person i s not conscious that the
sensations are within himself; he responds, not to the real other,
but to his own projected images. Retroflection is the holding back
of action that could be expressed outwardly, as when we carry on an
internal dialogue with ourselves rather than interacting with the
outside world; or we tighten muscles instead of screaming or
hitting. Deflection, the lessening of the significance of internal
sensations or feelings and screening out or fending off attempts at
contact that others may make, is also a way in which we interrupt
contact. And finally, confluence-losing our boundaries, experi-
encing self and other as one unit-destroys contact because self
and other are now fused and there is no longer any "other" and/or
a distinct self with whom to be in touch. Contact interruptions or
defense mechanisms maintain repression: The person using them
represses his or her awareness of the real (or potential) interaction
between him- or herself and the external world, and maintains the
belief that his or her particular way of not making contact is, in fact,
the only way to interact in that situation. Dealing with contact
interruptions, often through the medium of the therapist's own
openness to contact, and restoring awareness of both the internal
and the external world, are hallmarks of integrative psychotherapy.

BERNE AND TRANSACTIONAL ANALYSIS

In developing the theory of Transactional Analysis, Eric Berne-

like the Gestalt therapists-used the definition of ego as a basic
element. Berne, however, viewed the ego in a different way than
did the Perlses and their students: while the Gestaltists considered
the ego as an indivisible and continually emerging process, Berne
M INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

described it as consisting of various clusters or states, each with

complete and coherent patterns of thoughts, feelings, and behav-
iors. Berne expanded on the ideas of psychoanalyst Paul Federn
(1953), who reported that his clients seemed to have distinctly
different egos at various times during their therapy. At times, for
example, clients would have full awareness of what was occurring
both inside and outside their organism in a way appropriate to their
developmental age. This contact function of the ego accounts for
and integrates what is occurring moment by moment, internally
and externally. It also integrates past experiencesand their resulting
effects, along with the psychological influence of other significant
people. Berne colloquially referred to the neopsychic state of the
ego as the "Adult." The Adult ego state consists of one's current
age-appropriate motor behavior; one's emotional, cognitive, and
moral development; one's ability to be creative; and one's full
contactful capacity for engagement in meaningful relationships.
The here and now psychological state of the ego (neopsyche or
Adult) can be contrasted with an archaic ego state, consisting of
encapsulations of the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of earlier
developmental stages. These archaic ego states are analogous to a
collection of fixed gestalts (in Perls's terminology) in that these
childlike states of the ego are "fixated" or stuck in the past. This
aspect of ego perceivesthe external world,as well as internal needs
and sensations,as the person did in an earlier developmental stage.
Although the person may appear to be relating to current reality, he
or she isactuallyexperiencing what i s happening with thecognitive,
emotional, or behavioral capacities of a child. He or she has
regressed, internally, to the point in development at which an
unresolved trauma or confusion originally occurred. Berne col-
loquially referred to this aspect of the ego as the "Child" ego state.
It should be noted that using the term ego state in the singular is
somewhat misleading. A child develops through a number of
phasesand stages-as JeanPiaget (Phillips, 1969), Erik Erikson (1950),
Margaret Mahler (1968,1975), and others have described-and at
any of these phasesand stages there may be repression and fixation.
Under the influence of one set of stressors, we may think and feel
and act much as we did when we were six years old; under another,
we may regress to an unresolved adolescent problem or even back
to early infancy.
In later psychotherapeuticwork, Berneexplored Federn's obser-
vations that the constant psychic presence of parental figures
 Introduction 21

influenced the behavior of many of his clients. This internalized

parental influence is that of real people, who years before interacted
with and had responsibility for the client when he or she was a child.
The parental presence is more tangible than the Freudianconcept of
I1
superego1'-it contains traces of what was actually said or done
with the individual as a child, by whom, and when. Through
introjection, the child made the parental person a part of his or her
psychological self, that is, ego. Although this aspect of ego can be
acquired through internalization of people other than one's actual
parents (any of the "big people" in a child's life can be introjected
and made a part of the ego), Berne used the designation"Parent" to
differentiate this state of ego from the Adult and Child states.

-- -

The Fantasy Parent

Neopsyche (Adult), archaeopsyche (Child), and exteropsyche

(Parent) are the three major states of the ego described by Berne.
Both archaeopsychic and exteropsychic ego states are fixations of
early reactions and experiences or unaware internalizations (intro-
jects) of significant others. In addition, integrative psychotherapy
positsanother process by which ego state fixationscan be acquired.
As a normal developmental process in early childhood, children
will often create an imago, a fantasy figure, as a way to provide
controls, structure, nurturing, or whatever that young person
experienced as missing or inadequate. Some children create their
own personal "boogeyman," a frightening creature who threatens
them with dire consequences for minor misdeeds. Investing the
fantasy parent with all the bad and scary aspects of being parented
allows them to keep Mom and Dad as perfectly good and loving.
Throughout his elementary and junior high school years, Richard
was haunted by the boogeyman. As he developed into a teenager,
the boogeyman ceased to be a concern; however, there was always
the possibility of a stern teacher or policeman who could punish
him if he got out of line. In his late twenties, Richard'sgrandmother
died and he helped the family clean out her house. As he cleaned
under her bed and in her closet, he felt extremely anxious. He
anticipated some terrible punishment and, although he told
himself that his thoughts were not rational, he kept expecting to
find the remains of the boogeyman. Working with his therapist,
Richard began to remember that as a young child he thought the
22 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

boogeyman "lived" in grandmother's bedroom, and that he also

had the capacity to follow Richard to school or at play. If Richard
misbehaved, the boogeyman was sure to punish him. In the process
of therapy, Richard began to remember a spanking at age 4, which
was administered by his mother, in grandmother's bedroom during
a family party. Shortly after the spanking, Richard developed his
belief in the boogeyman and could then turn to his mother for
comfort, protection, and reassurance. The fantasy of the boogey-
man helped the four-year-old Richard remain adapted to external
parental controls and at the same time experience his mother as all
loving and fully tolerant of his behavior.
Others may create a fairy godmother sort of fantasy parent who
loves and nurtures them even when their real parents are cold or
absent or abusive. This created image serves as a buffer between the
actual parental figures and the desires, needs, and feelings of the
young child. The inevitable discomforts of growing up in an
imperfect world are more tolerable because the fantasy figure
provides what was missing in the real parents.
Anne-Marie, for example, had periods of depression in which
she would eat a large amount of food. During this time, she would
long for her dead grandmother, whom she described to her
therapist as affectionate, understanding, consoling, and who she
said used to bring her wonderful food to eat. The therapist, out of
curiosity, asked how old Anne-Marie had been when her grand-
mother died and she replied, "14 months." A 14-month-old infant
was not likely to have the experiences with a grandmother that
Anne-Marie reported. As the therapist began to explore the
discrepancy between Anne-Marie's longing for her grandmother
and the fact that the grandmother had been dead since infancy, the
client began to remember experiences from childhood that had
been lost from memory for many years. Anne-Marie had repeatedly
been abused by both mother and father and had often been locked
in the wine cellar for days at a time without food. Anne-Marie
related how the grandmother would "appear" to her after the
beatings or in the dark wine cellar to comfort her, to encourage her,
and to promise her wonderful meals. By creating these images of
grandmother, Anne-Marie was able to satisfy in fantasy some of the
needs for appropriate nurturing that were drastically lacking in her
parents' behavior toward her.
As they mature to later developmental phases, children often let
go of their self-generated images. But when the child represses his
 Introduction 23

or her awareness of needs, feelings, and memories in order to

survive in the family, the self-created image is fixated and does not
become integrated with later developmental learning. Whatever
the characteristics of the fixated self-created Parent, over the years
it comes to operate similarly to the Parent ego state described by
Berne. It functions like an introjected personality; however, it is
often more demanding and illogical and unreasonable than the
actual parent was (after all, it had its origin in a small child's fantasy).
The self-created parent made from fantasized images provides an
encapsulated, nonintegrated package of thoughts and feelings and
behaviors to which the person responds as if they were truly
internalizations from the big people of early childhood.

Eao State Function

Berne used the term "ego state'' to describe a state of mind with a
coherent system of internal feelings and thoughts and a corres-
ponding system of postures, facial expressions, and other external
behaviors. The pattern of behaviors and the state of mind that a
person experiences and exhibits at any given moment forms the
active ego state. It is from these active ego states that people
communicate. Sometimes people talk to others from their Parent
ego state, with all the feelings, attitudes, and expressions that their
mother or father used years before; at other times, they may react as
a little child, perceiving the situation as they did when they were
only five or six years old. They may then switch to the Adult ego
state and react to their environment (and the people in that
environment) with the emotions, ideas, and behaviors that are
situationally and developmentally appropriate and unencumbered
with internalizations from parents or fixations from childhood.
Knowledge of ego defense mechanisms is integral to under-
standing ego state functioningand how ego states are activated. I t is
because of the fixation of defense mechanisms that the archaic
(Child) or introjected (Parent) aspects of ego remain separate states
and do not become integrated into neopsychic (Adult) awareness.
Adult ego state awareness of needs, desires, memories, and
external influences remain blocked through the maintaining of
infant defenses of avoidance, freezing, and fighting (Fraiberg,
1983); the late oral defenses of splitting (Fairbairn, 1954) and
transformation of affect (Fraiberg, 1983); and the early childhood
24 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

defenses described by Anna Freud (1937). Additionally, full Adult

ego state functioning is inhibited by the complex defense mech-
anisms of introjection, projection, retroflection, deflection, and
confluence (as defined in Gestalt therapy). Thus ego state function
i s the dynamic interaction of these intrapsychic processes and the
observable behaviors.
Because of the fixation of defense mechanisms, ego state
function can either be active or remain an intrapsychic influence.
We can observe the manifestation of the exteropsychic (Parent)ego
state when a person actively feels, perceives the environment, or
acts as the parents did years before. The active Parent ego state i s
most typically seen in the person who talks to her own children just
the way she wasspoken to as a child. Suzanne,for instance, yelled at
and ridiculed her children when she felt pressured or under stress.
Throughout Suzanne's own childhood, her mother screamed
insults and denigrated Suzanne's way of doing things. Even though
Suzanne once vowed to herself that she would never treat any child
that way, she reported that "the yelling just slips outMofher. At such
moments, her introjected Parent ego state was active.
When the Parent ego state is influencing someone intrapsychi-
cally, that person is most likelyto exhibit childlike behaviors. These
behaviors will reflect the age at which the child experienced
conflict with his or her actual parents or when there was a
significant absence of contact. The person actively feels or behaves
like the child he or she actually was years before, with the same
childhood defense mechanisms. The childlike reasoning, perceiv-
ing, feeling, and behaving is a reaction to the internal influence of
the Parent ego state. Suzanne reported that, after she yelled at her
children, she would say to herself, "You're no good for anything!"
and "You're the dumbest person in the world19'Thenshe would feel
"upset" and ashamed of herself and would apologize repeatedly to
her children. She would often bring them presents "to make up for
the bad way" she behaved.
Tim described how every time he was about to start a new legal
case for the law firm where he was working he would become sad,
would feel sickat his stomach,and would procrastinate in response
to a continuous thought: "Who are you fooling?" In the course of
therapy, Tim remembered that these were his father's actual words
just before Tim had a music recital at age 11and again at high school
graduation. The internal dialogue stopped when Tim felt his anger
and expressively imagined telling his father to stop that kind of
put-down and that he was a competent attorney now.
 Introduction 25

As a defense against the intrapsychic influence of the introjected

parents or significant others, an individual may project the intro-
jected personality onto another person, such as a spouse, teacher,
or therapist, and then perceive and react to that person as he or she
did at the time of fixation. This projecting of the introjection and
reacting regressively is transference and often provides a relief from
the internal stressof the intrapsychicconflict. Through transference
the conflictsof childhood are once again experienced as originating
with people in the environment. Through close observations of
these transference transactions, the therapist can understand the
intrapsychic influence of the Parent ego state and the child's actual
or wished-for response to the discomfort of the conflict. Barbara,
late for an appointment with her dentist, trembles as she imagines
his anger at her. In actuality, it is neither her concern with
promptness nor the dentist's possible reaction that scares her.
Rather, it is the memory, of which she is unaware, of a mother who
became furious when she was even a few minutes late from school.
The primary ways, then, in which people react to the intrapsychic
conflict between ego states are (a) regression to Child ego state in
response to the internal influence of the Parent ego states (Tim's
sadness and sick stomach); (b) active manifestation of the contents
of Parent ego states, directed at someone else as an attempt to avoid
the internal pressure (Suzanne's yellingand ridiculing her children);
and (c) transference, where the introjected and/or fantasized
parent is projected onto another person with a corresponding
reaction to the projection as the child actually reacted, or wished
she could have reacted, years before (Barbara's trembling).
Psychological problems emerge when introjected and/or archaic
ideas, images, and emotions contaminate the here and now
perceptions of the Adult ego state. When Adult ego state contam-
ination exists, the subjective experience of the person is that he or
she is processing current stimuli, accounting for current sensations
and feelings, and behaving appropriately to the situation; when, in
fact, this i s not so. But because the person is unaware that
introjected ideas and emotions and/or childhood decisions and
feelings are infringing on present perceptions, he or she has no
reason to challenge or update the inappropriate reactions.
Just as parents and children inevitably experience conflict, so
conflict between the introjected Parent and Child ego states is
virtually inevitable. The healthy ego is one in which the Adult, with
full neopsychic functioning, is in charge and has integrated
(assimilated)content and experiences both borrowed from others
26 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

and fixated in earlier development. When the Adult ego state is

contaminated by Parent and/or Child, or when the boundaries
between ego states are too loosely defined, the Adult ego state
cannot be fully in charge of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors. The
resulting war between what was introjected into Parent ego state
and what i s a fixated reaction of the Child ego state i s one of the
most common dysfunctions: The exteropsychic state of the ego is
overly demanding or overprotective of self and others; the archaeo-
psychic ego state attempts to protect itself by means of outmoded
and largely ineffective defensive maneuvers; and the neopsychic
ego state becomes deenergized. Energy i s drawn into the internal
conflict (or avoidance of it) and less attention is available for
ongoing contact between the environment and the present needs
of the organism.

Ego State Identification

The analysis of ego state cathexis-the source of psychic energy
at any point in time-is dependent upon the correlation of four
determinants: phenomenological (subjective), historical, behav-
ioral (developmental), and social (transferential). The first is the
phenomenological or subjective experience of the client, including
the sensations, feelings, and beliefs that shape his or her perspec-
tive. In identifying the subjective experience, the therapist inquires
as to how the client feels or what it is like to live in his or her skin or
how the client reacts internally to his or her own behavior. Joyce
responded to such questions with, "I was feeling scared and
reacting to my university professor just as though Iwas still in third
grade." Bob reported that, although at times hewas ashamed of his
behavior toward his son, he often felt compelled to use the same
voice tone and the same words that his father used 33 years earlier
when he criticized Bob. Over a several-week period, John was
angry with the people at work because they did not share his
enthusiasm. The therapist suggested that he just stop feeling angry
and enjoy his own contribution to the project. John responded
with, "I have to feel angry." The sense that he had no other choice
was a clue to the therapist that his anger might have been
introjected, but the therapist could not yet rule out that the anger
might have been based on fixated decisions in childhood. Both
Bob's and John's responses indicated the need for further inquiry
into their subjective experiences and a clear picture of their life
histories.
 Introduction 27

The historical experience of the client is assessed by creating a

supportive environment in which the client i s free to talk about his
or her memories. Inquiry into the dynamics between the child and
others or the relationship between mother and father provides
essential information regarding early conflicts. The therapist can
assist this process by asking who and when questions, such as "Who
in your family also felt or acted that way?" "When you were in the
third grade what was happening between you and the teacher so
that you were scared?"
The answers to these questions may lead to more specific inquiry
as to the client's family or school history or to going back to the
phenomenological experience. For example, "How did you feel
and what did you do inside when your father criticized you?" or
"How did you cope when you were in conflict with the third-grade
teacher?" invite the client to reexperience past events. In the
interweaving of phenomenological and historical information, the
therapist collects significant data as to which ego state i s active or
internally influential.
The behavioral or developmental focus i s the third indicator for
the therapist to evaluate. Here the therapist assesses the client's
current observable behavior by drawing on observational informa-
tion and research from the field of human development. What
psychologists have learned over the years about early mother-child
interaction; motor and language development; emotional, cogni-
tive, and social development; defense mechanisms; moral develop-
ment; and adult life transitions all serve to provide a background of
information to assist in determining the stage of development at
which emotions, behaviors, or interactions have become fixated.
When Fred was about to try something new, he would begin
walking flat-footed with a choppy movement and with his stomach
protruding. His body and posture looked like that of a toddler.
Using this as a clue, the therapist inquired about this stage of his life
and learned that his mother had been hospitalized for an extensive
period of time when he was about two years old, and he had felt
frightened and insecure-a feeling that continued into adulthood
whenever he found himself faced with a new challenge. The feeling
was manifested in his toddlerlike walk.
Behavior that is not congruent with the current context may have
been normal and appropriate for a child at a specific developmental
stage or may be an indication of how the client defended him- or
herself in a traumatic situation. When Mary noticed tension
developing between two people, she would begin making ir-
28 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

relevant comments and trying to change the subject. As the

therapist explored this behavior, Mary remembered as a child
trying to distract either one of her parents when she felt an
argument coming on because it usually ended in violence. Mary's
irrelevant comments in tense situations today are a regression to
her childhood defense of deflection in the face of conflict.
When an introjected parent frequently functioned from his or
her Child ego state, the client may also behave in a childlike way.
Here again the therapist will have to interweave the developmental
assessment with the historical or phenomenological to determine if
a specific defensive reaction, behavioral pattern, or emotion is the
manifestation of an exteropsychic state of the ego or of an
archaeopsychic fixation. Steven reported getting depressed often,
particularly when things were going well in his life. An exploration
of the current situation and thinking patterns did not reveal
anything significant, and neither did an investigation of childhood
experiences. Finally the therapist explored what Steven's mother
was like and learned that she had suffered a series of major losses in
her life. Her emotional response as an adult to happy experiences
was to shut down emotionally and not let herself anticipate
anything positive out of fear that something "terribleJJ could
happen. Even though she did not seem overtly to say anything to
Steven about not feeling happy or excited, Steven, without aware-
ness, internalized her response and made it his own.
The fourth determinant of an ego state i s the social or transfer-
ential. The analysis of transactions provides further data to indicate
which ego state is active, the nature of the intrapsychic influence,
and what stimulus from the therapist served to trigger the cathexis.
Transactions between client and therapist, or, in group therapy,
between client and client, may reflect a current transference, an
attempt by the client to put into action that which he or she has
difficulty remembering or putting into words. The desires, expecta-
tions, and reactions of the client as well as the projections and/or
refusal of a transferential relationship all serve to describe the
client's family system, the developmental age fixation, or aspects of
personality of significant people who may have been introjected.
The therapist will sometimes clarify or restate to a client what he
heard the client say in words or behavior. jenny would generally
respond with anger to these clarifying statements. She frequently
denied what she had just said or accused the therapist of criticizing
her. As the therapist explored this pattern, he learned that jenny's
 Introduction 29

father used to turn things Jennysaid around in such a way that he

either criticized or made fun of her. When the therapist addressed
Jenny's Adult ego state with clarifying statements, she would move
to her Child ego state, reacting to the therapist as if he were her
father. The analysis of this transferential transaction helped the
therapist to understand Jenny'sdevelopmental fixation, the internal
conflict between her Parent and Child ego states,and to identify the
interventions appropriate for a child who was constantly criticized
and ridiculed.
When the analysis of transactions iscorrelated with the phenom-
enological, historical, and behavioral (developmental) assessments,
the therapist has a usable hypothesis as to which ego states are
influential or active. Making use of this hypothesis helps the
therapist to select effective interventions.

SCRIPTS

As infantsand small children (and perhaps even before birth), we

begin to develop the reactions and expectations that define for us
the kind of world we live in and the kind of people we are. At first
encoded physically, in body tissue and biochemical events, then
emotionally, and later cognitively, in the form of beliefs, attitudes,
and values, these responses form a kind of blueprint that guides the
way we live our lives. Alfred Adler referred to this blueprint as "life
style" (Ansbacher & Ansbacher, 1956); Sigmund Freud used the
term "repetition compulsion" to describe similar phenomena
(1920/1961); Eric Berne termed this blueprint a "script" (1972); and
Fritz Perls called it "life script" (1973).

Formation of Script Beliefs

The story of life scripts is the story of contact and contact

distortion between an individual and the outside world of people
and things. To the degree that the ego is involved in a healthy
contact process internally and externally, needs will arise, be
experienced, and be acted upon in relation to the environment in
an organically healthy fashion. A felt need arises, is met, and is let
go; the person moves on to the next experience. When contact is
30 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

distorted or denied, however, needs are not met. The experience is

not closed naturally, but must find an artificial closure. These
artificial closures are the substance of childhood reactions and
decisions that become fixated and may also create a situation where
introjection of another person's personality is likely to occur.
The life script is a self-protective plan that emerges from the
introjections, survival reactions, and decisions of childhood; it is a
fixated series of defenses that prevent the feelingsand unmet needs
of childhood from coming into awareness. It is the guideline-the
plot and subplots-around which our actual experiences revolve.
The script limits spontaneity and flexibility i n problem solving and
in relating to people because the story of one's life, including the
ending and all the major events, is already written, usually in early
childhood. In essence, the script answers the question, "What does
a person like me do in a world like this with people like you?" Life
script is a repetition of the unresolved dramas of childhood.
Introjection. The script can be established in two ways-through
the defense mechanism of introjection and/or through the child's
self-protective reactions and decisions. First,a child may internalize
the image of parental figures-introjection-which includes their
emotions, thoughts, beliefs, behaviors, and style of perceiving the
world. lntrojection is most likely to occur in the absence of contact
and/or the presence of conflict. Children internalize the threaten-
ing or damaging qualities of parents or other significant people in
order to control those characteristics ("If it's in me then at least I'm
in charge of it") and to keep awareness of unmet needs and related
feelings repressed (L. Perls, 1978b). When parental nurturing is
inadequate or inappropriate, there is a lack of contact; children
may also internalize the ostensibly good and loving aspects of
parents in order to experience themselves as good and loving and
acceptable-like Mom and Dad.
Parental injunctions and definitions of the child are introjected
by that child and later in life function as an intrapsychic influence,
shaping his or her beliefs, emotions, and behavior. Parents and
significant authority figures frequently provide two types of mes-
sages: those that tell the child what he or she must do or feel and
those that tell the child who he or she is.
Script-forming messages may be either direct or indirect, and are
often given in both ways simultaneously. For example, a mother
often ignored her son's requests and told the boy, "You don't
 Introduction 31

need anything."The child might have internalized this definition of

himself literally, reacting with a life plan of denying wants and
needs. Or the message can be inferred as a directive: The ignored
child may understand that he is not supposed to be who he is, or
even to exist at all. The message, "Don't exist," would then become
a part of his life script, to be compliantly played out later in self-
effacement, failure, or suicide.
Script decisions. The second way in which a script is formed i s
through the child's reactions and decisions about life, based on his
or her perceptions of which options are open to him or her.
Irene, a harried executive, grew up with an alcoholic mother
who was often incapable of preparing the family dinner or relating
to Irene's needsfor nurturing. At about age five, Irene decided that
the best way to deal with life would be to become competent and
efficient. Today she is highly organized, controlling, and over-
worked. Her sense of "responsibility" gets her into difficulties with
other people at work and at home.
Tom, in contrast, is now 31 years old and is on his fifth menial job.
He puts no energy into accomplishments and has turned down
training that could advance his current job. In elementary school,
he had some dyslexia and when he compared himself with his
father, a distinguished university professor, and his mother, an avid
reader, he decided that he was "dumb" and that there was "no use
to try."Today he maintains the beliefs "I'm dumbl'and "What'sthe
use of trying? I'll fail anyway" as a way to make his life predictable
and justifiable.
Childhood reactions and decisions begin as a means of coping
with discomfort and, with internal and external reinforcement,
shape a person's overall belief system. Such script beliefs begin to
develop when a child i s under pressure from parental behavior or
from environmental trauma, particularly in circumstances where
expressing feelings does not result in needs being met. Through the
process of cognitive mediation (an intellectual defense against
uncomfortable emotions), the child attempts to understand and
explain his experiences and his unmet needs by making decisions
about himself, others, and the quality of his life. The decisions "I'm
dumb" and "What's the use of trying" were Tom's coping mech-
anisms 20 to 24 years ago; those decisions are maintained today as
script beliefs. Script beliefs are usually experienced in similarly
concrete terms-the way young children think-and serve as a
32 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

cognitive defense against awareness of selected childhood emo-

tions and unmet needs.
As another example of how the introjection of parental defini-
tions and injunctions is used in conjunction with childhood
decisions in forming a life script, consider Mary, a young woman
who was extremely quiet and uncommunicative about her wants
and needs. In therapy, she reexperienced having to suppress her
joy and enthusiasm for life while living in a home with a bedridden
grandmother who spent several years in pain. Mary's normal playful
sounds often wakened the grandmother, and then Mary would be
defined as "bad" and scolded or punished. She was repeatedly told,
"Don't make noise." Her way of making sense of and dealing with
this situation was to decide that her wants were likely to hurt other
people. She continued to live out this decision years later with her
husband, children,and friends. She experienced her own urgesand
desires as "bad" and quietly kept them to herself. She often
resented others, however, because they failed to respond to what
she had hidden with such skill and determination.
For simplicity's sake, the early survival reactions and decisionsor
the formation of script beliefs are often described as though they
occurred at one particular time in a child's life. It is important,
however, to keep in mind that a script decision may be acquired
over a long period of time. It may arise out of the child's interaction
with fantasy parents as well as with real people, or out of
imaginations and dreams as well as from actual occurrences.To the
child, the decisions that are made seem to be the best possible
choice, under the circumstances, as a means of solving the
immediate problem. Once adopted, script beliefs influence what
stimuli (internal and external) are attended to, how they are
interpreted, and whether or not they are acted upon. They become
a self-fulfilling prophecy through which the child'sexpectations are
inevitably proven to be true. Life script, then, is a repetition
throughout life of the events and reactions of childhood.
Script maintenance. As a person grows older, the life script is
maintained in order (a) to avoid reexperiencing unmet needs and
the corresponding feelings suppressed at the time the child
introjected the parental injunctions and definitions and/or made
the script decisions, and (b) to provide a predictive model of life and
interpersonal relationships. Prediction is important, particularly
when there is a crisis or trauma; most of us feel uncomfortable
 Introduction 33

when we don't know what is coming, don't understand what i s

happening, or don't know how our behavior will be received by
others. Although the script is often personally destructive, it does
provide psychological balance or homeostasis: It gives us at least
the illusion of predictability. Any disruption in this predictive
model producesanxiety; to avoid such discomfort, we organize our
perceptions and experiences so as to maintain our script beliefs.
Eric Berne used the term "script" to refer to a longitudinal life
plan formed from introjects and decisions. When we look at script
as an intrapsychic and interpersonal system, we can observe how
the script i s lived out day by day, how the script plot is reinforced,
and how others are manipulated into the roles the script requires.
The life script becomes a self-reinforcing, distorted system of
feelings, thoughts, and actions. In addition to script beliefs (Tom's
"I'm dumb" and "What's the use of trying; I'll fail anyway"), the
script system has two other interrelated and interdependent
components: the script display (Tom puts no energy into accom-
plishments) and the reinforcing experiences (Tom remembers
losing four other jobs).'

Script Display

When current needs are not met in adult life, script beliefs and
related feelings may be stimulated as they were at the time the script
was written. The person is then likely to engage in behaviors that
verify script beliefs. These behaviors are referred to as the script
display and may include any observable behaviors (choice of words,
sentence patterns, tone of voice, displays of emotion, gestures and
body movements) that are direct manifestationsof script beliefsand
of repressed needsand feelings (the intrapsychicprocess). A person
either acts in a way defined by script beliefs, for example, saying "I
don't know" when believing "I'm dumb," or may act in a way that
socially defends against the script beliefs, for example, excelling in
school and acquiring numerous degrees as a way of keeping the
"I'm dumb" belief from being discovered by others.
Children test a whole range of behaviors throughout childhood
in order to discover which will elicit responses confirming what
they believe. Confirming responses, which reduce anxiety, tend to
shape the behavioral repertoire, while nonconfirming ones are
 Introduction 35

more likely to be discarded. Eventuallythe child settles on a specific

group of behaviors, including displays of emotion, and uses them
repeatedly, especially in situations where the script beliefs are most
active. These behaviors extend into adult life and continually tell
the story of the original school environment or family system.
As a child, Jeandecided that she wouldn't get what she wanted
and learned to laugh rather than feel the resulting discomfort. In
adult life, Jeanseldom asks for what she wants and, whenever she
does ask, covers it with a laugh. The laugh helps her to remind
herself not to be disappointed when her prediction ("I won't get
what I want") comes true. It also tells others that she really doesn't
expect them totake her request seriously; thus the prediction is set
up to be fulfilled.
As part of the script display, individuals often have physiological
reactions in addition to or in place of the overt behaviors. These
internal experiences are not readily observable; nevertheless, the
person can give a self-report: fluttering in the stomach, muscle
tensions, headaches,colitis-myriad somatic responsesto the script
beliefs and repression of needs and feelings. Body tensions help to
maintain needs, memories, feelings, and reactions, while at the
same time keeping them from awareness. Persons who have many
somaticcomplaintsor illnessesfrequentlybelieve that "something i s
wrong with me," and use physical symptoms to reinforce the
belief-a cognitive defense that, again, serves to keep the script
system intact.
Script display also includes fantasies in which the individual
imagines behaviors, either his or her own or someone else's, that
lend support to script beliefs. Jean, whose script belief is that she
won't get what she wants, imagines that people won't respond to
her. As she becomes aware that she would like her husband to
remember her birthday, she fantasizes his coming home empty-
handed, or his deciding to work late at the office that evening.
These fantasied behaviors function as effectively as overt behaviors
in reinforcing script beliefs/feelings-in some instances, even more
effectively. They act on the system exactly as though they were
events that had actually occurred.

Reinforcinn Ex~eriences

Any script display can result in a reinforcing experience-a

subsequent happening that "proves" that the script belief is valid
36 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

and thus justifies the behavior of the script display. Reinforcing

experiences are a collection of emotionally laden memories, real or
imagined, of other people's or one's own behavior; a recall of
internal bodily experiences; or the retained remnants of fantasies,
dreams, or hallucinations. Reinforcing experiences serve as a
feedback mechanism to reinforce the script beliefs; only those
memories that support the script belief are readily accepted and
retained. Memories that negate script beliefs tend to be rejected or
forgotten because they would challenge the belief and the whole
defensive process.
Another example of the script system illustrates the interaction
among script beliefs/feelings, script displays, and reinforcing exper-
iences. Beginning with the birth of her first sibling, Louise made a
decision, based on the care her sick sibling received and her own
being "pushed off," that she (Louise)was not important. At the time
her mother was under great emotional pressure and was psycho-
logically unavailable, her father was frequently away. The early
decision,"l'm not important,"was reinforced with the birth of each
successive sibling and in a series of traumatic home situations
where, because she was the oldest, Louise's needs were ignored.
Louise reported in therapy that she often experienced her parents'
nonverbal attitude as an injunction: "Don't be important.'' At an
early age, she discovered that one solution to the problem of not
being important was to take care of others-siblings and parents.
This would make it possible to get some of her needs met, even
though she herself didn't really matter.
In adult life, Louise's decision was observable in her choice of a
career in the helping professions. Her general demeanor was quiet
and withdrawn, deferring to others. The social response from
others was that she was ignored and often did not get what she
wanted. This reinforced her belief that she was not as important as
others. Her affective behavior was one of sadness mingled with
periods of depression and/or severe headaches. Louise's fantasy
life often centered on the belief that if she were good enough to
someone else they would love her and take care of her. As a
contrasting theme, she also occasionally fantasized ending up
alone, poor, and unloved.
Interlockingscripts. Louise's family of origin provided the matrix
within which her script system developed. Predictably, when she
found a partner with whom to build a family of her own, it was
someone who fit neatly into her system. Both Louise's family of
 I I
- SCRIPT BELIEFS 4 . . . ... SCRIPT DISPLAYS REINFOBCING r x P s n I r m c r s

Self: i Obserrable Behariors:

Does no+,ask for wonts
Current Erents:
Other people do not take
1 I
I won't get what I want her rcquests seriously
Laughs at own requests

Others:
Old Emotional M e m o r i e s :

Q u a l i t y of Life:
I
: Beported I n t e r n a l Experiences:

(lntrapsychic p r o c e s s )
M e m o r i e s o f the F a n t a s i e s
: Fantasies: as R e a l : I
Husband will come home No present
without a present
. . REPRESSED MEEDS Husband not home
Husband will work late

To be taken seriously
by others
Angry

3 Figure 1.2 Jean's Script System

38 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

origin and her current relationship with her husband and children
can be seen as interlocking script systems in which family members
attempt to live out their respective scripts. In such interlocking
systems, each person influences and is influenced by the behavior
of others in the family who provide reinforcing experiences that
confirm the script beliefs. Louise's behavior at home often consisted
of long periods of silence, spending time alone reading, and not
initiating contact with her husband, Bill. When Bill wanted contact
with Louise, he would use Louise's behavior as a reinforcing
experience to confirm his own script belief, "There is something
wrong with me." During the periods of Louise's silence, Bill would
fantasize a variety of things that he might have done wrong to lead
Louise to avoid him. In each fantasy, he would collect further
evidence to support his script belief. He then would defend against
the belief by angrily telling his wife and son what they had done
wrong. Louise used the memory of Bill's angry criticism to reinforce
her belief, "I'm not important" and withdrew, providing further
support for Bill's script belief. While Louise was at work, she would
repeatedly remember Bill's criticism from the night before, each
memory serving to stimulate her childhood sadness and anger and
old script decisions. In order to repress the old feelings, she would
work harder to please Bill,anticipatingall the things she could do to
please him, while simultaneously expecting none of her efforts to
be successful in the long run.
The interlocking script system helps us to understand how each
family member supports and helps others to carry out day to day
their own script beliefs. It describes both the interpersonal and the
intrapersonal dynamics of dysfunctional families or groups. Each
person's script beliefs provide a distorted framework for viewing
self, others, and the quality of life. In order to engage in a script
display, individuals must discount other options; they frequently
will maintain that their behavior is the "natura1"or "only'' way they
can respond. When used socially, script displays are likely to
produce interpersonal experiences that, in turn, are governed by
and contribute to the reinforcement of script beliefs. Thus each
person's script system is distorted and self-reinforcing through the
operation of its three interrelated and interdependent subsystems:
script beliefs/feelings, script displays, and reinforcing experiences.
The script systemserves as a defense against awareness of childhood
experiences, needs, and related emotions while simultaneously
being a repetition of the past.
 [SCRIPT BELIKFS SCRIPT DISPLAPS REINFORCING EXPKRI EICILS

Louise's Belief About Self: Louise's Behaviors: Louise's C u r r e n t Events: -

I ' m not important Takes care of others People ignore
Sadness and depressior: Husband criticizes
Long periods of silence . . . . . . . . . .
initiation of contaci i
with husband ................ i
..: .. L o u i s e ' s O l d M e m o r i e s :
.: .:..;.,.. "Pushed off" by mother
i. i. Sister gets all the care
. .. :. Father a w a y
..' .' ... Parents' non-verbal attitude--
'... ... .. "Don't bc important"
..
j;;
..
,
..
' .. ..
T B i l l ' s Belief About Self: Bill's Behaviors: I .: .: Bill's C u r r e n t E v e n t s :
...
.. . . 1
Criticizes son and wife--,.' : :,
Something's wrong with me do : .,,Louise w i t h d r a w s
I ... .,Louise does not initiate contact

% Figure 1.3 Interlocking Script Systems

40 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

It is through script that we limit our options and reduce our

ability to react flexibly to the stresses and crises that are an
inescapable part of the human condition. When under stress,
nonintegrated exteropsychic (Parent) and archaeopsychic (Child)
ego state misperceptions and expectations dictate old patterns of
response-patterns that may have been useful, even necessary, at
one time but that are now nonfunctional and self-destructive. To
change those patterns, the person must integrate the ego states,
moving away from old, rigidly held expectations and perceptions
and into a more contactful way of experiencing self-in-the-world.

THE PROCESS OF
INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY

The integrative of lntegrative Psychotherapy has multiple mean-

ings. It refers, first, to the process of integrating the personality:
helping the client to assimilate and harmonize the contentsof his or
her ego states, relax the defense mechanisms, relinquish the script,
and reengage the world with full contact. It i s the process of making
whole: taking disowned, unaware, unresolved aspects of the ego
and making them part of a cohesive self. Through integration, it
becomes possible for people to have the courage to face each
moment openly and freshly, without the protection of a preformed
opinion, position, attitude, or expectation.
The integrative also refers to the integration of theory, the
bringing together of affective, cognitive, behavioral, physiological,
and systems approaches to psychotherapy. The concepts are
utilized within a perspective of human development, in which each
phase of life presents heightened developmental tasks, need
sensitivities, crises,and opportunitiesfor new learnings. lntegrative
psychotherapy takes into account many views of human func-
tioning: psychodynamic, client centered, behaviorist, family ther-
apy, Gestalt therapy, Reichian, and Transactional Analysis. Each
provides a valid explanation of behavior, and each is enhanced
when integrated with the others.
Freud, in asserting that the experiences of infancy and early
childhood form a foundation upon which the adult personality is
based, blazed a trail for later therapists to follow. The behaviorists
laid out the laws of learning, of stimulus and response and
 Introduction 41

reinforcement, which explain just how the early responses are

acquired and how they are maintained and elaborated through the
years. And Rogers, with his humanistic perspective, added another
essential piece: People are uniquely different from animals, and do
respond in innately healthy and growthful ways when provided
with appropriate emotional and cognitive nourishment.
Freud, Rogers, and the behaviorists are the foundation stones of
integrative psychotherapy. The actual "structure" of our work is
found primarily in the ideas of Berne, Perls,and the developmental
theorists. Frederick and Laura Perls providedthe concept of closure
and the idea that closing an experience prematurely or artificially
creates a fixed gestalt, which continues to operate as an unmet
need; they also emphasized the importance of contact and defined
the ways in which psychological problems result from a distortion
of contact. Berne's notions of the structure of the ego (that is, of ego
states), and of the nature of script, form another major influence.
Developmental theory provides the basic understandings of how
humans develop into and through adulthood, allowing us to
diagnose unresolved developmental issues and make specific
interventions to address those needs.
We continually draw upon the theory and research-validated
knowledge of normal developmental processes in the various
stages of the human life cycle. We assess the client's behavior as it
relates to physical, emotional, cognitive, and social development.
We include understandings of child-parent interaction, language
acquisition, the formation of morality, and the child's perceptual
development as they emerge in each sequential stage. We apply
our knowledgeof human development to the therapeutic situation
in designing interventions that either address adult developmental
transitions or dissolve childhood defense mechanisms and allow for
full contact with and integration of the fixated Child ego states into
the Adult ego.
The basis of integrative psychotherapy i s strongly theoretical and
offers a unique organization of theoretical ideas; however, its
vitality is found in a living, working process. Thus Integrative
Psychotherapy in Action is a collection of verbatim transcripts of
actual therapeutic sessions together with explanatory comments,
which illustrate not only how we think about clients but also what
we actually do in our work with them.
Students often say that they learn best about psychotherapy by
doing it, either as client or as therapist, or by watching someone else
42 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

do it and then asking questions about what happened. Therapists,

too, comment that they teach their craft best with this sort of
framework: presenting a case and using questions from students/
colleagues to "pull out" the ideas that might otherwise be taken for
granted. There is an old Chinese saying that fish don't know that
they are wet-given that water is the only element they know,
"wetness" i s a meaningless concept. So it often is with therapists:
We swim in our own therapeuticwaters so long that we fail to notice
the quality of our own theoretical and practical perspectives. The
transcripts in this book, then,give us a framework to ask and answer
questions about what integrative psychotherapy i s and how it
works. They allow us to "pull out"of ourselves the explanations that
will help others to understand our approach. And (by no means
least important) they keep us from becoming pedantic, dry, from
hiding behind theory so as to stay removed from the often not-so-
clear world of actual clinical work.
In order to understand fully the transcripts to be presented,
however, it will be helpful for the reader to have some prior
knowledge, not only of the theory underlying the therapy (we've
provided you with a brief introduction to that), but also of some of
the techniques that we have found helpful and that will be used in
the work. The final portion of this introductory chapter will,
therefore, present a framework for understanding the actual
therapeutic interventions that we utilize with our clients. Again, this
presentation will be an overview, an introduction; the work itself,
and the accompanying comments, is where the real "action" is.

Principles and Domains

Whatever the specific therapeutic intervention may be, two

principles guide all integrative psychotherapy. The first has to do
with our commitment to positive life change. integrative psycho-
therapy is intended to do more than teach a client some new
behaviors, a handful of coping skills designed to get him through
today's major crises. It must somehow affect that client's life script.
Without script change, therapy is in danger of affording only
temporary relief: The surface may look different for awhile, but the
underlying maladaptive structure remains intact. We frequently
frame our work, therefore, in terms of script: What are the script
beliefs and feelings underlying these symptoms? How do the
 Introduction 43

symptoms fit into the overall script display? How can the client's
narrative help us to understand the way he or she collects
experiences into a store of script-reinforcing memories? Because
life script-reinforcing implies a limit to flexibilityand spontaneity in
problem solving and relating to people, we wish t o help each client
integrate his or her fixed perspectives into a flexible and open
acceptance of learning and growing from each experience.
The second guiding principle is that of respecting the integrity of
the client. Through respect, kindness,and maintenance of contact,
we establish a personal presence and allow for an interpersonal
relationship that provides affirmation of the client's integrity. This
respectfulness may be best described as a consistent invitation to
interpersonal contact between client and therapist, with simul-
taneous support for the client to contact his or her internal
experience and receive an external recognition of that experience.
Withdrawing from contact will often be pointed out and discussed,
but the client is never trapped or tricked into more openness than
he or she is ready to handle.
It has long been known that clients bring to therapy both
openness to work and resistance to change. They experience
anxiety or pain and they want relief from those feelings. Yet the
script system, uncomfortable though it may be, feels protective-
perhaps even life saving. Clients want to be different, but they are
apprehensive about what "different" will turn out to be. Both the
desire for change and the resistance to change are useful in the
therapeutic process. Resistance to being hurt, overwhelmed, con-
fused, or defeated is the energizing force in script formation; that
same resistance to dis-ease brings the client into therapy. Rather
than fight against resistance, we encourage it and support the
client's personal integrity: We want to help the client to learn to use
his or her resistance in the service of his or her goals, as he or she
would use any other resource.
There are four major domains in which therapeutic work can
take place: the cognitive, the behavioral, the affective, and the
physical. Cognitive work takes place primarily through the thera-
peutic alliance between the client's neopsyche-Adult ego state-
and the therapist. It includes such things as contracting for change,
planning behavioral strategies (here "cognitive" and "behavioral"
often blend together, and many of our interventions are indis-
tinguishable from the array of strategies used by behavior techni-
cians), and the search for insight into old patterns. This latter can be
44 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

very important following a piece of affective work, providing a

cognitive frame within which the client can understand and "tag"
his or her work for future accessing.
Behavioral work, the second therapeuticdomain,concerns itself
with engaging the client in new behaviors-behaviors that run
counter to the old script system and that will evoke responses from
others inconsistent with the collection of script-reinforcing memor-
ies. We assign "homework" of this sort, so that the therapeutic
experience can be extended beyond formal therapy sessions. We
invite the client,duringsessions, to behave differently with us, with
other group members, and (in fantasy) with those people who
helped him or her build and maintain the life script through the
years. In residential workshops, participants have a rich opportunity
for this sort of behavioral work; "therapy" time blends imper-
ceptibly into "nontherapy" time, and the entire 24-hour day
becomes a laboratory for script cure.
Affective work, while it may involve current feelings, is more
likely to involve archaic and/or introjected experiences. In order to
deal with affective issues, we must help our clients to bypass their
usual cognitive controls and defense mechanisms and move
directly into the realm of feelings. More often than not, moving into
this feeling world involves "going back," experiencing oneself in
the age when the original introjects were taken on or life script
decisions were made, or when those introjections or decisions were
strongly reinforced. The client, in this regressed state, feels and
thinks like a younger version of him- or herself. There develops
within the regression a reconstruction of many attitudes and
decisions that went into the creation of the person's life script. And
in this supported regression there is an opportunity to express the
feelings, needs, desires that have been repressed, and to relax the
defenses to contact that have become habitual. The inhibiting
decisions of years before are vividly recalled and can be reevaluated
and redecided. We find ourselves using techniques borrowed from
psychodrama, variations of Gestalt therapy "chair work," and
various forms of quasi-hypnotic induction in order to accomplish
these regressions.
The fourth major avenue into script is the physical: working
directly with body structures. As Wilhelm Reich (1945) has pointed
out, people live out their character structures i n their physical
bodies. Life script decisions inevitably involve some distortion of
contact, and such distortions always require a degree of muscular
 Introduction 45

tension-of holding in (retroflection)-in order to be maintained.

Over time, the tension becomes habitual and is eventually reflected
in actual body structure. Working directly with this structure,
through deep muscle massage and manipulation, pacing and
leading breathing patterns, and encouraging or inhibiting move-
ment, we can help the client to access the old memories and
patterns and experience the possibility of new options, options that
may not have been available at the time of original script formation.
In general, then, these are the four avenues or domains that we use
to help clients fully access the work they need to do: cognitive,
behavioral, affective, and physical. In the chapters to come, you will
notice techniques and interventions involving all of these avenues,
although we have not included sessions that are primarily physically
oriented because these are largely nonverbal and don't lend
themselves well to a transcript-based presentation. You will also
notice that we seldom limit a piece of work to a single domain; most
of the work eventually involves several facets. This is another aspect
of the integrative nature of our work. When a person is not
defended against his or her own inner experience, he or she is able
to integrate psychological functioning in all domains, taking in,
processing, and sending out messages through each avenue and
translating information easily from one to another internally.

The Eno State Focus

Another way of looking at integrative psychotherapy is in terms

of the primary ego state focus of the work. A given segment may
deal primarily with Child, with Parent, with a Child-Parent dialogue,
or with Adult ego states. We have chosen our examples so as to
provide illustrations of the most common types of ego state foci.
Work with the Child ego state usually opens with some sort of
invitation to the client either to remember or to relive an old
experience from childhood: to let the child he or she once was take
over or emerge. Actually, the invitation is directed toward both
Child and Adult ego states, given that the Adult ego must relinquish
control in order for the client to experience Child ego functioning
fully. In the Child ego state, the client has direct access to old
experiences and i s able to relive those memories and dissolve the
fixations. The invitation may be a simple and direct, "Go back to a
time when you were seven years old," or it may be a more elaborate
46 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

invocation of visual, auditory, and kinesthetic cues that assist the

client in moving into old memories, memories unavailable to Adult
ego state awareness. In some situations, physical movement or
massage work will be used to stimulate cathexis of the archaeo-
psychic experiences. The therapist often paces and leads the client
into childhood experiences through a seriesof verbal interchanges
during which the Child ego state cathexis is gradually strengthened.
Occasionally a structured relaxation exercise is used as a lead in,
helping the client to let go of the script-related tensions that he or
she habitually (outside of awareness) uses to block experiencing of
those Child responses.
Once the client has chosen to accept the invitation into Child
ego state and has been assisted in accessing those old experiences,
regression work proper begins. Through talking with the Child
(with the Adult ego state as a sideline observer of the process), the
therapist begins to uncover the way in which the life script was
formed and played out through the years. The client remembers or
relives the early trauma, the early unmet needs, and reexperiences
the process of reaction or decision through which he or she created
a defensive artificial closure to deal with those needs. This re-
creation of an old scene i s both the same as the original experience
(the feelings, wants, and needs are felt again, along with the
constraints that led to that early resolution) and different from the
original (in that the presence of the observing Adult ego state and
the supportive therapist create new resources and options that
were not available before). It is these new resources that make
possible a different decision this time around. Because the self-in-
the-world is literally experienced in a different way in the thera-
peutic regression, making a change in the archaic survival reaction
or decision can break the old life script pattern. The client sees,
hears, and feels him- or herself and the world in a new way and can,
therefore, respond to self and others in new ways. This i s the
essence of the integration of the archaeopsychic ego state into the
neopsychic ego.
When the script pattern is primarily linked to an internally
influencing Parent ego state (introject), treatment often focuses on
that Parent state of the ego. The client is invited to cathect Parent: to
"be" Mom or Dad and to enter into a conversation with the
therapist as Mom or Dad would have done.This work begins, as we
shall see, in a rather conversational style. The therapist gets
acquainted with the introjected Parent just as if a new and unknown
 Introduction 47

person had actually come into the room. As the Parent ego state
begins to experience and respond to the therapist's joining, the
quality of the interaction gradually shifts into a more therapeutic
mode and the Parent is encouraged to deal with his or her own
issues. This is literally therapy with the exteropsychic state of the
ego: working through the life script issues of the parenting person
that the client has taken on for him- or herself. Many of the
methods used with treatment of the Child ego state may be used
here if the Parent needs to deal with repressed experiences; or we
may intervene on behalf of the client's Child ego state-as a child
advocate-providing protection if the introjected Parent is unyield-
ing or continues to be destructive in some way. The historical
accuracy of the portrayal i s not particularly relevant; what i s
important i s the parent-as-experienced by the client. A person
introjects not so much what his or her parents "actually" thought
and felt and did, as what he or she experienced them thinking and
feeling and believing about him or her, about themselves, and
about the world. And again, as the Parent begins to respond to
challenges to his or her life script pattern, the introject loses its
compulsive, binding, no-other-way-is-possible quality. The think-
ing process, attitudes, emotional responses, defense mechanisms,
and behavioral patterns that were introjected from significant
others no longer remain as an unassimilated or exteropsychic state
of the ego but are decommissioned as a separate ego state and
become integrated into an aware neopsychic ego.
Most enduring and problem-creating life script patterns are
maintained by both Parent and Child ego states-that is, they
contain elements of both Child ego state decisions and Parent
introjects. Once the Parent ego state material has been brought to
full awareness and the possibility of change at this level has been
experienced, the client will still need to deal with Child ego state
decisions and reactions made in response to the introjects. Thus, to
facilitate full integration into Adult ego, a given piece of therapeutic
work may involve both Parent and Child ego states, either in
sequence (as the therapist deals first with the Parent, brings that
segment to closure, and then helps the Child to explore and
respond to the new information) or in the form of a dialogue
between Parent and Child ego states.
Our work also incorporates direct interaction with the client's
Adult ego state. Indeed, the ability to access neopsychic sensations,
perceptions, and emotion, and to use adult levels of cognition, is
48 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

virtually a prerequisite for effective work with the exteropsychic

and archaeopsychic states of the ego. We often open a piece of
work with straight contactful conversation and engage in a con-
tracting process, through which the person clarifies (for both self
and therapist) what it is he or she feels upset or confused or
discouraged about. During the course of work with Parent or Child
ego states, the Adult ego state is present as an observer and may be
called upon to offer insights or support when needed-the
availability of and protection and groundedness that he or she
needs in order to work in previously forbidden territory. Finally, the
therapy work ends with the recathecting of Adult ego and a
discussion of what has happened-or, alternatively, an explicit
agreement not to use old cognitions to interrupt the changes that the
work with Parent and/or Child ego states has set in motion. Many
clients use their defense mechanisms to block out the pain and
frustration of childhood decisions and parental introjects, thus
stopping the process of neopsychic integration. It may be useful to
restrict this protective or defensive process contractually in order to
experience the full impact of affective work.
For some clients, psychotherapy requires neither focus on
fixated defense mechanisms or regression to childhood traumas
that have been unresolved, nor a decommission of introjeaions,
but rather attention to the concerns of the adult life cycle. We
evaluate what the client presents in light of developmental transi-
tions, crises, age-related tasks, and existential experiences. We may
make use of the therapy session as an arena wherein clients can talk
openly about their children, careers, and religious or spiritual
quests. A frequent focus is on aging and death-either one'sown or
of parents and friends. Work with grieving is often here-and-now
oriented with an emphasis on expressing the appreciations and/or
resentments that need to be said before a "good-bye" is possible.
When life cycle transitions and existential crises are respected as
significant and the client has an opportunity to explore his or her
emotions, thoughts, ideals, and borrowed opinions and to talk out
possibilities, there emerges a sense of meaningfulness or purpose in
life and its events.

Contact

Finally, pervading all of our work is an attention to contact.

Contact is the full awareness of internal desires, needs, perceptions,
 Introduction 49

emotions, or thoughts, with the concomitant ability to shift to full

awareness of what and who is in the environment-a rapid
oscillation between the internal and the external, between the self
and the other person. When there is a lack of contact between the
caretakers and a child, through under- or overnurturingor a failure
to appreciate fully the child's uniqueness, that child's physical,
emotional, and/or social needs, crucial to healthy development,
are not fulfilled. Defense mechanisms are created as a protection
against the discomfort of the unmet needs, and it is these fixated
childhood defenses that limit contact-internal and external-in
life today.
The contact between client and therapist is, of course, a major
medium through which the client's contact with others, as well as
internal contactfulnesswith him- or herself (i.e.,awarenessof his or
her own processes and perceptions) can be explored. When the
client "goes away" into withdrawal, or distorts the interaction with
the therapist by means of retroflection, projection, deflection,
introjection, or attempts at confluence, the therapist may confront
the behavior directly or may respond in such a way as to restore
healthy contact. Or the distortion may be allowed to continue,
perhaps even beexaggerated, in order to understand its function in
the client's overall maladaptive system. Sooner or later, however,
disruptions in contact must be healed; psychological health requires
the ability to make clear, clean, nondistorted contact both internally
and externally.
Work with contact disruption and distortion is easy to overlook
as we examine a piece of therapy. The attention to contact is subtle,
and, because of the consistency of the therapist's modeling of
contactful behavior, this aspect of the work may go unnoticed. Yet,
like the substructure of a building, which cannot be seen but
undergirds and supports all that is above the ground, contact
healing i s an essential foundation of both the theory and the
practice of integrative psychotherapy.
Contact is possible when the therapist has a sense of being fully
present: when he or she is attuned to hisor her own inner processes
and behaviors,continually aware of the boundary between self and
client, and thoroughly observant of the client's psychodynamics.
Contact is enhanced through a genuine interest in the clients'
welfare and a respect for their unfolding experiences.
Each of these facetsof integrative psychotherapy-work with the
exteropsychic ego state (Parent), with the neopsychic ego state
(Adult), with the archaeopsychic ego state (Child); accessing
50 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

through thinking, feeling, behavior, and body responses; and the

constant attention to contact and defense mechanisms-will be
illustrated in the transcripts to follow. The discussion that accom-
panies the transcripts will further elaborate the concepts and the
specific interventions.

The Setting

The workshops from which our transcriptions were made were

10-day residential experiences, sponsored by the Institute for
Integrative Psychotherapy. A total of 18 to 20 participants attend
these workshops to enhance their professional skills and to deal
with personal issues. Indeed, the distinction between personal and
professional growth is largely illusory, given that moving out of the
restrictions and limitations of one's own life script i s a prerequisite
for working effectively with others. Two therapists, Richard Erskine,
Ph.D., and Rebecca Trautman, R.N., M.S.W., conduct the sessions.
All of the work presented in these transcripts is therapy-in-the-
group, done with an individual participant who has requested
therapeutic time, with the rest of the group observing. We have
found that the presence of the group has a number of beneficial
effects; the most noticeable is that the group provides support and
encouragement for the individual client. In a residential workshop,
the group provides an arena in which clients can experiment safely
with the new responses and behaviors that emerge from a piece of
work. A frightened, confused, or reluctant participant can model
the therapeutic risk-taking of other group members, and can deal
with his or her own issues vicariously through "piggybacking" on
the work of others. Finally, the presence of an involved and caring
group, with all of the complex emotional crosscurrents that
develop over the course of the workshop, creates a kind of
emotional hothouse, an ambiance that intensifies and encourages
the expression of thoughts, memories, and feelings that are
ordinarily kept out of awareness.
During the courseof the workshop a third of the time is devoted
to therapy-through-the-group-process, an approach in which each
participant is active in the groupdynamics, where therapy occurs in
the transactions between each and every group member. In the
"group process" time, participants contract to be open and honest
with what they are perceiving, thinking, and feeling and to take
 Introduction 51

responsibility for being active in the group. Because of space

restrictions, we have chosen not to present this approach in this
text. We have instead selected examples of intensive work with
individual clients as the format that can best illustrate a large
number of the principles of integrative psychotherapy.
The segments presented in the following chapters are largely
unedited. The names of the participants have been changed. We
have summarized sections that did not contribute new ideas or
information to that which has already been presented, especially
when the complete piece would have become long or tedious.
Excluded segments are usually introductory cognitive work, or
wrap-up work in which the emphasisshiftsto theoretical discussion.
The main body of each piece, however, is intact-complete with
pauses, stutters, and colloquial grammar. In giving you these
verbatim transcripts, we hope to share the pace and rhythm of the
therapy, the pattern of slowing down and intensifying that typifies
our work. We also hope to show the way in which the therapist's
style changes to match the ego state that the client has cathected.
And, finally, while the written transcript cannot hope to capture the
emotional intensity of the actual work, we hope that clients' and
therapists' actual words may help to convey some of the affective
involvement that gives integrative psychotherapy impact.

NOTE

1. These ideas wereoriginally published by Richard Erskine and Marilyn Zalcman

in "The Racket System: A Model for Racket Analysis" (1979). Eric Berne applied the
term "script analysis" to the deciphering of a lifelong plan designed in early
childhood and predicting all the major events and relationships in life, including
death. Marilyn Zalcman uses the term "racket analysis" to refer to the intrapsychic
processes and behavioral manifestations of the script that are currently occurring.
The term "life script" i s used in this book to refer to both meanings: the current
intrapsychic and manifested aspects of a longitudinal life plan.

REFERENCES

Ansbacher, H. L., & Ansbacher, R. R. (1956). The individualpsychology of

Alfred Adler. New York: Basic Books.
52 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Bandura, A. (1969). Principles of behavior modification. New York: Holt,

Rinehart & Winston.
Berne, E. (1957). Ego states in psychotherapy. American journal of Psycho-
therapy, 71,293-309.
Berne, E. (1958). Transactional analysis: A new and effective method of
group therapy. American journal of Psychotherapy, 12,735-743.
Berne, E. (1961). Transadionalanalysis in psychotherapy.New York: Grove.
Berne, E. (1972). What do you say after you say hello? The psychology of
human destiny. New York: Grove.
Dollard, J., & Miller, N. (1950). Personality and psychotherapy. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Erikson, E. (1950). Childhood and society. New York: Norton.
Erskine, R., & Zalcman, M. (1979). The racket system: A model for racket
analysis. TransactionalAnalysis Journal, 9(1), 51-59.
Fairbairn, W.R.D. (1954).A revised psychopathology of the psychoses and
psychoneuroses. In Psychoanalytic studies of the personality (An
Object- Relations Theory of the personality). New York: Basic Books.
Federn, P. (1953). Ego psychology and the psychoses. London: Imago.
Fraiberg, S. (1983, Fall). Pathological defenses in infancy. Dialogue: A
Journal of Psychoanalytic Perspectives, pp. 65-75.
Freud, A. (1937).Theegoand the mechanisms of defense. London: Hogarth
Press and the Institute of Psychoanalytic Studies.
Freud, S. (1961). Beyond the pleasure principle. In J. Strachey (Ed. and
Trans.), The standard editions of the complete psychological works of
Sigmund Freud (Vol. 17). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published in 1920)
Freud, S. (1961). The ego and the id. I n I.Strachey (Ed. and Trans.), The
standard edition of the complete psychological works of Sigmund
Freud (Vol. 19, pp. 3-66). London: Hogarth Press. (Original work
published in 1923)
Geiwitz, J., & Moursund, 1. (1979). Approaches to personality. Monterey,
CA: Brooks/Cole.
Mahler, M. (1968). On human symbiosis and the vicissitudes of individu-
ation. New York: International Universities Press.
Mahler, M. (1975). The psychologicalbirth of the human infant. New York:
Basic Books.
Maslow, A. H. (1950). Motivation and personality. New York: Ronald.
Maslow, A. H. (1962). Toward a psychology of being. Princeton, NJ: D. Van
Nostrand.
Mowrer, 0. H. (1950). Learning theory and personality dynamics. New
York: Ronald.
Pavlov, 1. (1927). Conditioned reflexes. London: Oxford University Press.
Perls, F. S. (1947). Ego, hunger and aggression. London: George Allen &
Unwin.
 Introduction 53

Perls, F. S. (1973). The Gestalt approach and eye witness to therapy. Palo
Alto, CA: Science & Behavior Books.
Perls, F. S., Hefferline, R. F., & Goodman, P. (1951). Gestalt therapy:
Excitement and growth in the human personality. New York: Julian
Press.
Perls, L. (1978a). Conceptions and misconceptions of Gestalt therapy.
Voices: The Art and Science of Psychotherapy, 14,31-37.
Perls, L. (1978b, Winter). An oral history of Gestalt therapy, Part I: A
conversation with Laura Perls [Edward Rosenfeld]. Gestalt journal, pp.
8-31.
Phillips, 1. (1969). The origins of intellect: Piaget's theory. San Francisco:
Freeman.
Reich, W. (1945). Character analysis. New York: Farrar, Strauss and Giroux.
Rogers, C. R. (1942). Counseling and psychotherapy. Boston: Houghton
Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R. (1951). Client-centered therapy. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Rogers, C. R., & Skinner, B. F. (1956). Some issuesconcerningthecontrol of
human behavior: A symposium. Science, 724,1057-1066.
Skinner, B. F. (1938). The behavior of organisms. New York: Appleton-
Century-Crofts.
Skinner, B. F. (1953). Science and human behavior. New York: Macmillan.
 CONRAD
Regression and Redecision

The script is our personal blueprint for how we will live our lives:
how we experience ourselves, others, the world around us; what
we expect will happen if we behave in one way or another; how we
feel and what we tell ourselves about those feelings. Begun in
earliest infancy, the script comes together into a more or less
coherent whole during childhood and is elaborated on and added
to throughout our lives. Psychotherapy, if it is to effect lasting
change, must affect script. It is script change that allows the client to
experience him- or herself as truly different. As the script changes,
new options for thinking, feeling, and behaving become salient. In
Chapter 1, we described four domains of script-changing therapy:
cognitive, behavioral, affective, and physical. Script may be changed
through discovering new ways to think (and fantasize) about self
and others; through trying out new behaviors in an "experimental"
way; through making changes in biochemistry, musculature, or
 Regression and Redecision 55

movement patterns; or through reworking the feelings present

when the script was formed and as it becomes reactivated in later
life. All four of these domains may become involved as the client is
led to return, emotionally, to the point in time at which the early
decisions and beliefs and perceptions were acquired, and to
literally reprogram replacements for that which is no longer
working.
Regression work, in which the client is allowed to go back in
fantasy to a time of script formation, forms a major part of
integrative psychotherapy. Regression encourages and empowers
the client to redecide, to use the superior resources of the "now" to
assist his or her confused or fearful or angry child "then." As is
illustrated in the segment presented in this chapter, successful
redecision involves not only cognition (through which the client
comes to understand the old decision and how it is now getting in
his or her way) and affect (which allows the client to access the
deep, out-of-conscious-awareness parts of him- or herself that
must participate in the change if it is to have any permanence), but
also intent: a clear and conscious choice to go a different route than
before. All three of these processes need not be operating in any
single piece of work, but sooner or later each must contribute its
part in order for a full redecision to take place. Conrad's work
provides a good example of the integration of all three processes in
a single episode of redecision work.
One reason why Conrad is able to work so efficiently with all
three of the redecision components may be the nature of the group
climate i n which the work was done. The group had been together
for some time-it was the eighth day of a ten-day workshop-and
there was a high level of group cohesion and trust. A well-run group
acts as a kind of sounding board for feelings, heightening and
enhancing whatever i s going on emotionally for each participant.
At the same time, it provides a protective and supportive environ-
ment, in which it i s safe to regress, to "be little," to act and feel in
ways which would not be tolerated in the world outside. Conrad
reflects this climate as he opens his work:

..
Conrad: I'm afraid if Idon't work now, I'll fadeaway.. Last night,
yesterday afternoon, not doing it good enough, just triggered a
whole chain of things.
Richard: You mean when I made that comment.. .
56 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Conrad: It's going on now. Feelings will rise up, they'll be there as
they were just a few moments ago; and then it's like the plug is
pulled in a sink. And, I do something with them, I don't know what.
And I can do this very well; this was my scare, that if I didn't work
..
this morning. and now the feelings are, I don't know how to let
them. ..
Conrad is ordinarily a highly controlled and intellectualizing
person, a successful academic who thinks, rather than feels, his
way through life. In this introduction, he is describing a rather
typical reaction to the emotional "hothouse" of an extended
workshop: Feelings ordinarily denied and suppressed are break-
ing through the cognitive barrier, demanding his attention. He
experiences a tug-of-war between his affect (feelings "rise up")
and his cognitive defenses ("like the plug is pulled in a sink").
Physically, he reflects his internal state in the tension of his body,
and the flush in his cheeks; and the very act of speaking up,
asking for group time, is an important behavioral shift for him.
The final ingredient, intent, is clearly present as he makes the
conscious choice to deal with the feelings, to invite them into
awareness rather than force them back.
A danger for Conrad, however, is that he may misuse the work he
is about to do, by evaluating it so as to reinforce his oldscripting.
In an earlier piece of work, Conrad told of a grade-school
incident in which he was cruelly humiliated by a teacher; his
experience translated into a script belief that he was not as
"good" (an adult might use words like competent or intelligent
or socially acceptable, but for a little boy good refers to the
totality of his being, his very essence) as the other children.
Believing that he is basically not "good enough," that what he
does can never quite measure up, he is likely to view his therapy
through the same filter. Thus whatever he may accomplish,
rather than moving him toward genuine script change, could be
experienced as falling short of some vague and unreachable
standard of performance and "prove" that the script belief is, in
fact, accurate. To forestall this outcome, the therapists choose to
set the stage for a challenge of the overall pattern, a challenge
that can be strengthened later on if Conrad does revert to script
in this way.
Richard: Let's just deal first of all with the "not good enough."
Conrad: It's, I'm not good enough t o belong, to be a part of. I can't
.
recall ever.. (pause)I go in and out. I can't remember, I can't recall
 Regression and Redecision 57

ever being invited to join a social organization. And as soon as Isaid

that I remembered that last night George invited me, asked me to
go with him to the waterfall today, during the break. And my first,
immediate thought was that Patricia had said something to him.
And I checked with Patricia, and she hadn't.
Here is an excellent example of the way in which reinforcing
experiences are selected and augmented by fantasy. Conrad and
Patricia are the only married couple in the workshop, apart from
Richard and Rebecca. Patricia is somewhat overprotective of
Conrad. When he i s invited to join in socially, an event quite at
variance with his script experience and expectations, he immedi-
ately fantasizes that Patricia has intervened on his behalf. "Yes,
George did ask me to go, but not because I'm good enough-
Patricia asked him to do it, because she too knows I'm not good
enough to make it on my own; and George complied out of pity
for this not-good-enough person." Some combination of the
work that Conrad had done the day before, and the support and
nourishment of the group climate, however, provided the
impetus for Conradto question his imagining, rather than simply
accept i t as reality. The discovery that Patricia hadhadnothing to
do with the invitation further upset the script pattern and
widened the breach in his old defenses.
Rebecca: You mean you thought Patricia set him up to ask you.
Conrad: Yeah. And my first. . . sense of belonging, of not being
wanted, of not being welcome. . . (his voice trails off; he is near
tears)
Richard: Yeah,and Ithink there's more involved than just leftovers
from that day in school situation. What I was thinking of last night,
when I was focusing on you, after I had gone to bed-
Notice the insertion, almost as an afterthought, of another script
challenge: You are good enough for me to want to spend even
extra, ''off duty" time thinking about you.
..
Richard: (continuing) . was what made that school situation so
devastating i s that it was a reinforcement of what had occurred. To a
child, a child who had good support at home, that child would not
have been so wiped out by the teacher. What was going on,
preschool, at home, Conrad?
The school incident, alone, did not seem to be traumatic enough
to justify its importance in Conrad's mind. Remember that the
"script decision" i s often a long process, built up out of a whole
58 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

series of experiences. What happened at school was probably a

potent reinforcer in that decision-making process, and it may
also serve to screen the earlier, ongoing, and even more
influential scripting experiences.
Conrad: I don't know. I can remember when Iwas four my brother
was born; I don't know what changes that made. Let me tell you
some fragments of things. Used to love to climb trees. And I
remember a neighbor had some trees, about 20,30feet high. Iused
to love to climb to the top of these, they were saplings, and then just
let them bend over and go down to the ground. I'd climb on roofs.
Have a memory of a peach tree in a friend's yard. I'm at the top of
the tree, and my friend, Jimmy, was down below. I'm saying, "Shall I
make it widdle, Jimmy?" My mother's voice, "You come down
here, Conrad Stamfield, I'll make you widdle!"
Richard: "Widdle" meaning?
Conrad: Wiggle. Shall I sway it back and forth. Don't know why I
said it that way; course Iknew the difference. Iknew the difference
between widdle and wiggle.
Richard: What was the difference?
Conrad: In what?
Richard: What did that mean to you? That experience?
Conrad: I don't know what it meant.
Richard: What did you feel?
Conrad: I have no recollection. Although when you ask that,
there's anger. The word that comes is "anger."
As was pointed out i n Chapter 7, respect and support for the
client's resistance is a basic principle in integrative psycho-
therapy. One way i n which this is accomplished is through
awareness of the client's signal that he or she doesn't want or isn't
ready to pursue a particular avenue. The timing may be wrong, or
the "avenue" may be a dead end. The therapist must be willing
both to explore hunches, and to give them up (at least tempo-
rarily) if they seem to go nowhere. I n this interchange, Richard is
curious about the possible significance of Conrad's word confu-
sion. When he attempts to pursue this, though, Richard gets two
denials in a row: First, Conrad "forgets" the distinction he has
just made between "widd1e"and "wiggle,"and then he "doesn't
know" what the experience means. Rather than continue i n the
 Rqression and Redecision 59

face of this resistance, Richard respects it and shifts, allowing

Conrad to approach his work on his own terms.
At any point in a piece of work, of course, there are many
possible interventions. Richard could have stayed with Conrad's
anger here, helping him to express and explore it more fully.
During the course of his therapy, however, Conrad has gotten
angry several times already, and has made little progress through
that route. This time, Richard goes another way. . .
Richard: This was your mother calling up to you? Close your eyes
right now. Be back up in the tree. Feel what it's like t o sway, t o
wiggle a peach tree.
Conrad: It's great!
Going back to the topic that Conrad himself had introduced,
Richard gains access to the feeling state associated with the
content of the story. Again, a side effect of this choice is to send a
subtle message that Conrad's way of doing his work is "'good
enoughJ'; Richard will not insist on following his own agenda,
but will attend to Conrad's signals.
Richard: Justfeel that freedom. Climb higher and higher. Feel the
power in the shape of those branches in that tree (pause; Conrad's
expression clearly indicates that he is reliving the experience).And
tell your friend down below what you're feeling.
Conrad: Oh, it's great up here! It's great! Shit, I'm even higher than
the birds (he is crying now).
Richard: Do that, right now, look down at the birds. Tell your
friend what it's like to be a master tree-climber.
A number of things are occurring here. First, Richard has invited
Conrad into an age regression. He is to take himself back in time,
back to the experience of a small boy, swaying in the top of a
peach tree. Richardcalls on severalsensory modalities in order to
heighten the intensity of the regression experience: the voice of
Conrad's mother, the motion of theswaying tree, the kinesthetic
sensations of climbing, the sight of the birds below him. By
directing Conrad to talk to his friend, he adds the actualsoundof
Conrad's own voice; thus internal fantasy is augmented by here-
and-now sensory experience. Moreover, as Conradreports to his
friend, he is forced to symbolize the feeling in words, thus
integrating his emotional, motoric, and cognitive experience.
O INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Finally, the description of himself as a "master tree-climber" is

another assault on the "not good enough" script belief.
Conrad: (whispers very softly) It's great to look down at the birds.
Richard: Say that to him again: It's great to look down at the birds.
Conrad: There were no words. For me there were no words.
Richard: Can you do it in sign language?
Conrad: No. It's a feeling of ...
Richard: Just reach out and grab the branches. . .
Conrad again signals that he's not ready to follow Richard's lead.
He wants to do it his way, and in doing so he issues a subtle
invitation to Richard to fight with him, and (again) prove that his
way isn't right, isn't good enough. Richarddeclines the invitation,
respecting the resistance and offering instead another way to
move ahead. Conrad counters by beginning to pull out of the
regression, to stand back and describe rather than actually to
experience. The direction to "reach out and grab the branches"
provides a sensory anchor, so that Conrad can move back into
the age-regressed state.
.
Conrad: just such a swelling up.. that same feeling Italked about
with the Chariots of Fire music; just a sense of being transported. So
.. ..
far. so full . complete, free and complete and fulfilled.
Richard: Tell that t o that friend down below.
Conrad: Oh, Jimmy, it's so great! I'm free.
Richard: Shout it at him.
Conrad: (crying) I'M FREE!
Richard: Try shouting it at him again.
Richard: (after a long pause) Just say it again, then.
Conrad: (pause) What I was saying inside is, "I'm not."
Script is not easily changed; script messages are not easily
defeated. Conrad momentarily allowed himself to experience
the freedom and the autonomy of havingclimbedaway from the
constraints that held him down, but, as soon as hepaused, his old
cognitive habits reappeared to counter the emotional experi-
ence. The therapists want to strengthen the new, script-opposing
feelings before dealing with the belief system, to avert the
possibility that Conrad may still be able to use an "unsuccessful"
piece of work to prove that he's "not good enough."
 Regression and Redecision 61

Richard: That's going to come next. For now, just stay with this.
"I'm free. . ."
Conrad: I have one hell of a time separating those. Jimmy, I'm free.
The affective charge has dissipated, and Conrad's "I'm free" is
flat and unconvincing. He is parroting Richard, adapting to
Richard's directions (after all, to Conrad, the therapists know
better) rather than experiencing himself in a genuine way. He's
back i n script. Again, Richard does not confront, but follows
Conrad's lead: I f the injunction to stay not-free and not good
enough is foreground, then that's what Conrad needs to deal
with. Hypothesizing that the script was originally developed out
of Conrad's relationship with Mother, Richardfocuses there. He
keeps Conrad up in the tree, however, i n the place where he had
previously experienced the sensations of being free and
autonomous.
Richard: Look at your mother, coming in through the yard.
Conrad: I didn't even see her.
Richard: She's standing down there.
Conrad: Just her voice, out of nowhere.
Richard: Standing down there,at the bottom of that tree.. Listen.
to her voice. What do you hear her saying?
Mother's voice is remembered/fantasized as coming "out of
nowhere," and this is re-created i n Conrad's life as an adult. As
he moves tentatively toward autonomy, the script message
comes "out of nowhere" and urges him back into a one-down
position. In the therapy, he i s encouraged to keep the sound
input as it was, but to couple it with a new and different sensory
experience, the visual stimulus of Mother standing on the
ground, below him, out of reach.
Conrad: "Conrad Stamfield, you come down out of that tree or I'll
widdle you!"
Richard: Tell her what you'd like to say from your place.
Conrad: (whispering) Get lost, woman!
Richard: Louder.
Conrad: Get lost, woman!
Richard: Climb a little higher.
Richard is s t i l l using the spatial relationship of the fantasy to
62 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

combat the symbolic one-downness that Conrad feels with his

mother.
Conrad: Get lost, woman!
Richard: Before you tell her to get lost more, climb up higher. Get
on a higher branch.
Conrad: Come and get me! (the group cheers)
Richard: C'mon, say something else to her. (pause) Say that-
"Come and get me."
Hoping to build on the energy that is generating in the group,
Richard urges Conrad to solidify and expand his feeling of
power. He may have gone too fast, because Conrad doesn't
respond; Richard comes back to Conrad's own words, and
Conrad continues.
Conrad: (laughing) Come and get me!
The laughter is new, both as a behavior and a physiological
response. Both in his therapy work and i n his social interactions
in the workshop setting, Conrad seldom relaxes in laughter. I t is
thus a signal that the script system may be changing.
Richard: Cause tell her what you know.
Conrad: You can't climb yourself.
Richard: And therefore.. .
Conrad: And you don't want me to climb.
Richard: Say that again.
We have now come to what may be a central part of the original
scripting: Don't do what Ican't do, don't go past me, let me stay
superior. Having gotten here, Richard will stay with it, letting
Conrad experience and expand upon its implications for him.
Conrad: You don't want me to climb. You don't want me to climb
roofs, you don't want me to climb trees. ..
Richard: And the true reason i s . ..
Conrad: You want me down there so that I'll be with you all your
life.
Richard: You can't climb. . .
Conrad: You cannot climb.
Richard: Louder.
Conrad: You can't climb!
 Regression and Redecision 63

There are many ways to stay with a particular point in regression

work. Here Richard uses two such techniques, the unfinished
.
repetition ("You can't climb . .") and a request to repeat the
same words more loudly. Providing an open-ended sentence
encourages elaboration of the messageand thus invites cognitive
input; "say it louder" invites greater affective involvement.
Conrad may be somewhat stuck at this juncture, for he provides
no further details and also doesn't appear to heighten his
emotional response. Richard chooses to provide an interpre-
tation:
.
Richard: Tell her what she's doing with her fear. . With her fear
about climbing.
Conrad: (pause)She can't climb.
Richard: She can't climb.
Conrad: She doesn't know how to climb.
Conrad doesn't pick up on the idea of Mother's being afraid, so
Richard drops it in favor of another 'explanation," this one
closer to what Conrad has come up with himself.
Richard: Yeah. And tell her what she's doing with her climbing
ignorance.
Conrad: You hold me down .. .Give me lip service. . .
Richard: You can't climb, yet you hold me down .. .
Conrad: You can't climb. You hold me down, and if anyone were
to hear you, they'd say "Oh, you're helping him.''
.
Richard: And the truth i s . .
Conrad: And the truth is, you're not.
Finally, an open door. Conrad is recognizing the double bind in
which Mother appears t o help, while she really holds him back.
No longer simply adapting to the therapists, Conrad has con-
structed his own interpretation and elaboration: Cognition and
affect are beginning to come together. Richard moves to prevent
this beginning integration from sliding over into pure cognition,
as has happened in Conrad's work in the past.
Richard: Now climb to a higher branch, Conrad. (pause)Now tell
her what-
Conrad: I'm going to change the tree. To a taller tree.
Conrad actively cooperates in manipulating the fantasy to
64 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

heighten its emotional impact, a sign that the work is indeed

going well. Apparently the kinesthetic cues are easilyassimilated
and used.
Richard: Justsort of swing, from the branch to something else. You
know, like Tarzan.
Conrad: Got it. This is a pine tree, and they grow real tall, and they
got nice branches to climb on.
Richard: (chuckling) I bet you've got a comment from the pine
tree.
Conrad: (laughing) If you want me so fucking much, come and get
me.
Richard: Say that word again. You want me so FUCKING much.. .
Conrad: You want me so fucking much, come and get me.
Richard: Tell her what you mean by that, five-year-old.
Is Conrad dealing with a sexual/Oedipal issue here, or is the
word fucking merely a culturally used expletive? Having tucked
away the Oedipal question early i n Conrad's therapy, Richard
nowjudges that the momentum will carry Conradinto exploring
a perhaps dangerous topic.
Conrad: (pause) Five-year-old didn't know. (pause) You want me
as your father, you want me as your husband.. . you're scared.. .
you just want me there. By your side.
Rebecca: Tell her what that's like for you. When she wants you so
much, as a husband and father.
Conrad: It's a safe prison. It feels safe in this prison.
Richard: And when I'm up in this pine tree. ..
Conrad: I'm not in a prison.
The sexual aspects of the relationship are not as salient for
Conrad right now as the sense of being stifled, held back; when
Rebecca probes for sexual implications, Conrad threatens to
move back into the safe prison of his script. Richard quickly
brings him back to the new experience, the freedom of being u p
in the pine tree, and begins to set up another framework within
which redecision can occur.
Richard: Try this: I'm not your father. I'm not your father when I'm
up here.
Conrad: I'm not your father. I'm not your father up here.
 Regression and Redecision 65

Richard: Louder.
Conrad: I'rn not your father up here.
Richard: Scream it at her.
Conrad: I'M NOT YOUR FATHER UP HERE!
The emotional intensity i s back, and Conrad appears ready to
take another step. He demonstrates this by adding his own
elaboration to Richard's suggestions.
Richard: Tell her who else. ..
Conrad: I'm not your father; I'm not your husband, I'm not your
caretaker! I'rn not your little baby!
Richard: Tell her who you are in the pine tree.
.
Conrad: (pause)She never knew.. (loudly) I'm Conrad Stamfield!
Richard: And I'm not a baby.
Conrad: And I'm not a baby.
Richard: And tell her what you're doing, up in that pine tree.
Conrad: What I'm doing is weaving my way around the branches
upward. Playing up here.
Rebecca: That's your turf. And where's Jimmy3
Having taken a major step in dealing with the one-down, not-
good-enough issue with Mother, the therapists now come back
to peer relationships. We'll see whether there's any movement
here; if the work with Mother has ''taken," Conrad should be
able to deal with Jimmy i n a different way.
Conrad: (pause) I don't know.
Richard: Pretty lonely up there, in that freedom?
Conrad: Yeah. (pause) Hey, c'mon up.. .(pause) Idon't really want
him to come up.
Richard: Tell him that.
Conrad: I don't really want you to come up; I want you to find
another tree, and I want you to invite me over there.
Something i s certainly different; Conrad is much clearer about
what he wants from his friend. Not only does he know what he
wants, he can say it directly. Again, Richard's next intervention is
designed to heighten the emotional involvement, while at the
same time clarifying Conrad's understanding.
Richard: Feel that longing, Conrad. For that invitation.
66 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Conrad: (long pause) So important . . . so important, I so want

people to, to invite me.
Richard: Talk to Jimmy again.
Conrad: Jimmy, Iwant you to, Iwant you to ask me to.. .you find a
tree and play over there with you. And then we'll come back over
here, and play in my tree.
Richard: If you invite me, Jimmy. ..
Conrad: I know I belong. (pause)If you invite me, I know I belong.
Conrad pauses, and then repeats his statement: He is experi-
encing the force of his o l d decision about not belonging. While
this sort of pause-repeat pattern doesn't necessarily signal a
redecision, it is certainly indicative that script is being understood
and experienced in a new way. Conrad is realizing how he
contributes to his sense of not belonging when he rules out the
possibility of inviting himself. And what does this have to do with
Mother, and Conrad's relationship with her? It's time to tie
together the two major threads of this piece of work.
Richard: I want you to try a little experiment, and see what
happens. Say that to your mother. "If you invite me as your son,
instead of your father or your husband, or baby . . ."
Conrad: As you were saying it, I felt a ...surge of energy, or
strength.
The "surge of energyJJis an indication of physiological involve-
ment. While Conrad i s borrowing from the therapistsJstrength
here in demanding what he needs from Mother, he may
internalize this response i n his memory collection so that later he
will be able to make those demands on his own.
Richard: Then I'll talk to your mom . ..Mom, you need to invite
him as your son.You need to invite him down out of that tree, like-
Conrad: I don't want you to take care of me, I want you to share
your strength with me.
While Conrad's comment here i s addressed to his image of
Mother, he may also be reacting to the therapist's caretaking.
Having been energized by Richard's intervention on his behalf,
he now n o longer needs or wants it; he wants a different kind of
working relationship.
Richard: Um-hm. Keep going.
Conrad: So that I can learn,and Ican grow. You always knewwhat I
 Regression and Redecision 67

should do, when I was in trouble. I'm flunking out of college, and
you know exactly where Ican go to get a job. It's all that you knew. If
I was hurting, you were there for me. You were right there. And I
needed you, 1 need you to be with me when I'm flying. And to say
"Go, Conrad. Have a good life.''
In regression work, feelings from past and present often flow
together at the moment of redecision. Integration of then and
now-of archaeopsychic and exteropsychic ego into the neo-
psychic ego-is a hallmark of integrative psychotherapy. At the
end of Conrad's work, the confrontation of Mother's overpro-
tectiveness flows from the tree-climbing child to the young adult
college student. Here and i n the two statements to follow,
Conrad i s processing feelings from many different times in his
life, putting them together into a new way of responding to
Mother-and, by extension, to the other important people in his
life.
Richard: Talk to her, Conrad.
Conrad: You were left alone. I know you were scared, and hurt,
and angry. (crying)
Richard: But I need . ..
.
Conrad: (pause) I need.. I need you to let me know you're proud
of me, and that you're with me. I need to know that you don't need
me to hurt. (pause) I hear her voice, and she's saying, "I wanted so
much.. .so much that the other, my brothers and sisters had, and I
never got.'' And then she'ssaying, "Yeah, I do love you. And Iwant
you to fly." And she does love me.
Richard: Respond to her. Tell her about that love.
Conrad: I do love you. And I want to share with you. I want you to
be as excited as you can be about ... things that I'm proud of.
(pause) When I get a scholarship, and nobody said I could get it.
And after I got it the whole high school changed their procedures
because they were surprised that I got it, but I got it. I earned it.
(pause) And I graduated from college. (pause)Got my master's, got
my Ph.D. Iwant you to be proud of that. (pause)You gave me roots,
all right; you didn't give me wings. That's it.

Conrad has summed up here, metaphorically, the whole rela-

tionship with Mother. He has been stuck because, were he to reject
her smothering, he would also be rejecting the support and
68 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

rootedness that he needed. Disconnecting those two aspects of

Mother-support on the one hand, overprotection on the other-
is Conrad's first step toward redecision.
The tie-in between Mother's stifling and Conrad's sense of "not
good enough" has not yet been made completely clear. Following
this work, Conrad did subsequent therapy in which he came to
realize that by trying to take the place of the adult males in his
mother's family, he set up a situation in which he could never
measure up, could never be "good enough'' to make up for their
loss. He made a new decision: to be the son in the family, not the
husband or the father; in that role he was competent and "good
enough."
Conrad's work'of course, is not complete. He has yet to deal with
the way in which he will relate to his peers, now that he has decided
to be who he really i s (his mother's son) rather than assuming a
falsely superior role (the husband, the father) and then feeling
incompetent and unwelcome.
This chapter of Conrad's work was, however, quite significant.
Not only did he gain an important insight into the nature of his
scripting, but he also allowed himself to experience the emotional
and physiological significance of that script. Another important
ingredient, his intent to change, allowed him to stay with the work
even at moments when it was frightening or painful. It is this intent
that will determine how the work affects his life in the days to come,
whether he will integrate the new experiences into his ongoing
behavior or sink back into his older and more familiar habits. Intent,
cognition, emotion, physiology, and behavior: the vital elements of
therapeutic change. We shall meet them again and again in the
chapters to come.
 CHRIS
Discovering a
Self-Created Parent

Conrad's work, presented in Chapter 2, illustrated the weaving

together of cognitive, affective, physiological, and behavioral
components in the context of a will to change. As we have seen,
alterations of script typically involve several-if not all-of these
elements. The work can focus primarily on changing cognitions
(beliefs about self, others, the nature of life), or on changing
feelings (the sense of "having to" react emotionally in a certain
way), or on changing actual overt behavior. Script changes can be
made with regard to parental figures, peers, or stressful events in
the client's life. Or the client may merely uncover and understand
the early decision, and choose to process its implications for a while
without making a new decision during the therapy session, saving
the actual redecision for a later time.
70 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

The following piece of work is an example of the latter process:

The client does not make a clear redecision in the work itself. Chris
works early in the course of the workshop, and works exclusively
with Richard. Chris knows that he will have ample opportunity for
follow-up. Richard allows him to explore the thoughts, feelings,
and behaviors that surrounded his early experiences, and ends the
work in such a way as to encourage him to continue this process as
the workshop progresses. The intent to change is clearly present,
and it is this intent that will carry the impact of the therapeutic work
into the structure of the client's everyday life. The work also
introduces a number of themes, concepts, and techniques typical
of integrative psychotherapy, and will further illustrate the way in
which we conceptualize the structure of personality and the
avenues through which change can be accomplished.
Chris is a man in his midthirties, well-versed in therapeutic
theory and practice. He has worked with Richard before and he
understandsmany of his own issues. While this sort of sophistication
can be an advantage in that it cuts through a great deal of initial
floundering, it also can contribute to a kind of layering of defenses,
using cognitive understandings to protect oneself from actually
feeling the emotional pain of early experiences. A major challenge
for the therapist is to move past the well-established and thought-
through cognitive structures into the raw experience out of which
were generated Chris's early script decisions.
Chris begins his work by describing his habit of overcriticizing
and being overdemanding of subordinates:

It's real easy for me to just compartmentalize people, and then not
have to deal with them. Once Iput them in a box,and have a spot for
them on theshelf, then Idon't have to reach out and contact them. I
know who they are, I know what they are, and that's that. They have
no use for me. And I miss out on a lot of people.

He moveson to relate this behavior to his feelings toward his former

wife,and then describes the frustration of trying to think his way out
of these patterns. "l'm intelligent. I can learn theory and apply it to
myself, it doesn't do a hell of a lot of good in freeing myself of this
stuff."
The work proceeds at a leisurely pace; Chris is encouragedto talk
through what he has figured out about his system. He talks of his
 Discoveringa Self-Created Parent 71

early years, being brought up by his grandparents, and how

important it was for him to find a way really to belong in that family.
Chris was the first child of an inadequate mother and father who
were "around" but unableor unwilling to accept parental responsi-
bilities; Chris's younger siblings were reared in an orphanage. He
describes his mother as "a nonentity in my life" about whom he has
no particular feeling at all. His ideal was his Uncle Pete, who was his
grandparents' "number-one son"; he, Chris, came to be very
proud of being the Number Two Son of Grandma and Grandpa.
Even so, many years later, the vague sense of not belonging, of not
having a place of his own, still lingers.
After a long discussion of all this history, Richard introduces the
idea of a fantasy parent, a parent figure invented by the child as a
protective device. Richard's explanation is much the same as the
description of the self-created or fantasy parent presented in
Chapter 1:

Richard: Chris, you did have an early rejection; whether you

experienced it biologically, you must certainly have begun to
experience it psychologically and socially. To protect yourself from
that trauma ever happening again, you created a Spook, who could
reject you. Then you got to keep your grandparents as good folks,
who would never be rejecting. As we create that Spook, it gets as
tenacious as something that has been introjected. That'swhy Icall it
a self-generated parent. It functions like a Parent ego state; almost
as an external voice. But it is so driving,so demanding4 think part
of dealing with compulsion is to find that driving Spook, and know
its early origin, as a child's frightened fantasy of what could have
occurred.
Chris: Urn-hm. When Iam experiencing that drivenness, I also am
aware that that's not me. When I'm that critical of myself, or the
people around me, um, it's like when Paul was out at my house and
we were driving down the highway, and he said something like, that
guy's going to have a car accident, the way he's driving. And then
right away he went like this (waving his hand), he said, "Wave that
one off, God." And what he said was, "I don't want to wish any ill on
that person, indirectly or directly.'' So he waved it off. It's like I
borrow that, and when I come out that critical, you know, I wave it
off, I don't really mean that. I don't really wish ill on that person; I
waved that off.
72 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: We experience our boogeymen as external. Because to

project, you have to deny.
Chris: Well, I can put that on people around me. And I don't
understand, then why I do it so much myself, to myself.
Richard: In order not to be rejected. Ithink it's all going on in Child
ego state. I'll bet it occurs when you're tired, when you're stressed,
when you're under pressure, when you're lonely; does not occur
when you're well rested, when things are functioning well.
Chris: That's right.
Richard: That'sone of the diagnostic clues that it's in Child. Where
is it in Child? I think it's the parent that the Child imagines. Either
very good, or very bad. In your case, a bad parent, to keep you
good. I think all four-year-olds do it. Most of us give it up midway
through grade school. The other kids confront the reality of it, and
we drop it. In your case, there was some lying, some unreality,
about who you belonged to. So holding onto that Spook, that
rejector, is going to be more tenacious.
Richard has dropped into an easy, conversational mode with
Chris. The interaction sounds almost like two colleagues discus-
sing an interesting clinical example. There is no doubt that
Richardrespects Chris's intelligence and knowledge, and that he
is taking pains to inform Chris's Adult ego state about what he,
Richard, believes to motivate the overcriticism that Chris com-
plains of. By using this approach, Richard engages-almost
automatically-two of the necessarycomponentsof script change.
Thinking and theorizing are cognitive functions, and these are
surely involved here. And Chris's intent to work, to change, is
supported both by Richard's respectful attitude and by his
implicit assumption that understanding can be a first step i n the
change process.
Throughout this early part of the work, Richard has been
assessingthe degree to which Chris is accepting these theoretical
ideas. All the nonverbalsigns-facial expression, posture, tone of
voice-suggest that he i s interested and intrigued, that the
concepts make sense to him. Cognition and intent are present,
and it i s now time to move into affect. Richard invites him to do
so, by means of totally recalling an earlier experience. The
induction not only specifies the time to be reexperienced, but
also anchors the setting, the emotional tone, the hopes and
 Discovering a Self-created Parent 73

expectations of a small boy. The language is that of a child, with a

child's pride in his own status and achievements:
Richard: Let me try something. Justclose your eyes. Go back to that
railroad flat. Iwant to talk to the little boy, want to talk to the little
boy who knows that next year, in this coming September, he's going
to start kindergarten. The little boy who's excited, maybe, about
going to school. Maybe even first grade. But somebody who's still
home all day long. Somebody who doesn't go to school yet.
Somebody who's too big to take naps. So that the days are very long
. . ..
. Somebody who's playing alone . What are you feeling, little
boy?
Chris: I'm feeling that Iwant to go to school. That Ican go with my
friends. Um, I'm feeling, like wow! I'm going to go to that big
building, where all the big kids go.
Richard: Have you outgrown this apartment? Too big for this
apartment now? I bet you know every little nook and cranny.
Chris: I think when I go to school then I get my own room.
Richard: That's exciting.
Chris: Yeah.
Richard: Where are you sleeping now?
Chris: Well, I have to share the big bedroom with my grandmother.
Right off the kitchen.
Richard: You going to get Pete's room?
Chris: Yeah. That's the room I want.
Richard: Yeah. Up front, huh?
Chris: Well, it opens onto the porch. I'm not allowed to go out on
the porch.
Richard: When you're big?
Chris: When you're big, you can go out on the porch. But I can't,
cause I'm too little. Cause it's windows.
Richard: I bet you'd like to get big.
Chris: Oh, I go on the porch anyway, when nobody's around.
Chris is increasingly caught up in the regression; this whole
interchange is essentially an extension of the original invitation
to reexperience childhood. Chris's language has changedand he
i s now talking like a five-year-old boy. The conversation has
established a relationship with the therapist as a trusted adult, a
74 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

person who understands and is interested i n a little boy's world.

Indeed, Chris's last comment suggests that Richard is an ally,
someone who can be trusted with secrets that other grown-ups
can't share. With this trust established, Richard begins to focus
the work.
Richard: What would happen, if somebody came around and
caught you out there?
Chris: They'd beat me.
Richard: They'd beat you, huh?
Chris: No.
Here i s an initialand partial confirmation of the hypothesisabout
the self-generatedparent: The child Chris i s confused about the
consequencesof misbehavior. His first response to "What would
happen?" i s that he would be beaten; but he immediately
contradicts himselfandsays no, he wouldn't. Theself-generated
parent would beat him, andit is to thisself-createdparent that he
goes first to make his prediction. Even as a five-year-old,
however, his reality sense is strong enough to conflict with and
contradict the fantasy.
Richard: Do you ever do bad things when nobody's around?
Chris: Yeah.
Richard: And what do you do when they come around?
Chris: I get good.
Richard: How come?
Chris: Cause I don't want to get in trouble. I get good.
While ''getting g o o d is a common five-year-old reaction to the
presence of a grown-up, in this case it may also be the response
to the self-created parent. Certainly some children don't "get
g o o d whenever parents are in the vicinity, and most children
don't "get good" every time-does Chris?And, i f so, why? I s he
again responding to the fantasied harsh punishment of his self-
generated parent, rather than to the reality of his grandparents'
discipline?
Richard: What's the worst kind of trouble you get in?
Chris: The worst kind of trouble is my grandmother crying.
Richard: Uh-huh. And what would that be like for you? When
Grandma cries?
 Discovering a Self-Created Parent 75

Chris: I t would be that maybe she's going to get sicker.

Richard: And if she gets real sick?
Chris: She's gonna die. It's gonna be my fault.
Richard: And if she dies, what happens t o you?
Chris: I don't know.
A lingering but vague sense of omnipotence is natural at this
developmental stage. The five-year-old Chris believes that he
can cause his grandmother's death by rather trivial and com-
monplace naughtiness. Thus he has another reason for creatinga
threatening, punitive parent figure: to keep him in line, so that
he won't be a danger to the person he loves.
Grandma's death is threatening not only in that Chris would lose
her, but also because of the punishment he would incur. When
Richard tries to explore this aspect of Chris's experience, he
meets a defensive "I don't know." Although neither the adult
Chris nor the little boy does literally know what would happen,
this lack of factual information has not blocked the fantasy work
up until now; so Richardpersists in probing for the catastrophic
expectation that is being guarded against.
Richard: Think about it, little boy.
Chris: (pause, sighing) I don't know. I don't know.
Richard: What happens t o you if Grandma dies?
Chris: Well, I think everybody'sgonna be mad at me. My aunts, my
grandfather.
Richard: What happens inside of you if Grandma dies?And people
are mad?
Chris: Then I have nothing.
Richard: Uh-huh. What's that going to be like, having nothing?
Chris: Scary!
Richard: And where do you feel it, in your body?
Chris: (touching his midsection) Right here.
In this interchange, Richard gathers information about the
physiological aspects of Chris's scripting process: where he
tightens his muscles in order not to feel an emotion fully. Chris
stores his scare about Grandma's death (and his own related
misbehavior) in his midsection. This information will allow
76 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Richard to build and test hypotheses about possible psycho-

somatic implications i n later life; it also gives him an entry point
should he choose to work directly on the body tissues involvedin
Chris's script pattern. I t is still too early for either of these
interventions, however; more information is needed.
Richard: Uh-huh. So how can you be sure that nothing bad's going
to happen like that?
Chris: Don't do nothing wrong. Or don't get caught doing nothing
wrong.
Chris defines clearly the job-the function-of the self-created
parent. It will keep him either blameless or very, very careful (or
both) and thus keep him safe. Richard continues to work on this
issue, solidifying Chris's identification with the Child ego state
while gathering more data.
Richard: Why, cause you'll wind up with a dead grandma?
Chris: Yeah.
Richard: All alone? Cause you could cause her to go away to
heaven, huh?
Chris: I could, I could do bad things. And she could get sicker.
She's sick already.
Richard: Ummm. She have a heart attack, or what?
Chris: I don't know what's wrong with her. I know she's sick; I
know she takesa lot of pills. Iknow she goes to see the doctor a lot.
Richard: So if you lost your Grandma, that would be a bad thing.
Chris: Yeah, everybody'd be mad at me.
Richard: Everybody?
Chris: Everybody.
Again, we see that it isn't just losing Grandma that must be
prevented. That, while perhaps painful, could be tolerated. But
losing everyone, having them all angry (and rejecting him) would
be catastrophic.
Richard: So you gotta do all the right things. What kind of things do
you do that are good things, so nobody gets mad?
Chris: I do lots of good things. I don't start trouble in the
neighborhood. I don't throw rocks at houses.
Richard: Would you like to sometimes?
Chris: I like to throw rocks on garage roofs.
 Discovering a Self-created Parent 77

Richard: Um-hm. And watch 'em come down? Or are they flat
roofs?
Chris: Flat roofs. See 'em roll.
Richard: Yeah.
Chris: I also like to get up on top of garage roofs, and then throw
the rocks back down.
Richard: I remember doing that, that's fun (laughs). 'Cept we used
to use bottles,and fill 'em half full of sand, and throw 'em, so they'd
explode like hand grenades. And you could see that there'd be a big
smoke cloud. Did you ever do that?
Little Chris has confessed to some naughtiness, and his scripting
dictates that someone must now be disapproving. Richard
refuses to follow the script, however, and even joins him in his
naughtiness. Rapport is cemented, and Chris is encouraged to
explore more deeply the feelings and sensations of this critical
period in his life.
Chris: No. I used to say real smart things. I used to make funny
statements and stuff like that, and say funny words, and everybody
would laugh.
Is Chris shifting here from being naughty to being cute and
entertaining? O r does "smart" mean sassy, smart aleck, and thus
represent another step into forbidden territory? Richard needs
to know whether things have moved too fast, throwing Chris into
a hasty retreat, or whether he is in fact continuing on track.
Richard: Was that a good experience, or bad?
Chris: Well, each time I said something I didn't now whether they
would laugh, or whether they would be mad.
Apparently Chris himself didn't always know what kinds of
behavior were OK and what kinds were not. Trying to win
approvalandattention, he was unsure whether people would be
pleased or angry. Saying nothing would lead to being ignored-
and that would stimulate the old fears of abandonment-so he
had to speak up, and run the risk of doing it wrong.
Richard: What if you said something real bad, and they got mad?
Chris: Then I'd get sent to my room. And then I'd get told,
"Children should be seen and not heard."
Richard: So they would send you away.
78 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPYI N ACTION

Richard makes the obvious connection.

Chris: Yeah.
Richard: Did you like that?
Chris: Heck, no. I got it done to me once or twice, but I learned
very very fast how not to do that.
Richard: You were determined never to be sent away again.
Chris: No way!
The hypothesisis now wellsupported: For Chris, the catastrophe
of being sent away was to be avoided at all costs. There was "no
way" that he would allow himself to risk that; it was too terrible.
Richard now moves to establish the specific rules that Chris's
self-created Parent established and enforced in order to be safe.
Richard: What'd you have to do, then, to make sure they wouldn't
send you away?
Chris: Well, I'd either keep quiet, or I hadda say something that I
knew would be OK.
Richard: Um-hm. Something that would please them.
Chris: Or do something that would please them.
Chris not only agrees, but embellishes-a good sign that the
work is on track.
Richard: So if they're displeased, they get rid of you. And if you
were really bad, and killed your grandmother, do you think they'd
send you to the orphanage.
Chris: I don't know about orphanages. I just know that if I did
anything that bad, I'd be in trouble. I would be in trouble.
It is possible that the baldness of Richard's question, stating
openly both unmentionable fears (killing Grandma, and being
sent to the orphanage), may have been too much for Chris. Or his
response may be quite accurate: At the age to which he i s
regressed, the word orphanage is not meaningful. He may not
have verbal understanding of the "'trouble" he would be in, but
rather a visceral and emotional sense of being left or cast out:
Scriptingat this early age is often rooted much more in affective
and body sensations than in cognitions. Richard chooses not to
pursue the cognitive aspects, but instead to clarify the protective
rules that Chris i s setting up for himself.
 Discoveringa Self-Created Parent 79

Richard: So what do you say inside your head to stay out of

trouble?
Chris: Don't do anything wrong. Better figure out what's the right
thing to do, and do it. Otherwise you're in trouble.
Richard: Um-hm. You're clever. How many times a day do you say
that to yourself?
This child, with his great sensitivity to disapproval, might well
have interpreted Richard's curiosity and persistence about his
script behavior as a negative reaction, a "how odd of you to have
done these things" kind of response. To avoid this, Richard
strokes Chris for his cleverness, and then asks for more details.
The details provide information both for the therapist, in terms of
diagnosis and treatment planning, and for the observing Adult
ego state of the client.
Chris: Whenever I'm around grown-ups. Cause I spend a lot of
time out with my friends. As long as I come back.
Richard: Do you ever say it when you're out with your friends, too?
Just in case they do things that would ...
Chris: Only around the bigger kids.
Richard: Why do you do that?
Chris: Try to get liked by the bigger kids.
Richard: How do you manage that?
Chris: Well, I show them how good I am. And what we're doing.
Figure out how to do what they're doing, so I'm one of the big guys.
Whether it's climbing roofs, or . . .
Richard: Cause if you're bad at doing those things, what happens?
Chris: They're going to say, "You're a little kid, get out of here. We
don't want you to hang around with us."
Richard: So they get rid of you too.
Chris: Yeah.
The rule i s clear: Do it right, pleasepeople, don't make mistakes,
push yourself to look smart and capable and grown-up. And i f
you do all this without a fumble, you won't be sent away. The
self-createdparent must be constantly vigilant, to make sure that
Chris follows this rule at all times; with such a parent on duty, the
Child ego state can enjoy at least the semblance of normal,
age-appropriate behavior. Having the therapist understand is
80 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

not enough, however; the Child Chris must also begin to make
sense of the system.
Richard: That's a big thing for you. Being chased away. So you got a
protector inside of your head that keeps you from getting chased
away.
Chris: Figure out what they want, and give it to them. Don't tell
them everything. What they don't know won't hurt them . ..
I t seems pretty clear to Chris, as well-perhaps too clear. There i s
a strangely adultlike ring to his response, as i f he is parroting what
he has learned from someone else. Perhaps these rules are not all
self-generated, after all, but are an introject from some significant
other in his life. Richard needs to find out:
Richard: Urn-hm. Somebody else tell you to do that, or did you
figure that out?
Chris: My grandfather says that.
Richard: What does he say?
Chris: "Hey, what they don't know won't hurt them."
Richard: And what about the first part?
Chris: I figured that out. I figured that out myself.
Richard: Well, which one seems like a better message? The one
from Grandfather, or the one you figured out?
We have both an introjected message(Grandfather's "what they
don't know won't hurt them") and a self-generated message
(give them what they want). The treatment of choice is quite
different for an introject than it i s for a self-generated image.
Self-generated parent is a production of the child, and it i s best
worked with through the Child ego state. Introjects, i n contrast,
are accessed through the Parent ego state. Richard will need to
make a choice about which to deal with first. He asks Chris which
is more important, i n order to stay with Chris's own energy and
investment.
Chris: I don't know.
Richard: If you could only have one of those two, to help you in
life, which one would you choose?
Chris: Well, I don't know. They both get me in trouble.
Does Chris anticipate where the work is going, or is he uncov-
ering another facet of the script-forming environment?
 Discoveringa Self-Created Parent 81

Richard: What do you mean?

Chris: Well, people get mad at me when I don't tell them
everything, cause then they think I'm lying to them. And I'm not
lying to them, I'm just not telling them everything. I figure they
don't need to know everything, so I don't tell them everything.
Richard: Um-hm. So that one gets you in trouble.
Chris: Well, sometimes when I get caught, it gets me in trouble.
Grandpa's introjected advice is a blindalley-it not only doesn't
serve as a protection, but may even create the very situation it
was supposed to avoid. Richard could easily have stayed right
here, working at this spot. But there's a loose string: the other
half of the rules.
Richard: And the other one?
Chris: Well, sometimes Ican't do what they want me to do, or what
Ithink they want me to do, and then I'm stuck. Cause if Ido it, and I
can't do it, then they know Ican't do it; and if I say I can't do it, then
they know I can't do it.
Obviously, there is energy here as well. Richard is ready to return
to the task of prioritizing, when Chris introduces a new theme:
Richard: Um-hm. So both of those things are important. You're
figuring out that it's better to be good to please them, and work real
hard to please them; and Grandfather's statement not to tell people
everything.
Chris: Well, he never told Grandma everything.
Richard: Are you sure? How do you know?
It's beginning to sound as i f the "don't tell everything" rule,
though partially an introjected one, may also have a decisional
component. The little boy, watching Grandpa's behavior, was
figuring out for himself just how to survive in the family, and may
have decided that what he saw (or thought he saw) Grandpa
doing would probably work for him, as well. Script beliefs of this
sort-that is, those supported by both decision and introject-
need to be dealt with at both levels; to do only the deconfusion
or redecision work, or only the Parent ego state work, leaves a
part of the script still intact. Richardprobes to discover whether
Chris did, in fact, make his own decision about how Grandpa
operatedand how well this might work for the little boy himself.
Chris: Cause I watched. He'd go out in his garden and go to sleep.
82 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

She'd say what'd you do, and he says, "Oh, Iwasout in the garden."
He never told her he was sleeping, he just said he was out in the
garden. And she thought he was working on the roses and stuff.
(laughs) I knew he was sleeping.
Richard: And what did you conclude from that?
Chris: Hey, you could get away with some neat stuff by doing that.
Richard: Are you going to do that when you get big?
Chris: Oh, I do it already. I do it. My grandfather catches me,
though.
Richard: Well, you got a voice inside your head that you made, too,
that tells you that you have to do things to please people. So that
they don't get rid of you.
Chris's introjected "don't tell everythingj'and the self-generated
"please people" apparently create conflict for him: When he
doesn't tell everything, and gets caught i n his omissions, he
discovers that people may be displeased. This activates the old
fears of abandonment. To avert such a catastrophe, the self-
created parent is activated and Chris flips into an exaggerated
need to please other people. No matter which course he takes,
the catastrophe may occur. It's time to begin to challenge the
belief system, to reeducate the Child i n him about the likely
consequences of his behavior, as well as the inappropriate
sternness of his rules. And Chris, like most children whose beliefs
are challenged, resists:
Chris: I don't know about that.
Richard: Your real mama went away.
Chris: I don't know about that. 1 don't, I don't know what
happened, or why, or how come, o r . . .
A child who believes that his naughtinessmay cause his Grandma
to die is also likely to believe that similar naughtiness drove his
mother away. The fact of her absence i s an ongoing reinforce-
ment of the script belief, consistently "proving"the need for the
self-created parent to be stern and vigilant. Although Chris
denies knowledge of what happenedto his mother, his leap from
not knowing what happened to speculation about why i t
happened can only suggest that he does, indeed, either know or
believe something about his mother's leaving. Why else would
he volunteer that he doesn't know why it happened? In fact, we
 Discoveringa Self-Created Parent 83

may suspect (as does the therapist) that he has some pretty clear
notions about both the "why" and the "what" of her departure.
Richard: Did you ever think that maybe it was cause you were a bad
baby?
Chris: I don't, I don't let myself think that.
A possible verification-a thought must be present i n order to be
denied or retroflected.
Chris: (continuing) I just, I just try to pick up pieces of stuff when
the grown-ups talk.
Richard: What are some of the things you heard about why your
mama gave you away?
Chris: Oh, my father's bad.
Richard: Ah. So if somebody's bad, somebody gets given away.
Chris: Yeah. I heard my father was bad, and my mother couldn't
stop him from being bad, and then my grandfather took me.
Richard: Um-hm.
Chris: And that my father drinks a lot.
Richard: So if you're bad they'll give you away.
Chris i s drifting here into another issue, that of what his father
(and, by extension, he himself) is like. While this is, of course,
important, it is really another chapter, so the therapist attempts
to draw him back.
Chris: Yeah. I guess. I don't know, I just don't know anything that
went on with that whole stuff with my mother and father. I don't
know. Nobody will tell me.
Richard: What do you think? What do you imagine?
Chris: I think I was a bad baby. I think I cried too much.
At last, like a piece dropping into a nearly completed jigsaw
puzzle, comes the fantasy, in Chris's own words. In his world,
people are sent away not when just "somebody" is bad, but
when the banished one is bad. He was a bad baby because he
cried too much; i t was his own fault that he was abandoned. He
didn't please the people who needed to be pleased. Richard will
stay with this important bit, will explore the details, so that Chris
himself can begin to understand the myth that he has created.
Richard: And if you cry too much, what happens to that kind of
baby?
84 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Chris: Well, then, they can't be taken care of, and somebody else
has to take care of them.
Richard: Um-hm. And how does that feel to the baby? If it gets
given away?
Chris: I don't know. I don't know.
Richard: But you don't want your Grandma to die.
Chris: No.
Richard: So you know that would feel bad.
Chris: Yeah, I know that. I know that.
Richard: Sometimes you think that maybe you were a bad baby,
huh?
Chris: Yeah. Yeah. I don't listen to her so good. She yells a lot.
Richard: So it's going to be important for you not to be sent away
again.
Chris: Yeah. I don't know where I'd go.
Richard: Idon't either. Except Idon't think Grandfather will let you
be sent away.
Is Chris ready to reconsider the fantasy of beingsent away?I f the
fear is less strong, then the need for protection is also less, and
the rules that he has set up for himself can relax,
Chris: Well, I don't think so, either. I hope not.
Richard: But you're scared about it a bit, huh?
Chris: If I'm bad.
Richard: So that means?
Chris: Well, what it means is, be good. As long as I'm good, Idon't
have to worry about what'll happen if I'm bad. Cause if I'm bad, I'll
get sent away, maybe. Don't know. Sort of like, I don't know, and I
don't want to know, and I'll just, just not upset things. Not upset
people, just keep things nice.
The frightened Child ego state is still in charge, and still i n the
grip of his nightmare fantasy. It's time to call up reinforcements:
the Adult ego state, who has been observing the whole piece of
work.
Richard: Listen to that decision, Chris. (pause) The whole para-
graph you just said. Say it again, so you hear it.
Chris: So, if I make things nice, I don't upset things. (long pause) 1
don't remember it. I might say it wrong.
 Discovering a Self-created Parent 8.5

The Child ego state is quite frightened here. His protection has
been challenged, and he feels vulnerable. The fear of displeasing
and being left extends even to the therapist, who up to now has
been a friend and ally. He needs support, and Richardi s quick to
offer it.
Richard: Just say it your way. Which will make it the right way.
Chris: (pause) I'm gonna do things good and nice and right, so I
won't get sent away, because I don't want to be sent away, and I
don't want people to get sick or die. ..
Richard now utilizes a technique called "disconnecting the
rubber band," in which a client, while experiencing the world
from a regressed, Child ego state, is asked to predict the
consequences of an early decision. This procedure helps the
client to understand what has happened both as a rational adult
and from the perspective of an intuitive and emotional child.
Richard: Now imagine the future, when you're a grown-up man.
And if you still keep that same rule, what's life going to be like when
you're 35, thirty years from now?
Chris: That's a long time.
Richard: Yeah, but you can imagine into the future.
Chris: I don't know. I don't know what. I'll go to work, and I'll
come home.
Richard: Do you think grown-ups have to worry about being sent
away?
Chris: Crown-ups have to be worried about gettingsent away?No.
Clearly, Chris is not ready to take this next step. He has taken i n
the information about his protectivesystem, and he is processing
this information. To push him further at this point, when he so
obviously needs more time, would not be therapeutic. Richard
ends the piece of work, therefore, stroking him for his risk-taking
and his understanding, andpromising to be available to continue
the work later, when Chris has had time to think about what he
has learned so far.

It would have been easy, in this example, for the therapist to have
gotten so involved in Chris's unfolding story, so intrigued by the
way in which Chris provided verification of the therapeutic
hypotheses, that he would have continued the work past the point
86 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

of real effectiveness. Too often, therapists continue to poke at

clients after they have signaled that they have had enough,
worrying at them like a dog with an old bone, demanding that they
do more and more and just a little bit more. The result of this kind of
treatment may be either an adaptive pseudocompliance or a
rebuilding of thedefenses that have been so painstakingly let down
in the first part of the work. In either case, the poor work has to be
undone before the next piece can be well begun, just as bad
carpentry must be torn out before further remodeling can continue.
It is much more appropriate to end a particular piece, and allow the
client an opportunity to do his own integration, according to his
own internal time schedule. When he is ready, Chris will be back to
complete his work.
 BEN
Therapy with the
Parent Ego State

Central to script theory is the concept of the childhood decision.

These decisions, often begun even before the individual has words
to conceptualize what is being decided/experienced/understood,
continue to shape our script throughout our lives. The early
decision sets up expectations, which lead us to find and interpret
new situations so as to strengthen or reinforce the decision,
"proving" that the old way of thinking and feeling and being was
indeed the only possible choice. Regression work is a major
technique for dealing with this sort of script decision.
Not all script, however, is most usefully characterized as formed
through a decision-making process. As wasdescribed in Chapter 1,
the beliefs, attitudes, feelings, and behaviors of one's parents (or
88 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

other primary caretakers) are taken in by the child, swallowed

whole. The child has no choice about this kind of scripting; the
thoughts and feelings and behaviors permeate theveryatmosphere,
and the child must breathe them i n if he or she is to breathe at all.
Such introjected material forms the Parent ego state, and when this
ego state is catheaed, it i s as if the introjected parent(s) had
psychologically replaced their now-grown-up offspring.
To summarize, script beliefs may arise out of early decisions, or
they may be introjected-swallowed whole, as they come from
influential figures in childhood. The chapters presented thus far
have dealt primarily with the former type of scripting, in which the
most common therapeutic remedy lies in regression and redecision
work. In this chapter, we will deal with the latter, introjected
variety.
In integrative psychotherapy, we move the Parent ego state itself
into the arena of script change. Rather than inviting the client t o
leave the Parent ego state, and cathect Adult or Child ego states, in
order to effect change, we continue to work with the introjection
by conducting the therapy with the activated Parent ego state. just
as work with Child ego state sounds, to the casual listener, like a
therapist working with a small child,so Parent therapy sounds likea
therapist working with the client's parent. The client's Adult and
Child ego states are, of course, passively attuned, listening in, and
may derive additional benefit from the therapeutic exchange, but
the primary target is the Parent ego state: that organized collection
of thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that the client introjected
without question over years of exposure.
Ben, the client, is working with these therapists for the first time,
and the work contains elements of both diagnostic information-
gathering and therapy proper. As we shall see, it eventually takes
the form of Parent ego state work-the therapy of choice in dealing
with introjected material. Ben is a 50-year-old man who has
decided, relatively late in life, to change careers and become a
psychotherapist. He appears to be significantly depressed (though,
as we shall see, he is only partially aware of his depression). We are
well into the second full day of the workshop when Ben requestsan
opportunity to work.

Ben: I'd like to work next. I've been feeling very calm, and relaxed
all day yesterday. And I think it's a way of not doing my work. Sort
 The Parent Ego State b

of, I have to feel bad, in order to do my work. So Idecided to do it

even when I feel good. I go through life happy and active all the
time. Active. Happy. And I know that underneath Ifeel depressed,
and I most alwayssucceed in fighting it off. Ifeel very tired. I'm tired
of fighting it.
Ben certainly opens with a mixedmessage: Ifeelgood, Ifeel bad,
I'm usually depressed, I'm usually happy, Ihave to feel bad to
work, but 11' 1 work when Ifeel good, but Idon't feel good, Ifeel
tired. The unwary therapist might plunge eagerly into all of this,
only to discover far down the roadthat he and Ben were working
on a nonproblem. The therapists in this case decide to hold back
a bit, to findout more about what Ben is experiencingright now.
Rebecca: What's been happening here when you're cutting down
your activity and so forth?
Ben: I've made a conscious decision to just be quiet, to stay by
myself. To not interact as much as I usually do. And Ifelt very calm
and good about it.
Richard: What do you suppose would happen if you went ahead
and got depressed here?And really wallowed in it?
Ben: Even the times that I've been depressed, I don't think I ever
really wallow in it and let it wash over me. I think I, I keep it at a
certain level, and all I need is one phone call, or one interaction
with another person, and I can snap right out of it.
So far Ben has given one confused and self-contradictory
statement, one half-answer to a question, and one nonanswer to
a question. Is this a preview of some kind of power or control
struggle i n the work to come? What is the script issue that
underlies this verbal slipperiness? Who, in Ben's background,
was hard to pin down? And what purpose does the slipperiness
serve in Ben's life today? These are the kinds of questions that run
through the therapists' minds as the work begins to take shape.
Richard: That's what I mean. What if you make a decision-
Ben: To really go into it?
Richard: -that this was an environment where you could go
ahead and be depressed without fighting it off. And let us take care
of you.
This is the first major probe: How will Ben respond to the
invitation that he give up some of this control and let himself be
90 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

''taken care of" by someone else? From the little we have seen,
we might predict that he will resist the idea.
Ben: It's the being taken careof that's a problem for me. I can take
care of people, but. ..
Richard: And that'd be one of the first tasks. No more taking care of
people.
Ben: That sounds scary to me. Cause if I don't take care of them,
they're not going to like me. Ihave to take care of them in order for
them to like me. I almost don't know any other way to relate to
people. Except to take care of them. And certainly not to have them
.
take care of me. I think there's an issue around . . I think the
sadness is that I'll never get what I want.
Ben talks here i n a genuine-sounding way about feeling scared,
about how he gives others what he would like for himself but
doesn't know how to get. Then he backs away, puts ''the issue"
and "the sadness" outside of himself, probably as a way of
maintaining control.
Rebecca: Umm. Feeling that right now.
Ben: I can guess.. . I feel that, that my father never loved me the
way Iwanted. (pause) I'm also angry that they'll never give me what
..
I want. I gave them . I'm so confused as to past and present.
Richard: Are they still living?
Ben: My mother is; my father died two yearsago.. . It feels like it's
so far away, and so long, long ago.
Rebecca: Was your father depressed also?
Ben: No, on the contrary, he was very much like me. So, so perhaps
underneath ... certainly on the surface he was extremely
.
gregarious and pleasant and was liked . . he was a very nice guy.
..
Rebecca: So how was it that he missed you?. (Benmakes an odd,
almost self-negating gesture) Just stay with what you're feeling,
.
Ben, just go with that.. want to tell us about it?
Ben: I just had the feeling that I wasn't what he wanted. And then
he, then he caught himself. And all of my adult life he genuinely
respected me. And looked up to me. ..
Clearly, Ben has invested a lot of energy i n his relationship with
his father, and it is that relationship that is in the foreground of his
work right now. Knowing that he is a therapeutically sophisti-
cated client, and suspecting that his need to be i n control will
 The Parent Ego State 91

seriously interfere with his ability to deal with emotional issues,

however, Rebecca is wary of encouraging him to do any more
speculating, theorizing, or storytellingabout Father. Shesets up a
Parent interview instead-one that may or may not evolve into
Parent therapy; andshe is careful to enlist Ben's full cooperation
i n doing so. Deferring to the client's sense of what seems like a
right direction not only defuses much of the resistance, but also
reinforces the client's autonomy and self-respect.
Rebecca: Have you ever done a Parent interview with your father?
That's what I'm feeling would be a good direction. How does that
sound to you? How 'bout if we do that? All right with you?
Ben: Am I going to be my father, or am Igoing to talk to him?
Rebecca: No, you're going to be your father. We're going to talk to
him.
Ben: I look like my father. My mother says I get more like him all
the time.
Rebecca: Well, take on his characteristics right now, as fully as you
can. Close your eyes. And first of all, get a good image of him. If you
need to sit up on the couch, if that's the way he would sit, then go
ahead and do that (Ben has been seated on the mat, with the
therapists).
Ben: Yeah, he wouldn't be sitting on the floor. (he moves up to sit
on a couch)
Rebecca: Most of our parents wouldn't. Where would you like to
sit? Is that where he would sit? Where in this room would he be
inclined to sit?
Ben: Well, the room is amorphous; I'll be all right here.
Rebecca: All right. Justclose your eyes again,and tell me his name.
Ben: Max.
Rebecca: Will you just get yourself in the posture of Max?. Now ..
acquire his facial expression . ..then move into his feelings. . . and
the way he thinks. . .
Notice the preparation for the Parent interview. Ben is not
instructed to play the role of Max; he is told to actually be Max,
and the therapist helps him to do so by means of spatial, visual,
kinesthetic, and cognitive anchors.
Rebecca: So, Max, are you here?
Ben (as Max): Yes.
92 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Rebecca: I'd like to know a little bit about you. Will you tell me, like
where you come from, Max?
Ben (asMax): Well, Icome from a pretty poor background. But I've
transcended that. I'm successful as an artist.
Rebecca: You're an artist. Quite a successful artist?
Ben (as Max): No, I'm moderately successful, but I'm quite happy
with that.
Rebecca: Enough so that you don't feel poor any more.
Ben (as Max): No. Not poor any more.
Rebecca: Well, congratulations.
Ben (as Max): Thank you. I'm very proud of myself.
Rebecca: It must have been a lot of work, to get yourself out of that
background.
Ben (as Max): Yes, it was. During the Depression. But I was very
good.
As with any brand-new client, Rebecca begins by building
rapport, using basic listening and questioning techniques to
establish a foundation for relationship.
Rebecca: How old were you during the Depression?
Ben (as Max): 1 was in my twenties and thirties.
Rebecca: An artist, and that age?
Ben (as Max): I was a commercial artist. Everyone was out of work,
but Iwasso good that Ialways had work. Then my union shared the
work among the less good people, so I was working two days a
week. So the other guys could get jobs. I was doing three times as
much work as they. But that was OK.
This is a rather self-righteous statement, one that probably covers
a good deal of resentment. I n the interest of rapport-building,
however, Rebecca takes it at face value.
Rebecca: So you're quite a moral man, too.
Ben (as Max): Yeah, I'm a nice guy.
Rebecca: How do you feel when you say that, Max? "I'm a nice
guy."
Ben (as Max): I feel proud.
This interchangesupports the wisdom of avoiding direct confron-
tation at this point: Given two chances to open up the issue of
resentment, Max/Ben is clearly not interested. Richard reenters
 The Parent Ego State 93

the interaction, going back to a more neutral process of

history-taking.
Richard: Where are you from originally, Max?
Ben (as Max): I was born on the lower East side of New York. No,
I'm sorry, I was born on the upper East side. But we were poor.
Richard: How'd you get to the lower East side?
Ben (as Max): Well, Jews, most of the Jewslived on the lower East
side, but we actually lived on the upper East side, i n a poor
neighborhood.
Richard: It's interesting, though, that you made that slip. I s that
significant?
Ben (as Max): Yeah. There's a part of me that still feels like a lower
East Side Jew.
Richard: What does a lower East Side Jew feel like?
Ben (as Max): Discriminated against. Not wanted. An outsider.
Richard does not interpret the slip of the tongue himself, but
invites Max/Ben to make the interpretation. And Max/Ben does
so, providing the first clear indication of a script issue: Ben may
have taken from Maxthe belief that, becausehe islewish, he is an
unwanted outsider.
Richard: What does an outsider feel like?
Ben (as Max): Not OK. I've always fought to feel OK.
Richard: How come?
Ben (as Max): Cause I'm a Jew.
Richard: Was that true on the upper East Side, too?
Ben (as Max): Yeah, it was an Italian neighborhood.
Rebecca: So you were discriminated against there too? How did
you happen to live up there, when all of the other Jewswere down
on the lower East Side?
Ben (as Max):. Cause my parents chose it.
Richard: Do you know why? Tell us about your folks, Max.
Ben (as Max): My father was a very religious man.
Richard: Orthodox?
Ben (as Max): Orthodox.
Richard: Did you keep a Kosher household?
Ben (as Max): My father did. I mean, I certainly don't any more.
94 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: That would be a little hard, living in an Italian neighbor-

hood.
Ben (as Max): I don't know why my father chose to live there. I
never thought about that.
Richard: What business was your dad in, Max?
Ben (as Max): He just had a job. He was a rabbi back in the old
country, but he worked as a tailor. A very demeaning job.
Again the flavor of resentment, of specialness, of "//we deserve
betterJ'-and again the therapists choose to step over it. It's too
soon; Ben hasn't had enough time to decide that these therapists
can be trusted, and Max certainly hasn't.
The Parent interview proceeds as if the therapists were actually
getting acquainted with that parent, a complete stranger who has
agreed to be interviewed. Frequent use of the parent's first name
helps keep Ben's Parent ego state cathected; in fact, this early
phase of the Parent interview serves almost as an extended
hypnotic induction, leading the client deeper and deeper into
his experiencingof himself as the father he once knew. Thepace
is leisurely, allowing the client to settle into his new identity, and
giving all participants plenty of time to get to know each other. It
is not quite the same as a casual conversation, for the questions
are more pointed and the direction more one-sided; yet it is
different from an initial therapy session in that this 'parent" has
not requested any kind of help for himself. The therapists are
interested, respectful-and alert to the possibility that this ego
state may become open to a new kind of experiencing. At that
point, the Parent interview becomes Parent therapy. But this is
not yet the time.
Richard: Where'd he come from?
Ben (as Max): Russia.
Richard: But you were born here, Max?
Ben (as Max): Yeah. I was born in New York, 1908.
Richard: So you're 77 now, if you were still around ... Well, Max,
what was your family like?
Ben (as Max): My mother and father fought like cats and dogs.
They hated each other.
Richard: How was that for you?
 The Parent Ego State 95

Ben (as Max): Not very good. M y mother was a very vain and
self-centered woman. And so is my father. So they didn't get along
very well. My mother used to throw my father out of the house.
Richard: Were you an only child?
Ben (as Max): No, no. I have two older brothers, a younger sister
and a younger brother.
Richard: You're right stuck in the middle.
Ben (as Max): Um-hm. But I'm the smartest one. I'm the one who
got out of the, sort of, lower East Side mentality. I'm the only one
who did.
Richard: Well, I'm surprised you say that. Causea few minutesago I
had the opposite impression, that you were still there. And
negatively paralyzed.
Yet a third time, Max indicates his sense of "specialness." This
time Richard ventures a gentle confrontation, pointing out the
inconsistency of this remark with what Max has said earlier. He
then adds an interpretation, couching it in complicated polysyl-
lables-tempting bait for Max, who almost certainly considers
himself an intellectual.
Ben (as Max): That's maybe true. In 1939 we moved to a Christian
neighborhood, brought up our kids in a Christian neighborhood.
Rebecca: What'd that signify to you, Max?
Ben (as Max): That I got out. Out of being a ghetto lower East Side
Jew.
Rebecca: Iwonder if that's what your dad was doing, too, by living
with the Italians. Trying to get out. Think so?
Ben (as Max): He was too religious, no, he was too Jewish. I'm
much less that.
Richard: How come you're not so Jewish?
Ben (as Max): There's a part of me that says it's not OK to be Jewish.
We have heard before that Max has taken i n some anti-Semitic
messages, and now he returns to the same theme. Again, he uses
the phrase, 'a part of me," which may reflect a leakage or
contamination from Ben's psychologically trained Adult ego
state, but nevertheless can also be a signal that he is ready to shift
into a more therapeutic mode.
Richard: That's the part we'd like to know about, Max.
% INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Ben (as Max): Well, shit, we all got beaten up when we were kids,
for being Jewish. I learned how to fight back then.
Richard: Did you get beaten up?
Ben (as Max): No, I fought back.
Richard: What went on in your family, Max?You say your parents
were fighting a lot. Did that feel like getting beaten up, when they
mixed it up?
Ben (as Max): I don't know.
Max/Ben offers a superficially persuasive reason for his 'hot OK
to be Jewish" feelings: )ews were persecuted i n his neighbor-
hood. But lots of)ews grow up i n hostile neighborhoods, and not
all of them feel uncomfortable with their )ewishness. What's
different about Max's experience? Most often, a sense of not-
OK-ness originates in the family, long before the child's aware-
ness has graduatedto the larger neighborhood; peer experiences
tend to support and elaborate previously established script
beliefs. "It's not good to be a)ewUmay be a later elaboration of a
more sweeping early decision that "There's something wrong
with me." The therapists attempt to discover how Max's family
set the stage for his feeling that beinga )ew was not OK; and this
time they persist, in spite of Max/BenDsfirst refusal to cooperate.
Rebecca: Sounds like it must have been pretty scary, to have your
dad tossed out of the house. Were you close to your father?
Ben (as Max): When I was married, and my mother used to throw
my father out, he used to come live with us.
Rebecca: That's kind of a "yes," but it doesn't feel like it comes
from your heart. Did you feel close to him from your heart?
Ben (as Max): I don't know.
It appears that Max/Ben will talk readily about things and events
and feelings of his own choosing, but retreats into not knowing
when asked to follow the therapist's lead. But the "induction" is
holding; Max shows no signs of reverting back to being Ben. His
posture, voice, andgeneral demeanor remain as they were when
Ben originally cathected the Max ego state. Richard decides to
risk a stronger push:
Richard: You know, Max, your son has implied that he thought that
you were, underneath your gregariousness, depressed. What do
you think deep inside, Max?
 The Parent Ego State 97

Ben (as Max): No, I'm not depressed. I'm scared.

Rebecca: Scared of what?
Ben (as Max): Scared of being beaten out by the Christians. Most of
the time I thought I really would.
Rebecca: So what did you have to do?
Ben (as Max): I put on a good front. Placate them.
Rebecca: Look gregarious, and not be?
Ben (as Max): I moved into our neighborhood in 1939. The man
across the street was a military man. Hated Jews.And he, he actually
was a member of the Ku Klux Klan and the Nazi Bund. And three
years ago when I died, he came to my funeral.
Max/Ben reverts back to storytelling-or is he really talking
about feelings through metaphor? Richard assumes the latter,
and asks for clarification.
Richard: What's that mean to you, Max?
Ben (as Max): It took 40 years to get him to accept me.
Rebecca: Boy, you surely go for the strong tests, don't you?
One way to stay depressed and not OK is to choose tasks and
goals that are so difficult that they don't allow success. Failing
such tasks, then, can be usedasproof that one really is inferior, or
mistreated, or that the world really is unfair, and thus the
depressive position is maintained. Rebecca hints at this, leavingit
up to Max/Ben whether to pick i t up or not. Notice that, by now,
the work with Max is more like therapy than likean informational
interview. Were we to come in with n o prior knowledge at this
point, we would not know that the work is being done with a
cathected Parent ego state; we would assume that Max was the
original client.
Ben (as Max): Seems like I did it the hard way, didn't I?Tough on
my kids, too.
Rebecca: How so?
Ben (as Max): They had to do it all over again. Cause it was a
Christian neighborhood.
Richard: Same thing that happened to you as a kid. But you taught
'em to be survivors, huh? How to fight?
Ben (as Max): Iwasn't so sure that Ben would make it. He was kind
of a weak and scared kid, couldn't fight and couldn't play ball. And I
was really disappointed in him. But he turned out to be so smart that
98 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

he figured out a way of outsmarting them. So he was OK. Very

proud of him now.
Rebecca: Were you scared for him?
Ben (as Max): No, I was angry with him.
Richard: Max, would you like Ben to be like those tough Italian
kids?Would you like him to walk down the streets of New York, and
everybody say, "Hey, he's Italian. Watch out!"
Along with doing therapy with the Parent ego state, the therapists
are still searching for the script message that Max passed on to
Ben-the rules about 'this is how Iam, this is how the world is,
this is how you must be."
Ben (as Max): Yeah, I think so.
Richard: How come, Max?
Ben (as Max): Cause that's what I would have wanted to be.
Rebecca: Like him not to have to be scared like you are?
Rebecca goes back to Max's earlier description of himself as
''scared." Even though he denies being scared for Ben, it's likely
that the anger is a defense against an underlying scare for both
him and his son, both Jews in a hostile environment.
Ben (as Max): He wasn't, he was more scared.
Richard: Oh, that must have been hard. You think he picked up
your scare underneath, Max?
Ben (as Max): No, he wouldn't understand that.
Rebecca: Kid's smart. He knows.
If Max/Ben can recognize how he transmitted his own scare, in
the form of a script belief, to his son, he may be able to give Ben's
Adult ego state permission to reject it, to be himself rather than
to be like Dad. This is the ultimate aim of Parent therapy: to
decommission the Parent ego state, take away its power to
interfere with the ongoing functioning of the client. Having
planted the seed, the therapists continue to explore feelings:
Richard: You say you're scared, Max. But as you talk about that
Nazi across the street, you have a deep sadness. That's what I'd like
to know about, Max.
Ben (as Max): They were putting swastikas on the Jewish shops in
1939, in Queens. I was scared. Two blocks away from where I
worked. Then the war came, and it changed. Then it was almost OK
to be a Jew.
Rebecca: Almost. No one would dare to do it openly any more.
 The Parent Ego State 99

Ben (as Max): Right.

Richard: Why do I keep getting the sense that in spite of your
father's religiousness there was something wrong with being a Jew
for you too?
Ben (as Max): I guess if you're told it often enough you believe it.
Richard: Told what often enough?
Ben (as Max): That you're a dirty Jew.
Richard: That what your dad told you?
Ben (as Max): No, but that's what the neighborhood people would
call...
Richard: And yet you continued to stay there and take that abuse.
Ben (as Max): I don't know why he did that; I never knew.
There is some apparent confusion here about who it was who
chose to stay in the non-Jewish neighborhood. Max's father and
Max both did so, both subjected their children to anti-Semitic
abuse. Richard cuts through the confusion by making the
parallel, simultaneously reinforcing the presence of the "Max"
ego state.
Richard: Probably the same reason you moved to that Gentile
neighborhood. In 1939.
Ben (as Max): It seemed like a way of having my own house.
Richard: There's something more significant than that, Max.
Ben (as Max): Ithink if I had it to do over again Iwouldn't live there.
I thought by moving to a Christian neighborhood, the kids would
grow up to be educated and professional.
Richard: The point is, it sounds like you as kids in your neighbor-
hood needed to fight pretty hard. One way or another. You had to
stand up against some pretty tough odds.
We keep edging closer and closer to a direct statement of Max's
denial of his Jewishness; Max/Ben is reluctant to deal with it
head-on. Although we are fairly sure, at this point, that being a
Jew is a highly charged issue for Ben, we still don't know what
specific implications Jewishness has for him; this is what the
therapists are probing for in Max. I n Max/Ben's next response,
we get at least part of it.
Ben (as Max): It's a tough world.
Richard: Say that again, Max.
Ben (as Max): It's a tough world out there.
Rebecca: So therefore, if it's a tough world, then . . .
100 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Ben (as Max): It's a tough world, so you have to learn how to
survive.
Richard: Quite a thing to teach a little boy before he goes to
school. No wonder Ben was scared. You tell him, hey, Ben, I'm
sending you off to school. And in the same breath you tell him it's a
tough world out there. Goyim will get you.
Ben (as Max): He learned how to cope.
Richard: At what price?
Ben (as Max): I only wanted the best for him.
Max/Ben becomes defensive-a goodsign that the therapy i s on
target, that the therapists are indeed approaching the heart of
the script belief system. But they don't want to frighten Max
away; it's time to ease off a bit.
Rebecca: 1 believe that. And most of all you wanted him to survive
in this world.
Ben (as Max): I wanted him to be able to survive anything.
Richard: But listen to the double message, Max.
Ben (as Max): I wanted him to survive i n a ... I wanted him to
survive as a Jew in a Christian world. That's what I wanted.
Richard: So you told him to go out there, do a good job, make it, go
for excellence. ..
Ben (as Max): And learn how to fight. He never learned that.
Max/Ben returns again to the theme of having to fight. The world
is difficult, things will be hard, people will be against you. This is
the messagethat Ben was given, that he took in; this is s t i l l how he
experiences his life. Max-the Max who still lives in Ben's head-
needs to take another look at that belief, at how it has affected his
own life and how it has affected Ben.
Richard: He's just a little boy.
Ben (as Max): The other kids are little kids too.
Richard: You teach him how to fight?
Ben (as Max): Tried to. He was too scared.
Richard: Scared of you, Max? Scared of your scare?
Ben (as Max): Yeah, he was scared of me.
Richard: Why, Max?
Ben (as Max): Cause I had to pretend to be strong.
Rebecca: And he knew it was pretend.
Ben (as Max): I don't think he knew that. Not when he was a little
kid.
 The Parent Ego State 101

Richard: Ben knew something was wrong. By the time he was

getting ready to go to kindergarten, Max. There was something
wrong in your relationship.
Ben (as Max): I was afraid to get close to him.
Another piece falls into place. We would have predicted this,
given Max's caution i n talking about his feelings (and Ben's, as
well), but now Max/Ben has owned it. Richard loses n o time in
capitalizing on the opening.
Richard: How come, Max?
Ben (as Max): I was scared of him.
Richard: Why?
Ben (as Max): I don't know. I've always been scared of him.
Richard: What was going on, Max?
Ben (as Max): Just easier to keep my distance. Cause I was scared.
This is is a crucial point in the work. Ben is deeply inducted; he
"is" Max, the Max who is a part of him and who influences his
whole way of being. Richard's intervention is aimed at a part of
Max that is beyond Ben's conscious awareness, but is of central
importance i n Max's developingand maintaining the beliefs and
expectations that he passed on to his son.
Richard: What would you have felt about the little boy in you, Max,
if you got close to the little boy in him?(longpause) M y guess, Max,
i s that you saw the scare in the little boy in Ben, who got scared
when you told him the world was scary, and then it was a reminder
of the little boy in you. That you did not want to feel.
Ben (as Max): No, that isn't true.
Richard: I suspect it's true, Max, because one of the things that I've
done over my professional career i s to keep track of grown-ups who
cannot relate to certain age groups of children. And whatever age
group that was, that was where many of these people would go back
to in therapy, that would be exactly the age where they were stuck
or had some problems. I first discovered that in doing therapy with
teachers, who would come and talk about the age groups of kids
they just couldn't stand. I wonder if that's true for you, Max?That
little five-year-old boy inside of you, that Ben's a reminder of?
Ben (as Max): Yeah, I wouldn't want to have to go through that
again.
Rebecca: What would you have to go through again?
Ben (as Max): I was scared of the other kids. Always having fights,
102 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

not wanting them to see that 1 wasscared. Iwouldn't want for him to
do that.
Richard: He didn't need to.
Ben (as Max): Yes he did. Kids will be human.
Richard: But not for the same reason, Max.
Expectingto have to fight, and being afraid to, was more painful
to Max than the fighting itself. I n passing these attitudes on to
Ben, Max created for him the very situation he most wanted Ben
to avoid. His eyes fill with tears as he begins really to take in what
has happened.
Ben (as Max): For the same reason. It's no different. Why the shit I'd
put him through that. ..
Rebecca: You wanted to teach him to be a survivor.
Ben (as Max): Like throwing a kid into a swimming pool and
expecting him to swim. Supposed to be a nice guy. I wasn't so nice
to my kid. I just thought that was the way you did it.
Richard: May be that you end up being like your own father. Was
he going to make sure that no child of his would ever get muscled
out of this country?
Ben (as Max): I see what you mean.
Richard: So he taught you to be a survivor. And you taught your
son how to bea survivor. Good training. Every time Ben relaxes, he's
expecting another herd of Cossacks. Ben i s scared to relax. Scared
to let go of that control. Somehow the Cossacks are going to come
riding down.
Shifting back to Max's father helps Max/Ben to experience the
current of this belief pattern, flowing down through the genera-
tions. It also highlights the nonrealistic quality of the expecta-
tions-there are no Cossacks in Max's or Ben's life. Max/Ben i s
not quite ready to let go of the script belief, however:
Ben (as Max): That's somewhat realistic, though.
Richard: What do you mean, Max?
Ben (as Max): Once in a while you hear something. Some under-
tone of anti-Semitism.
Rebecca: So the threat is always there.
Ben (as Max): That's really scary.
Richard: But the problem is that the threat is even worse when
what's missing is a real close relationship with your father. I think
that's what you missed, Max, and I think that's what Ben missed.
 The Parent Ego State 103

When there's so much focus on surviving, what's often missing i s a

good close relationship with Father.
This is a clear interpretation, in the psychoanalytic sense. Just as
i n traditional psychodynamic therapy, i t i s made at a moment
when it will be taken i n emotionally as well as cognitively. But it is
even more impactful here, for it is heard by three ego states: the
cathected Parent, Max, and the observing Adult and Child ego
states of Ben. Each of these three is affected by that absence of
closeness i n his own unique way, and each will be uniquely
affected by the interpretation.
Ben (as Max): I was scared to get close to him. Because I didn't get
.
close to my boy.. it's too late now. We had a nice relationship as
adults. When he got to be thirty years old, we had a nice
relationship. Itwas good. We didn't see each other a lot, we weren't
that close. But we respected each other.
Rebecca: What are you feeling now, Max?Will you tell us about
that?
Ben (as Max): I feel sad that I never got close to him. (pause) I feel
sad that he had to go through what Ihad togo through, as a kid. Idid
the best I could.
Richard: I imagine you spend most of the time denying that
sadness, Max.
Ben (as Max): I never should have mentioned it. I'm considered a
very happy guy.
The new behavior, the new openness, is uncomfortable to
Max/Ben, and he starts to close up, to put his "happy guy" mask
back on. Rather than go back to the old facade, he needs to stay
with what has been happening i n order for i t really to penetrate
those tough, well-established defenses. Richard brings him back
to the unfinished business:
Richard: You were missing something you needed: a real, loving,
contactful relationship with Dad. You passed that right on to your
own boy.
Ben (as Max): I think he pushed me away.
Richard: I bet he didn't at first.
Ben (as Max): (pause) He pushed me away. Ithink he really wanted
to be close to my wife.
Rebecca: Kids will go where the contact's available. And he still
needed you. He needed you there; he needed you to keep
reaching out.
104 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Ben (as Max): I gave him everything I could.

Richard: I don't believe that.
Ben (as Max): There was a competition for my wife.
Throughout these last few exchanges, Max/Ben has been hinting
at a new element: a kind of resentful blaming of Ben. Is this
resentment the poison that tainted the father-son relationship? If
so, encouraging Ben and "Max" to be open with each other just
increases the toxicity of what Ben takes in. Even though it's time
to begin to close the piece of work, this must be checked out.
Rebecca: He take her away from you?
Ben (as Max): Yeah, for a while.
Rebecca: How did he do that?
Ben (as Max): When he was first born, she spent a lot of time with
him. Inordinate.
Rebecca: Did you resent that?
Ben (as Max): (pause) But after a while it was OK again.
Rebecca: How did you get her back?
Ben (as Max): I don't know. Just did. In fact it was really us against
the kids. We had a very tight and a very good marriage. Twenty-nine
and a half years. (begins to cry)
Richard: Let it come, Max. Iwon't tell any of the neighbors that you
cried.
Ben: Max's not going to cry. He never did.
Ben/Max's last defense is to go away, to decathect, leaving Ben's
Adult ego state to talk to the therapists. But Max is not far away,
and can be called back.
Richard: (verysoftly) Go ahead and cry, Max. So Ben doesn't have
to bear your sorrows. (pause) Your wife i s very important to you,
isn't she, Max? (he nods) So sad .. .
Ben (as Max): She took care of me.
Richard: More than just taking care of you, Max.
Ben (as Max): She took care of me, and she pretended that I took
care of her. She made me feel strong.
Richard: Ben's birth must have been a real threat to that which you
held precious.
Ben (as Max): Well, I wanted, I wanted a son. I wanted a child.
Richard: No, but did you know how much time she'd spend with
him? How much you'd be ignored for a period of time? So even
 The Parent Ego State 105

though you wanted him, you must have also had some resentment
at the same time, huh?He was a real threat to you. Since that woman
was so precious.
Resentment and envy of a son, particularly in the Jewish culture,
is an unacceptable response(though, out of awareness, it may be
quite common). It's important to support and normalize these
feelings for Max, so that he will be able to continue his
exploration rather than closing up and retreating into denial.
Ben (as Max): Well, the problem was I didn't really have any, it
didn't seem like it was my kid. I wanted this kid, and yet she kept
him all to herself.
Richard: How was that for you, Max?That she kept your son all to
herself?
Ben (as Max): I was angry.
Richard: And then what did you do with that anger, Max?
Ben (as Max): Maybe took it out on the kid. Took it out on Ben ...
Richard: I s that a question or a statement?
Ben (as Max): Yeah, I was angry with Ben. I was angry cause he
couldn't play ball.
Richard: That's the social excuse.
Ben (as Max): I was angry because, because I was jealous.
Richard: Max, I have a good respect for you. That takes a lot of balls
to say that.
This is the first clear, genuine statement of Max's deep conflict
around his relationship to Ben. Richardreinforces-strokes-the
statement. And hidden in the crudity of the language is another
message: One can be masculine, and respected by men, andstill
talk about feelings.
Ben (as Max): Wish I'd done it sooner. (he weeps)
Richard: What would you do differently, Max? If you could turn
the clock back?
Ben (as Max): I could love my wife, and I could love Ben too.
Richard: So in losing her, you gave up on Ben, huh?Turned against
him?
Ben (as Max): I didn't mean to.
Richard: I know. I believe that, Max. 1 think that underneath that
facade you must be very, very decent.
Ben (as Max): I was afraid Iwas going to lose my wife. Seemed like
she was drifting away from me.
106 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Rebecca: Was she your stability?

Ben (as Max): Yeah, she was.
Richard: In that strange neighborhood, she was close. She was one
of you. (pause) Many, many marriages have been shook up by the
birth of the first child. Particularly those marriages that have been
.
very close. And dependent on each other, before.. Anything else
you want to tell us, Max, before we say good-bye for this session?
Both time constraints-Ben has been working for more than an
hour-and the therapists'sense that he may have accomplished
as much as he can i n a single piece of work lead Richard to invite
closure at this point. Ben needs some time to be alone, to
process, to integrate what he has discovered in himself. Closing
will require a delicate touch; the therapists must avoid leaving
Ben/Max with a feeling of beingcriticized or rejected for his new
behaviors.
Ben (as Max): I'm finding it very hard to say that I love Ben.
Richard: Well, Max, something's still in your way.
Ben (as Max): I must have loved him; a father's supposed to love
him.
Richard: "Must of" and "supposed to" aren't the same as the fact
that you were jealous.
Ben (as Max): He was only a little kid!
Richard: And he took your wife away.
Ben (as Max): (still weeping) I needed her!
Richard: Yes, you did, Max. In some ways you were like her little
kid, weren't you?
Ben (as Max): For fifty years. Forty-nine and a half. I killed myself
before fifty. 1 crossed that street every day for forty years. And one
day I just got hit by a car. I didn't want to get old.
Richard: (pause) You know, your marriage worked out after all,
Max. Even though you were scared by Ben's birth.
Ben: I have a very strong desire to say good-bye to him. I don't
want to be him any more.

While part of Ben's shift into his own persona and out of the role
of Max may be a response to Richard's invitation to wind up the
work, he also seems to be making a genuine choice to deal with his
father in a brand-new way, with a new kind of connectedness.
Often, the spontaneous return of Adult or Child ego state does
 The Parent Ego State 107

signal a closing point in the work of Parent therapy, a point at which

the client experiences the need to process, evaluate, and integrate.
With his request to say good-bye to Max, Ben closes the Parent
interview and readies himself for the next chapter of therapeutic
growth.
In these pages, we have seen Ben deal with a whole series of
issues. In a real sense, it would be more accurate to say that we have
seen Max deal with them. The adult Ben was present in the work
only as an onlooker; the real client was Max-as-known-and-
experienced-by-Ben. It i s unlikely that Ben could have "known"all
of the things that he revealedas Max; nor is it particularly important
whether those revelations are historically accurate. They are Max as
Ben experienced him, i n and out of awareness, Max as he
influenced and shaped that young boy.
Indeed, Ben in an ordinary state of consciousness would probably
not have been able to tell us all of this material. Most of it has been
out of Adult awareness, hidden away in his Parent ego state, yet
deeply influencing his life as an adult-just as Max, long ago, deeply
influenced the growing up of his son.
Working with Ben cannot, of course, change what really went on
between that father and that little boy. We cannot go back and redo
a relationship of 50 years ago. But we can change the ongoing
relationship within a client: through healing the Parent ego state,
we can block off or open up or make nourishing that which has
been punishing or toxic internally. When the restrictive and
destructive Parent ego state messages are withdrawn, the Child ego
state is then free to make the redecisions it needs; with this
accomplished, all of the ego states are available to be integrated
into a functioning whole.
 FRANKIE
The Absent Father

By far the most common occurrence in therapeutic regressionwork

is that a client works through conflicts with one or both parents. We
have seen Conrad dealing with his mother in Chapter 2, and Chris
preparing for a confrontation and decommissioning a self-created
Parent in Chapter 3. In the piece of work presented in this chapter,
the client is also dealing with a parent, but it is an absent parent who
is the focus of the work.
Frankie's father died when Frankie was an infant. His mother,
herself highly dependent, was overbearing and abusive of Frankie,
using him to deal with her own needs rather than providing him
with clear limits and appropriate nurturance. Frankie grew into his
teens as an obese, socially isolated adolescent. With no effective
male models, he failed to develop an adequate gender identity and
experienced himself as nonsexual. In his early twenties, he began
 The Absent Father 109

intensive psychotherapy, and was able to resolve much of the

conflict around his dealings with his mother. At 33, he looks 23: a
now slim, quiet, adaptive young man who is beginning to experi-
ment with both homosexual and heterosexual relationships. Father,
however, has remained an important though shadowy influence
throughout his life.
Early in his developmental history, Frankie created a fantasy
father. Much of his life script has been built up around this fantasy
father, around his imaginings of what his father was like and how
life might have been had his father lived. Unlike Chris's self-created
Parent, which was totally created by Chris during childhood and
manifested itself years later through a harshly critical and perfec-
tion-demanding attitude toward himself (and others), Frankie's
father did have a real existence. The fantasy father is an elaboration,
a building onto, of what once was-or what, in Frankie's imagina-
tion, might have been. As is typical of young children, Frankie first
denied that his father was really dead. In adulthood, with this denial
shifted underground and out of awareness, Frankie experiences
himself as a psychological orphan, needing the support and
"specialness" that a child gets from a good and loving parent.
Frankie's work in this segment is of interest not only because it
illustrates another facet of the therapeutic treatment of parent-
child issues, but also because Frankie can be seen to be dealing with
his fantasy father from several distinctly different developmental
stages. The shift from one stage to another i s abrupt and clearly
distinguishable. By following these shifts and responding to Frankie
in an age-appropriate way, the therapist is able to help him move
past the early denial.
I n this piece, as in the work with Chris, Richard is the only
therapist. The work begins with a relaxation exercise, in which
Frankie is directed to first tighten and then let go of successive
muscle groups. This process allows Frankie to access the intense
emotion that he has blocked from awareness, literally holding it in
by means of muscular tension. As the muscle tension decreases, and
the feelings begin to emerge, Richard directs Frankie to cry out his
rage and frustration, and to let his body express that rage by
pounding and kicking at the mat on which he is working. Frankie
kicks, pounds, and thrashes; the wordless cries gradually take shape
as a desperate scream of "Help me!"
110 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Frankie: Help me! Help me! Help! Ican't breathe! 1 can't-please!

Richard: You're doing fine ...
Richard: Help! Helpl I can't breathe! I can't breathe! You're
squashing me1 Help! Ohhhl God, help me! Help me1 No-I'm
suffocating! I'm suffocating!
In this early stage of the work, both Frankie and Richard expect
that Frankie will continue on from a previous segment, in which
Frankie dealt with his physically abusive mother. The imagery of
being squashedand unable to breathe is certainly consistent with
Frankiels old relationship with Mother. To intensify this imagery,
Richard has moved over to Frankie and i s holding his shoulders
against the mat, physically re-creating the held-down, smoth-
ering situation that Frankie experienced socially and psycho-
logically during his childhood. I n order for him to experience
himself as powerful, able to fight back against a suffocating
environment, he needs to free himself from being held down.
Rather than be helpless and get someone else to rescue him, he
needs to know that he can do it for himself, can fight and win his
own battles.
Richard: Kick with your feet, you'll do fine. . .
Frankie: Nol No! I'm suffocating1 I'm suffocating!
Richard: Frankie,youlre just reliving that old experience. So stay in
it, feel the suffocation; push.
Frankie: I'm suffocating! I can't straighten up! Ohh! M y chest!
Ohh! I can't! Get up, get up, get up! Get away! Get up1 Get up1 (he
continues to struggle ineffectually, demanding to be rescued)
Don't you understand you're killing me?I can't go on. Ohh! Let me
go! Let me die! I just can't fight any more!
Richard: Listen to that little boy's decision.
Frankie: Let me die! I can't fight you! Ohh!
Richard: Don't give up, Frankie.
Frankie: I can't! You're much bigger than me. You're so much
bigger. ..
Richard: Tell her how you died.
Frankie: I'm dying inside. I don't want to live no more. I can't take
. . . Ican't.. .God, let me go! Outl Out! God, help me1 PLEASE take
me!
 The Absent Father 111

Richard's use of the word "her"acknow1edges that Frankie is still

dealing with Mother. The work is, i n a sense, a recap of work he
has done before, i n which he struggles with Mother but finds her
too big and too strong to overcome. Not wanting to continue
trampling i n an already well-muddied field, Richard decides to
invite an abrupt switch:
Richard: Try something. Talk to your daddy.
.
Frankie: Dad-Dad, I know you're . . Dad, help me! Please,
Dad ...
Richard: Call the daddy that wasn't there.
.
Frankie: Oh, God.. Dad! Dad, she's killing me! Oh, God! Dad!
Dad!
Richard: If you were alive ...
Frankie: Dad! If you had lived, I wouldn't be in this mess. Dad!
Why? Why? Why did you do this? Dad! Dad! Daddy!
Richard: Tell him what this little boy needs.
Frankie: Daddy! I need some love. Dad! Dad, I need you to hold
me! Please! Please!
Richard: Tell him what to do with her.
Remember, Richard is still holding Frankie's shoulders down on
the mat as all this conversation is going on, and Frankie is still
struggling (though not with much energy) to escape. Ahhough
he seems unable to summon the resources he needs to fight
effectivelyagainst that which holds him down, he may be able to
call upon the imagined resources of his father for the strength he
can't find i n himself. As he tells Dad about the love he needs,
however, Frankie begins to collapse even further; the work
threatens to reinforce his self-perception of helpless weakness.
Richard moves to block the collapse by focusing Frankie's
attention on what Dadmust do tocounter Mother'sstranglehold.
Richard: Tell him what to do with her.
Frankie: Get her off my back. Get her off my back! My back! Ohh,
God! My back is breaking! Dad! Dad!
Richard: Get up!
Frankie: Dad! Hear me! Don't let me die! Daddy! Daddy! She's
killing me! She's killing me! Daaaad! Dad! I'm dying! Dad!
Richard: And without you . . .
112 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Frankie: Without you I'II never make it. I'II never be a man. I'II
never be a man! Dad, I'II never be a man! I'II always be little! Dad!
Dad! She won't make me a man! Dad! Dad!
Richard: Listen to that decision.
Frankie: Dad!
Richard: Without you ...
.
Frankie: I want you. To help . . Dad, she's suffocating me.
Apparently, Frankie is not yet ready to win the struggle with his
therapist/mother. He has, however, identifiedan important new
fragment of script: Frankie cannot be a man unless Dad i s there
for him. Richard decides to abandon temporarily his attempts to
get Frankie to empower himself, and to deal directly with the
script decision. He moves away from Frankie, who remains
huddled on the mat. The work continues:
Richard: Say that, "I want you to help."
Frankie: Dad! I want your help! Dad! Dad! Where are you?
Richard: Tell him where he's not.
Frankie: Dad! You gotta be here! You gotta be here, Dad!
Richard: Cause without you . ..
Frankie: Dad, without you I'm dying! I can't go on! Dad! I need
support! Dad! Dad! Dad! Why won't you come? Dad, why won't
you come?
Richard: Frankie, make that a statement.
Notice that Frankie's demands to "get her off my back" and to
keep him from being suffocated have now changed to a plea for
support. Even though he is no longer being held down by
Richard, he is unable to pick himself up, and cries to be rescued.
Changing his question into a statement will not only provide
Richard with information about his belief system, but will also be
a shift in the direction of self-assertion and control. At first,
Frankie resists making the shift:
Frankie: Why don't you come? Dad, please come!
Richard: You don't come because. . .
Frankie: Dad! Dad, you don't come because you're frightened of
her. You're frightened of her! She killed you, I know! You're
frightened of her, you chicken! Chicken! Chicken!
At last, some power! Frankie moves out of helplessness as he
expresses his anger at Dad.
 The Absent Father 113

Richard: And if I'm a man like you . . .

Frankie: Chicken! No, I'm not gonna be like you! You died! You
died! Dad! Dad! Don't let her kill me! (he has relapsed into his
earlier helplessness, and continues to beg Dad for help)
Richard: Cause if you don't help . . .
Frankie: If you don't help, I just can't make it.
Richard: Tell him about when you were in high school, if you'd had
a daddy, what it would have been like.
Frankie moved briefly out of his helplessness, but was unable to
sustain the shift. Focusing on high school will access an older
Child ego state, one that has more available resources, and thus
may be better able to support himself and deal with Mother.
Frankie: I wouldn't have been 200 pounds.
Richard: Yeah, say that to him again.
Frankie: If you'd been alive, you would have been able to
straighten up this mess.
Richard: Cause what you would have told me. . .
Frankie: He would have told me it was HISfault and not mine. You
would have told me what young kids don't know about that. You
would have told me what I needed to know. So I wouldn't be
feeling bad all this time. You and Mom could have talked about it.
Would have told me I wasn't so bad. And I might have been living all
.. .
those years . Stead of stuffing . . The way every good Catholic
should. Where are you now, Dad?
Frankie threatens to slide back into helplessness, and Richard
counters.
Richard: Make that a statement, Frankie.
Frankie: Wherever you are now, Dad, I'm gonna live. I'm living,
Dad! I'm living! Found some good people, Dad. I'm living. I ain't
copping out like you did, Dad. You died to avoid all this. You died to
avoid all this pain in life. But not me. I'm grown up, and I can take it.
I'm not folding up the way you did. AIN'T PACKING IT IN, DAD!
Staying right here.
There's a lot of energy i n this long statement. The affective
component of script change is clearly present. Cognition,
behavior, and intent-the understanding and will actually to
make observable changes-are less obvious. Richard begins to
probe for them.
114 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Tell him what life would be like if he had been alive.
Frankie: Well, Iwouldn't have got the shit beat out of me, that'sfor
sure. I wouldn't have to walk around scared to death. I wouldn't
have had to get beat with a strap. I wouldn't of got welts on my
body.
Richard: Cause what you'd of done, Dad ...
Frankie: Cause you would havestopped it, Dad. She went nuts. She
was nuts. The woman was crazy, Dad. The only thing she knew was a
good beating.
Richard: Tell Dad what you decided about women during that
early time.
Frankie: Oooh. They're all screwed up, Dad. All nuts. All out to
hurt men. All out to get me. All going to screw me up, somehow.
Richard: So what I'II do is ...
Frankie: I'II avoid them. I'II stay away from them. I'II like men.
Here is the adolescent script decision, the decision to act out his
pain at Dad's absence and Mother's abuse by being homosexual.
Richard underlines it:
Richard: Say that again.
Frankie: I'II avoid women and I'II like men.
Richard: Tell him what you'd like most of all, with him.
The phrase 'with him" brings Frankieback to the original unmet
need-the fixed gestalt, which his homosexual experimentation
could never fully satisfy.
Frankie: I want your love, so bad.
Richard: And if I can't get yours. ..
Frankie: If I can't get yours, I'IIjust go out and look for some other
man. Justdid. How was Isupposed to know?Ijust wanted a body. To
make things right.
Richard pauses here to allow Frankie to hear and digest what he
has said. Frankie begins to sob.
Richard: Would your dad have made things right? Put your dad
right there and talk to him. Do that now, and say that. I need a
daddy. ..
Frankie: I need (he is sobbing too hard to talk) . . .
Richard: Keep going, Frankie. Look at that face. Say it again, only
louder.
Frankie: Needed you, and I kept trying to take care of it-
 The Absent Father 115

Richard: Come on, Frankie, look at your dad . ..

Frankie: To tell me what to d o . ..
Richard: Tell him what it would be like if he'd been around when
you were a baby.
Frankie: Well, the first thing, Dad, is 1 wouldn't have gotten given
..
away early. Had to go live with somebody. and I woulda had my
own parents.
Richard: Yeah. If you'd come home to me every night after work.. .
Frankie: You woulda come home and held me. I wouldn't have
had to go out and get some other men to hold me. Dad, there just
wouldn't have been this mess.
Richard: Tell him how you've been looking for him all this time.
Inside and outside.
From Frankie's return to the theme of finding men who could
substitute for Dad, Richard hypothesizes that Frankie has been
very invested in the search for a father. From early childhood,
Frankie had no adult male i n his life from whom he could receive
love and support. He had no opportunity to internalize these
qualities as a part of his masculine identity, and so the searching
(and not finding) was internal as well as external.
.
Frankie: It's been a long time. Hoping, at night. . it's ridiculous,
I'm looking for you. Some stupid fantasy that you were going to
appear. You were still living! Oh, God, how could II 1 still hoped
.
that you were living! I wasn't even . . Ohhh! I was nuts!
Richard: You're not nuts.
Frankie: Thirty-three years of thinking he's gonna come back.
Richard: That's real normal if you haven't grieved.
Frankie: (crying) Thirty-three years! I thought you were gonna
walk down the steps some day! I watched the steps all the time! I
must be nuts.
Richard: No, you're not nuts, Frankie.
Frankie: I watch the steps!
Richard: Instead of saying "I'm nuts," say "I'm wanting."
Frankie, in his recollecting of how he used to watch the steps for
Dad, is already beginning to slip back to an earlier ego state.
Richard's instruction to say "I'm wanting" instead of the more
adolescent "I'm nuts" precipitates another regression, and
suddenly we are listening to a five- or six-year-old boy.
116 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Frankie: Ahhhh, I want you!

Richard: Yeah, say that again.
Frankie: I want you to come down the steps!
Richard: I WANT you, Dad . . .
Frankie: Ohhhh! I want you come down the steps!
Richard: Cause if you don't. . .
Frankie: I don't know.. . COME DOWN THE STEPS CAUSE IF YOU
.
DON'T I'LL.. Ohhh . . .
Richard: Yeah, say that: "If you don't, I'm gonna . . ."
Frankie: I'm so confused! I'm gonna have to face that you're dead.
At this level, Frankie has not experienced or accepted his father's
death. The little boy denied it, and created a fantasy of Father
who was gone but might return at any time. Having denied the
reality of Father's being dead, Frankie did not complete his
grieving. The loss is s t i l l an open wound, crusted over in the
present but still bleeding in the past. Here, regressedto that early
denial stage, Frankie begins to face the truth.
Richard: Say that again.
Frankie: (shoutingangrily) If you don't come down those steps I'm
gonna have to face that you're dead!
Richard: And if I do that. . .
Frankie: I'II . . . I'II have to let go of this fantasy that you're coming
back. (he shouts again) Dad, come down those steps! Get down!
Get down thosesteps! Get down! Dad! Dad, get down those steps!
(he continues to demand that Dad respond; he sounds like a
thwarted child having a temper tantrum)
Richard: I won't recognize that you're dead, Dad.
Frankie: Oh, NO! NO! You're not dead! Come down those steps!
Come-down-those-steps! You are not dead! You are not dead!
Come-down-those-steps!
Richard: If I admit you're dead.. .
Frankie: No! No! No! No! Come-down-those-steps! Down! Down!
Down those steps!
Richard: Cause if I admit you're dead . . .
Frankie continues to shout "No" and demand that Dad "come
down those steps." He is deeply regressed, and using the tantrum
behavior of a child to maintain the denial. Believing that Dad
would someday return was, at that earlyage, his way of surviving
 The Absent Father 117

an intolerable situation; needing to hang on to the denial, he has

been unable to move on, to grow past this age emotionally. He
must break through, somehow, but alone he simply hasn't the
strength to do so. ~ i c h a r shifts
d tactics here, pulling Frankie out
of the fruitless struggle with a dad who will never answer, and
making contact himself as a nurturing, caring adult who never-
theless insists that Frankie accept what is real.
Richard: Frankie, your daddy's dead.
Frankie: No! No! No! Nooooo!
Richard: He was just a young man, but he died.
Frankie: No! He's too young to die!
Richard: Yes, that's true.
Frankie: No! No, he's not dead. Ohhh, he's too young to die! (he
begins to sob) He's not, he was too young!
Richard: Say, "I'm too young for him to die."
Frankie begins to break through his denial and experience the
pain of losing Dad; Richard now will help him to stay with the
grief work, countering Frankie's repeated attempts to slide back
into denial.
Frankie: I'm too young for him to die! Noooo! (crying)
Richard: Say, "I'm too young."
.
Frankie: Dad, I'm too young for you to die. . Ohhh! Look at me!
Dad, look at me! Ohh, Daddy, look at me! Ohhh! Ohhh! Daddy,
look at me!
Richard: He's dead, Frankie.
Frankie: Let him look at me! Ohh, Daddy, look at me!
Richard: They buried him in the cemetery.
Frankie: No, don't let them do that! Ohhh, I see it coming down!
Ohhh!
Richard: Your mama already lit candles in the church.
Frankie: (sobbing hard) Daddy's dead! Ohhh! In the ground. I'll
never get a chance to see him!
Richard: Tell him what you wanted, Frankie.
Frankie: (more quietly) See me. Just see me.
Richard: Repeat that.
Frankie: See me, just see me.
Richard: Tell him what else. Bet there's more than "just.'' "See me
and . ..
118 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Frankie: Be with me.

Richard: And . ..
Frankie: Be with me and love me. So impossible. Useless! (he
begins to pound the mat with his fist, harder and harder)
As Frankie lets go of the little boy's denial, he experiences the
true extent of his loss, and what he really wanted from the father
he never had. His body relaxes; his "be with meJ' has a ring of
authenticity that was absent from the tantrumlike screaming.
Andas he relaxes, another shift occurs: like peeling an onion, he
moves to a yet earlier, younger stage. His face changes, his
posture changes; he's angry again but it's a toddler's weak,
frustrated anger now. His head moves up and down, jerkily, as
though he were butting his head against something.
Richard: Try banging your head, Frankie. Bang your head. Say
"useless.'' Try it, bang your head and say "useless."
Richard, aware of the shift, suggests a physical movement that
will emphasize the age-typical behavior of a three-year-old. We
don't yet know the significance of useless, but by acting out the
very early frustration, and repeating the word, Frankie will find
his own meaning.
Frankie: (bangs his head on the mat, repeating the word useless
several times) You don't get up; you don't get up; you never get up;
you get up, you-get-up!
Richard: Doesn't help to bang your head, does it? Or to beat your
fists.
Frankie: No, it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't, it doesn't, cause he
just doesn't get up. He just doesn't get up! He doesn't get up!
Richard: Do that with your head again.
Frankie: (banging his head) It's useless, useless, useless, useless,
useless, useless. Useless!
Richard: For a three-year-old, having a temper tantrum doesn't
change things, but it feels so good.
Frankie: Useless! Useless! I'm not, you are! You're useless, not me!
Richard: Not useless, Frankie. He's dead.
Here we are again, dealing with denial. While the six-year-old
Frankie may have accepted Dad's death, the three-year-old
hasn't. It's easier to be angry with a "useless" father than to
mourn a dead one. And again, the denial must be overcome, the
grief experienced, before Frankie can move on emotionally.
 The Absent Father 119

Richard: Not useless, Frankie. He's dead.

Frankie: But he doesn't do anything1
Richard: He's dead.
Frankie: He doesn't do anything! So what!
Richard: He would have.
Frankie: If he would just get up.
Richard: He can't, he's dead.
Frankie: If he just would get up!
Richard: He's dead, Frankie.
Frankie: He just won't get up.
Richard: His spirit's gone.
Frankie: No, he just doesn't want to get up. Get up, get up, get up!
Richard: Why doesn't he want to get up, Frankie?
Frankie: Get up1 Getupgetupgetup!
Richard: Why doesn't he want to get up, little boy?
Frankie: Don't know.
Richard: Well, take a guess. You just said he wasn't dead . . .
Frankie: (sulkily) He's not.
Richard: Just being stubborn. Why?
Frankie: Doesn't want to look at me.
Richard: Why?
Frankie: Cause.
Richard: What'd you do?
Frankie: I don't know. Didn't do nuthin.
Richard: Didn't do nuthin?
Frankie: No. I was just born.
Richard: You didn't do nuthin?
Frankie: No, I was just born, that's all.
Richard: Oh. Then why doesn't he want to get up and help?
Frankie: I don't know, he's useless!
Richard: He's just dead.
Patiently stayingwith the process, making contact with an angrily
sad little boy, talking and repeating and listening over and over
again-this is an excellent example of work with a deeply
regressedclient. An adult wouldnot talk as Frankie is doing here,
nor would an adult tolerate being talked to as Richard is doing.
120 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

frankie is psychologically only a few years old at this point, and

the therapy is child therapy. And, working just as he would with
someone who was chronologically quite young, Richard now
introduces a new idea:
Richard: Did Mama say Daddy was useless?
Frankie: (pause) I don't know.
Richard: Did Mama say he's no good and useless?
Frankie: No, she said he was wonderful.
Dad's "'uselessness" might have been introjected from Mother's
comments about him; this hypothesis needed to be tested. But
Frankie says no; Mother said that Dad was wonderful. Was the
""useless" notion, then, the child's own decision, his way of
making sense out of Dad's absence?
Richard: What do you say he is?
Frankie: Useless.
Richard: Wasn't wonderful to you, was he?
Frankie: No.
Richard: Why not?
Frankie: He went away.
Richard: Yukky thing to do.
Frankie: Sure was.
Richard: So if he went away, either he's gotta be bad or you gotta
be bad.
Frankie: Not me. Him.
The three-year-old child lives in a world of either/or. There are
few shades of gray; discriminations are crude and categories are
limited. Something bad has happened, therefore, someone bad
made it happen. The logic of the child forces a choice: either he's
bad, or I'm bad. Richard is preparing to offer a third possibility,
one that will break the impasse; again, he does so in language
that a very young child can understand.
Richard: Frankie?
Frankie: What?
Richard: God wanted him.
Frankie: I wanted him! (bursts into tears) I wanted him! Who's
God, anyway? It was my right, not his!
Frankie's denial gives a little. He has worked hard, and i s
obviously tiring; the session needs to begin to wind down.
 The Absent Father 121

Richard now begins to search for a way to end the piece without
closing Frankie off from the emotional impact of what he has
accomplished, and also to provide him with a new cognitive
frame of reference within which he can integrate the affective
work.
Richard: You're correct. It was your right to have a daddy.
Frankie: It was my right!
Richard: And for some reason, it wasn't supposed to happen.
Maybe there's something very important for you to learn about
being a man in this world. All by yourself.
Frankie: (sulky again) That's just tough.
Richard: Sure is. What do you think of that? Having to learn to be a
man all by yourself, without the help of a daddy?
Notice how the question points Frankie back toward being an
adult, while still addressing the little boy. I n his next four short
responses, Frankie literally grows up before our eyes.
Frankie: It's awful. Didn't have all the information, so I had to
figure it out.
Richard: Well, how've you done? Did you pass the test?
Frankie: Think so.
Richard: What if I told you there was this big master plan, that
called for your father to stay alive for one purpose only. And that
was so he could give you his genes. And then his purpose was
finished. And the real purpose is what you do with those genes.
Frankie: Oh, that's hard to take.
Richard: What about that, Frankie?If there was some master plan,
whose purpose was to sire you? To give you life? To give you the
genes that you have. And then he was finished with his purpose for
living. And part of your task i s to see what kind of a man you will
become without a biological father in the house.
Frankie: It's a hell of a trip.
Richard: Yeah. Thirty-three-year trip.
Frankie: Whew.
Richard: What have you learned along the way?
Frankie: Well, I didn't do that bad.
Richard: No, I don't think so! For a while I had my doubts, but I
don't think so any more.
122 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Frankie: Thanks to you.

Richard: And I can't be your dad. I can be your therapist, help you
learn how to be a good professional; I can even be your friend.
(pause) And you miss him.
Frankie: Very much. Every day. Every damn day.

As the work ended, Frankie was experiencing his loss in an

adult-appropriate, here-and-now way. He was sad, and he missed
his father. There was an almost surprised quality to his last remark,
lending support to the idea that he had not consciously realized,
until now, just how much he had been missing his father, or how
large a part that missing Dad had played in his life as an adult. He
had more grieving to do-indeed, for several days after this at the
workshop he appeared sad-but the grieving did not have the
stuck, sulky, going nowhere quality that had been his trademark.
One of the things that made this piece of work possible i s
Richard's sensitivity to the emotional age level-the developmental
stage of the cathected ego state-of the client at each stage of the
work. Not only did the quality of Frankie's responses change, but
Richard's interventions changed too. As Frankie grew younger,
Richard's comments and questions grew shorter and grammatically
simpler, and the vocabulary more restricted. Respondingto Frankie
in an age-appropriate way allowed him to maintain the regression,
just as shifting to a more adult way of speaking, at the end of the
work, helped him to recathect his Adult ego state.
One last word needs to be said about the pace of the work. Books
of theory, articles in which therapists talk about their work, seldom
capture the endless repetition, the retracing of a path again and
again, which is so necessary when working with a deeply regressed
person. We have chosen to present entire pieces of work verbatim,
so that the reader can experience the slowness, the patience, the
way in which the therapist needs to sit down and simply "be" with a
client as he works away at an early issue. To move faster might give
the illusion of progress, but it would be only illusion; there i s no
substitute for time and patience if the work is to be done well.
 ROBERT
Challenging a Cultural Script

In dealing with introjected script material, we typically work with a

personification of one or both of the client's actual parents.
Occasionally, though, an introjected ego state had its origins not
with the actual parents, but with some other person or people.
Other family members (older siblings, grandparents, aunts and
uncles), neighbors, teachers, clergy-all can be sources of intro-
jection. Whether the scriptingcomesfrom an actual parent,or from
some other influential individual, working with this kind of introject
tends to follow the same general procedure.
There i s another kind of Parent ego state content, though, that is
not introjected from a single person. Cultural scripting consists of
introjected thoughts, feelings, attitudes, and behaviors that are
taken in from a multitude of sources. Cultural scripting often
determines the kind of music we enjoy, the foods we refuse to eat,
124 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

our attitudes toward people of different races or religions. This sort

of scripting i s not always a negative influence: a fondness for
Beethoven, or spoon bread, or a sense of comfort derived from the
sound of ocean waves crashing on the beach can be sources of great
pleasure. It i s when these attitudes and expectations limit our
options and interrupt our ability to be flexible and creative that they
may become a focus of therapy.
Robert, the client whose work i s presented in this chapter, i s
dealing with a cultural script. Robert is gay, and at a neopsychicego
level has adapted his sexual orientation quite comfortably into his
ongoing personality and sense of self. He also, however, experi-
ences some negative attitudes toward homosexuality, attitudes that
cause him discomfort. There is no single person who can be
pinpointed as the source of these attitudes; they were acquired
from a variety of sources. In the work presented here, Robert
begins with the image of a specific person from his past. Soon,
however, the image begins to take on a symbolic, generalized
quality. "Lance," the young man whom Robert role-plays, becomes
a screen for the attitudes and values prevalent throughout Robert's
social milieu. Robert creates a symbolic source, a composite of the
many people whose behaviors contributed to his internalized
rejection of his gay orientation. It is this symbolic, constructed
Parent fragment that Robert confronts at the conclusion of the
therapeutic session.
Robert begins his session by describing his reactionsto a piece of
work done the day before by another member of the group.

Robert: Jerry's work made me aware of some things that I hadn't

thought of for quite a while. And that is, at home, in San Francisco,
I'm quite comfortable with being gay. I'm "out" to my family, my
friends, at work. It's not something that I think of, hardly at all. It's
just not an issue. And when Jerry said something like, "I've been
going through a lot of changes," what I immediately thought to
myself was, "Boy, there's a euphemism for somebody who's
'coming out."' I was almost sure of it. And then I started getting
uptight about that, and-
Rebecca: About what?
Robert: Because it wasn't, because he wasn't being open about it.
And then he said "sexual orientation." And, not "gay." And, again
 Challenginga Cultural Script 125

like he wasn't being open about it. And I started getting more and
more uptight. And felt like I wanted to hide, and didn't want
anybody to notice me; I felt really uncomfortable. Sort of squirmy.
And I was just.. . I was really interested in that, because that is not
.
something that's happened for a long time. . So I started thinking
about it afterwards. And what I realized was that it was exactly like I
was being the target. Like I was being this taboo topic. It was just
like, "I'm a taboosubject, and Iwant to hide, and I don't want to be
seen." And I thought, wow! And that is really familiar, it was so
.
natural.. What I realized was that, I think I've always done that. I
think probably most gay people do that. Like when you become an
adolescent, there's no one around to identify with. There's no role
models, at all. And so there's nothing to identify with, to take in.
And it's like you identify with a concept, which i s totally negative.
Like you hear nothing, it's just totally bad news, it's a taboo . . .
Robert is quite articulate about his feelings; he has obviously
done a lot of thinking about what i s going on for him internally.
He recognizes the discomfort as Adult ego-dystonic: the sense of
not-OK-ness that he feels doesn't fit with his overall beliefs and
attitudes, but it is nevertheless real and lasting. He identifies it as
coming from the absence of a positive model. The negative
introject i s fuzzier for him; he alludes to the "taboosubject,"the
feeling of "wanting to hide," but at this point i s less clear about
having taken in those values from an external source.
The therapists' first concern i s to help Robert to connect more
solidly with his own emotional response. By externalizing and
intellectualizing, Robert protects himself from the pain of his
internal conflict. While this can be a useful technique to provide
clear thinking andproblem solving, it is less useful in therapeutic
work. The Parent ego state, and the Child ego state's response to
cultural or peer group messages, are usually not clear and logical,
nor can they be detached from feelings.
Richard: Will you say these things in the first person, and see if they
make a different impact? Your statements are "you, you, you"
which is a pushing outside of experience by generalizing. See what
happens if you take it, say "I" and make it a statement of your own
experience.
Robert: OK. I wasn't aware I was doing that. All the time I was
saying "you"? Hmm. OK.
126 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: It's partly a disowning process. Part of it may be general

publicly learned speaking. That's what I'm asking you to experiment
with, saying it in "I," Go back to the adolescent stuff.
Robert: OK. So, Ididn't have any role models, and so what Idid is, I
identified with a concept, which was really negative. I took on an
uncomfortableness that is a societal thing. And I'm sort of excited
about that, because I realize it's like a parental introject, that isn't
me. Like, I really got a sense when I thought about it, of "I feel
comfortable, Robert feels comfortable, but I've taken on an
uncomfortablenessthat belongs to a lot of other people, like other
adolescents. And, like what Iwant to do is to get rid of that. I want to
realize that I'm comfortable, and I'm not going to take on other
people's ...
Here is a fine demonstration of the way in which understanding,
intellectual knowing about, does not resolve a script issue.
Robert is an intelligent, psychologically sophisticated man, a
competent therapist in his own right. He understands the
theoretical basis of introjects, and has correctly diagnosed his
issue. Yet, even though he understands what is going on, his
emotional response remains unchanged. If therapy i s to be
effective, he must somehow break past the cognitive and into the
affective domain.
Rebecca: Notice what you're feeling. Just be aware of your
emotions.
Robert: I feel worked up.
Rebecca: Your eyes started suddenly to fill with tears.
Robert: I don't feel sad. I, I feel energized.
Richard: I have an idea about doing an experiment. Would you like
to do it?
Robert: Well, tell me what it is first.
Robert translates his specific feelings into a general ''worked
up," which again serves to defend him from truly experiencing
them. Richard recognizes that Robert can probably intellectu-
alize his way through a whole piece of work if he is allowed to
continue "'talking about," andso suggests an "experiment,"and
Robert immediately asks for information that will allow him to
structure i t cognitively ahead of time. Notice the respectful way
in which Richard refuses to give this information:
 Challenging a Cultural Script 127

Richard: I'd rather take you into it. I just want your permission to
do the experiment. If I tell you what it is, I think I'll ruin it.
Robert: OK. Is it a long one?
Richard: I don't know. I have no idea.
Robert: All right.
Richard begins the process of helping Robert to access the visual,
auditory, kinesthetic, and olfactory cues that will help him
cathect his adolescent ego state. Notice the leisurely, matter-of-
fact style that is used: Robert i s allowed to proceedat a pace that
is comfortable and safe for him.
Richard: Justclose your eyes. Go back to the home town you lived
in as an adolescent. (pause) And go to your high school. (pause)
Walk the corridors; perhaps there's a favorite teacher whose face
comes to mind. And I want you to think of one of the guys in that
high school who's Mr. Outstanding. Either a football hero, basket-
ball hero, perhaps the class president. Somebody who really
represented thespirit of that school. When you do, Iwant you to tell
me his name. (pause) Got his name? Or a face?
Robert: No, I don't yet. I'm there in the school, but I'm having
difficulty remembering. I can remember my close friends, but I
can't remember sort of outside that circle.
Richard: He'd be the kind of person that'd have more photographs
in the yearbook than anybody. And would really represent the spirit
of the school. (pause) If you don't find him, whoamong those close
friends was really the psychological leader? Who set the tone of
what you were going to do?
The actual identity of the person Robert chooses is relatively
unimportant. Because of the way Robert has "primed himself"
for the work, he is very likely to choose someone who exemplifies
the nonacceptance that he's been talking about, or who i s
important in some other way i n the context of that nonac-
ceptance. I n either event, his choice will not be random or
accidental. Richard trusts Robert's out-of-awareness processes
to find or create an appropriate symbolic figure for the work he
needs to do.
Robert: (pause)That's hard to say. Like we all did, in different ways.
Richard: Go back to Mr. Big Shot on Campus. Might be a
composite image.
128 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Robert: It's really funny that Ican't.. . (pause)cause Ididn't place a

high value on athletics, particularly. So Ican't even remember who,
who was involved with it. OK. Yeah, OK, yeah, yeah, I got
somebody now.
Richard: What's his name?
Robert: Lance.
Richard: (pause) Well, Lance, I want to talk to you as the repre-
sentative of the school. Of the outstanding person who represents
the norms. Lance, we've invited you here today to represent your
high school. To make sure that you keep your high school's
standards at all times. I know that there are things that get bent a
little bit at parties, but I'm talking about the moral standards of the
school. And I know that you're probably the best one to do it. Right,
Lance?
Robert (as Lance): Uh-hm.
Richard: I want you to tell me what you think the standards are, or
what they should be.
Robert (as Lance): Hmm. Well, you mean, for the men or for the
women?
Richard: Well, both, they interact.
Robert (as Lance): OK. Well, the men should be involved in sports,
should like sports. The women should-
Richard: Is there a sport that's better to like than any others?
In this piece of work, there was less of a formal "induction"
process than usualto make contact with the introjected figure. In
part, the induction process had occurred during Robert's mental
search for Lance; in part, the induction is a two-way process
carried out through the initial interaction between therapist and
this created figure. Richard and Lance/Robert continue to chat
for several more minutes about sports, before coming back to
the introductory theme; we pick up the work again as Richard
says:
Richard: I want to know about being the high school hero. What
are the kinds of things you have to do to be a hero?
Robert (as Lance): I don't know, I never really thought about it.
Richard: Mean it comes so easy to you?
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, kind of, right. Right. Yeah.
 Challenginga Cultural Script 129

Richard: Well, how do you make it with the teachers when you're a
hero?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I mean, I'm kind of friendly, easy to get
along with. I'm not a great student, but, I'm just an average student.
Richard: Well, you don't have to be if you're a hero, do you? How
are you in with the other students?All the boysand girls in this high
school?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, they like me. Yeah, they, um, think that I'm
a pretty good guy.
Richard: What is the moral standard of the student body?Describe
that to me?
Robert (as Lance): Moral standard ...
Richard: Yeah. Since you're the representative and represent this
moral standard, I'd like to know about it.
Robert (as Lance): Right. Well, you kinda, you don't look at
anything in depth at all. I mean, you just, you're kind of shallow and
you, um, just accept things for the way they are,and you don't think
about things much. You just sort o f . ..
Rebecca: Have a good time.
I n his response to Richard's question about moral standards,
Lance/Robert shows signs of sliding too far into Robert's own
adolescent disdain for the Lances of this world. While Robert
may eventually need to reject Lance's opinions, feelings, and
attitudes, it is important at this point to keep Lance around; thus
Rebecca reframes Lance/Robert's response into a less dispar-
aging one, one that would be more i n line with how Lance
himself might have described the "rules" for getting along in
high school. The maneuver is successful, i n that Lance/RobertS
next response i s more relaxed and in keeping with Lance's, rather
than Robert's, typical style.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, and you, you know, you take on the values
of the community. So guys are supposed to drink a bit before they
go to dances on Friday night, but not get really boozed, just. . .
Richard: A little beer, a little whiskey . ..
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, that kind of thing, right.
Richard: You guys into smoking dope in those days, o r . ..
Robert (as Lance): No.
Richard: Just drinking, huh?
130 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Robert (as Lance): Just drinking.

Richard: More manly?
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, right. So, let's see, what else. Moral values,
umm ...
Richard: What'd you do at the parties?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, you know, try to make it with the girls. Feel
them up. I mean, there's not many that'll put out, so you gotta just,
you know, be content with, uh, you know, trying to feel them up
necking. And bragging about it to the other guys.
Richard: What do you mean, bragging about it?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I mean, sometimes you exaggerate.
Richard: Little tit becomes a whole screw?
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, right. You got it.
Richard has established his credentials with Lance/Robert-he's
an OK guy, who understands this kindof talk. It's interesting how
quickly the conversation has turned to sexual matters. This may
be i n part simply a function of a general adolescent preoccu-
pation with sex; i t may also reflect Robert's needand willingness
to deal with his own sexuality at this age. At any rate, Richard
knows there will be no problem introducing the subject. He
chooses not to pursue it at this point, but to go back to the
question of general behavioral norms.
Richard: What else about being a good American citizen in your
high school?
Robert (as Lance): Well, let's see. Oh, you probably shouldn't
really excel at school. Not, not be real brainy. That's kinda, that's not
really masculine.
Far from having trouble introducing the topic of sexuality, we
seem to be unable to avoid it. Because Lance/Robert comes right
back to it, we may assume that it's foreground for him-this i s
where his energy is focused. The invitation is clear, and Richard
accepts:
Richard: Masculine, huh.
Robert (as Lance): Y up.
Richard: What's masculine?
Robert (as Lance): Well, it's more towards the, urn, average. It'ssort
of like the outstanding average.
 Challenginga Cultural !kript 131

Richard: Um-hm. The outstanding average is masculine. So if

somebody is ordinary or not so outstanding, or not sporty, what are
they?
..
Robert (as Lance): Uh, let's see .
Richard: Are they sissies?
Robert (as Lance): Um, I suppose, I suppose so.
Richard: What do you think of Robert?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, he's a, he's a nice guy. He's friendly, um,
he's easy to get along with. Um, I don't know a lot about him.
Lance/Robert is not ready to address the "sissy" issuespecifically
with relation to Robert, but backs off into socially acceptable
generalities. He has indicated, though, that he's willing to get
into possibly uncomfortable areas, and so can tolerate some
gentle pushing.
Richard: You certainly see him.
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm.
Richard: What do you think of when you see him walking down
the hall?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, 1 don't think I think anything.
Richard: Why not?
By refusing to accept Lance/RobertDs unspoken assumptions
that his own kind of thinking or feeling or behaving is so natural
that there's nothing to say about it, Richard forces him to
examine what he has always taken for granted. Immediately, we
discover an adolescent homophobia: Above all, Lance/Robert
must avoid anything that might hint at homosexual interests. His
voice rises, and his manner is decidedly agitated.
Robert (as Lance): Well,Christ, I mean, why would I?I mean, I look
at the girls.
Richard: Why would you not look at Robert?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I, I don't have any interest in looking at
guys, paying attention to the guys.
Richard: Why not?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I mean, that's just weird. I mean, you
know.. .
Richard: What do you mean, weird?
132 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Robert (as Lance): Well, it's just, I, 1 can't understand why would
anybody want to look at a guy? Or pay any attention to him?
Richard: He's a human being.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, but I'm interested in the female human
beings.
Richard: Why?
Richard is being deliberately obtuse here, deliberately refusing
to understand what Lance/Robert means and thus forcing him to
spell out his prejudice plainly and unmistakably. As the exchange
continues, Lance/Robert becomes more and more agitated.
Robert (as Lance): Well, cause that, that's the way it is. I mean, that's
what you're s'posed to be. You know, not queer or anything.
Richard: What?
Robert (as Lance): I'm not queer or anything.
Richard: What does that mean?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I don't, I don't know. I mean, God, that's
something you don't talk about.
Richard: Why not?
Robert (as Lance): Well, cause it's a, I don't . . .
Richard: Sure getting uncomfortable, Lance.
Robert (as Lance): You just don't talk about that. I mean, it's
revolting, disgusting.
Richard: What's disgusting about you talking about the fact that I
asked you if you recognized Robert in the hall?
Robert (as Lance): (pause) I don't know, it just is.
Richard: Suddenly you're worried about being queer.
Robert (as Lance): Well, yeah, 1 mean, if I'm going around noticing
guys, then that seems.. .
Richard: I didn't ask you to crotch-watch.
Richardcapitalizes on Lance/Robert's discomfort to confuse and
agitate him further. Robert's intellectualizing defense has been
quite thoroughly dissolved by this time; he is experiencing the
world through the acutely uncomfortable eyes of a self-confident
high school athlete whose values are being strongly challenged.
Keeping Lance/Robert off balance here allows us to probe more
deeply into those unaware values, and into the fears and
 Challenginga Cultural Script 133

concerns that even Lance has experienced, but that he is so

careful not to acknowledge.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, I know. But I mean . . .
Richard: I was thinking mostly of his face.
Robert (as Lance): Hm. Oh, well, I guess. ..
Richard: Do you ever crotch-watch?
Robert (as Lance): Are you kidding?
Richard: But you tit-watch.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah.
Richard: How come you don't crotch-watch?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, cause I'm not, you know. I'm not interested.
Oh, you know, I, in the showers or whatever, I look at the guys to
see how I stack up with the others, but. ..
Richard: How do you do?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, OK.
Richard: Sure seem squirmy, Lance.
Robert (as Lance): Well, yeah, I mean, it's a, what a stupid thing to
be talking about. It's revolting.
Richard: What's revolting about my questioning you if you know
Robert?
By again deliberately misunderstanding Lance/Robert's corn-
ment, Richard points to a deeper truth: That, for Lance, Robert
himself (that is, what Robert represents) is revoking and dis-
gusting. The conversation is not unlike a fencing match; Richard
darts i n under the defenses and scores, then backs off and awaits
another opening, feinting and weaving to keep his "opponent,"
Lance, off guard, and thereby aligning himself with Robert.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, but 1 mean, you were talking about
crotch-watching, really sick stuff.
Richard: When did you decide it was sick?
Robert (as Lance): Well, good God, everybody knows that.
Richard: How did you know it?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I don't know-
Richard: I mean, certainly at four or five you must have played
doctor with your friends.
Robert (as Lance): Oh, yeah, but I mean, I'm not five now.
134 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: What happened between five and now?

Robert (as Lance): Well, I grew up.
Richard: Hm. Cause there's a couple guys in your high school that
find you attractive.
Another probe, another score: Lance/Robert responds to this
thrust with predictable homophobic anger.
Robert (as Lance): Well, all I can say is, they better not let me know
about it.
Richard: Why not?
Robert (as Lance): Well, just that. I sure don't want to-
Richard: What would you do about it if Robert told you he thought
you were cute?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I'd probably deck him.
Richard: That's one of the reasons why Robert avoids you.
Robert (as Lance): Well, could be.
Richard: What do you mean, you'd deck him?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, I'd like, smash him.
Richard: What do you mean, smash him? You've gotten from
decking him to smashing him . . .
Robert (as Lance): Not, no, by decking him I mean, like, you
know-
Richard: Like breaking his jaw, or his nose?
Robert (as Lance): I don't know i f I'd go that far, but I'd .. . you
know, I'd hit him.
Richard: What would you hit him for? Some girl comes up to you
and says she thinks you're cute, or well hung, or something, would
like to go out with you, you'd probably get all flattered.
Robert (as Lance): Well, that's right. I would.
Richard: Then why you gonna beat up Robert?
Robert (as Lance): Well, that's just something that's, I mean
something that's really unnatural, something you don't even talk
about.
Richard: How do you know it's unnatural?
Robert (as Lance): Well, I mean, that's what everybody said. I
mean, they don't even talk about it. They don't talk about it, so
therefore it must mean it's really bad.
 Challenging a Cultural Script 135

Here is t h e first hint of yielding i n Lance/Robert's previously

unshakableprejudice. He is beginning, reluctantly, to look at the
origins of his attitudes. I f something has an origin, then there
must have been a time before i t was around-and the unthink-
able becomes thinkable. Havingmade this step, Richarddecides
not to push any farther here and risk Lance/Robert's closing up
again. Instead, he takes another tack:
Richard: Which i s exactly what you're trying to get me to do, i s not
talk about it.
Robert (as Lance): Well, yeah, that's right.
Richard: Then we'll keep it bad.
Robert (as Lance): Pardon?
Richard: Then we'll keep it bad.
Robert (as Lance): Well yeah, sure, that's fine with me. I want to
keep it bad.
Richard: Why?
Robert (as Lance): Well, good God, I mean, if you didn't, who
knows what would happen.
Richard: That's what I want to find out.
Robert (as Lance): Well, I don't want, Idon't want guys coming up
to me in the hall, and, and coming on to me.
Richard: Why not?
Richard's refusal to accept Lance/Robert's attitudes as reasons in
and of themselves finally pays off, as Lance/Robert admits to his
own bisexual interests.
Robert (as Lance): Well, I mean, you want me to be really honest?
Richard: Um-hm.
Robert (as Lance): Well, it might be, Idon't know, it might be kinda
interesting.
Richard: Hmm.
Robert (as Lance): But don't tell anybody else I said that.
Rebecca: That scares you, that that might be interesting to you?
Robert (as Lance): Well, yeah.
Richard: So you create a norm that makes it uncomfortable for
guys like Robert.
Robert (as Lance): (very firmly) That's right!
136 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Say that again. "That's right!" So I can hear that tone
again.
Robert (as Lance): That's right!
Something unexpected has happened here. Instead of contin-
uing along the path of increased awareness of his own feelings,
Lance/Robert snapped closedagain; his tone of voice signaleda
definite shift in energy. Richard asks him to repeat it, both to
check out whether he really heard what he thought he heard,
and to let the observing Robert hear i t too. He then goes on to
explore what the shift is all about.
Richard: What do you mean by "That's right!"?
Robert (as Lance): Well, you hit the nail on the head. I mean, that's
why you gotta have rules and taboos.
Richard: Why?
Robert (as Lance): Well, cause things would get out of hand.
Richard: You see Robert acting out of hand?
Robert (as Lance): Um, no. But that'scause he knows what the rules
are.
Richard: And the rule i s . ..
Robert (as Lance): Well, guys are interested in girls, and vice versa,
and guys aren't supposed to be interested in guys.
One could hardlyask for a clearer statement of the cultural script
message!
Richard: What happens to those exceptions to that rule? Where
there is a guy interested in a guy, or there is a girl interested in a girl?
Robert (as Lance): I don't even know. I don't even know anyone
like that. 1 mean, it just, Ijust hear about, read about that. I haven't a
clue what. . . it's something awful, I'm sure.
Richard: Cause you called him a queer.
Robert (as Lance): Well, I didn't say he was, but I said he'd be queer
if he was interested in another guy.
Richard: And I said he might be interested in you.
Robert (as Lance): Oh, right, yeah. Well, that would make him a
queer, then.
Lance/RobertDsdefenses are i n place again. His slight glimpse of
his own bisexuality was more than he was willing to tolerate for
long. To belabor the point would probably only further solidify
 Challenginga Cultural Script 137

those defenses; i n addition, the observing Robert has been given

much fuel for thought here. Richard moves to another aspect of
Lance/Robert's behavior:

Richard: So you set the rules, huh?You're part of the rule-making

crowd.
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm.
Richard: And what do you think of having a rule that really takes
away psychological freedom from someone?
Robert (as Lance): Say that again?
Richard: What do you think of rules that take away psychological
freedom?
Robert (as Lance): Oh, I don't care about things like that.
Richard: You don't.
Robert (as Lance): No.
Richard: I thought you were a full, red-blooded American.
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm.
Richard: I thought Americans believed in freedom.
Robert (as Lance): Yeah, but I mean what's this "psychological
freedom" bullshit?
Richard: Course if there was a Hitler in America, you'd want rid of
him, wouldn't you?
Robert (as Lance): Sure.
Richard: Why?
Robert (as Lance): Well, cause he was bad.
Richard: Why?
Robert (as Lance): Well, he started a war, and killed all sorts of Jews.
Richard: You know how he did that?
Robert (as Lance): How he did it? Well, yeah, he had a big army,
and.. .
Richard: He mostly did it by passing rules, that became the legal
law of the land. Everything he did was legal. (pause) So you want to
have a rule that limits people's sexual interest.
Robert (as Lance): Oh, yeah, for sure.
Richard: For security's sake.
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm. That would make me real uncom-
138 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

fortable. I mean, you know, if guys were openly affectionate, and

women were, I'd just be really uncomfortable.
Lance/Robert is now much more i n touch with his internal,
emotional reaction to same-sex demonstrativeness than he was
earlier, when his objections were made i n a moralistic, self-
righteous way. The next few exchanges serve to consolidate this
gain, to ensure that Lance/Robert continues to operate from and
be aware of his feelings.
Richard: Just affectionate openly. I mean, I'm not talking about
dicking somebody.
Robert (as Lance): Well, no, I mean I don't think there should be
any of that kind of stuff. I, it just makes me really uncomfortable.
Richard: So what are you going to do to make sure that this high
school is run according to those rules?
Robert (as Lance): The best way to deal with it is to, to totally ignore
it, pretend it doesn't exist.
Richard: So social isolation . . .
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm.
Richard: ... dissolves the problem. You're very bright kids. Very
clever.
Social isolation does dissolve the problem for the Lances, who
don't have to deal with it or be uncomfortable with it (or with
their own hidden feelings about it) because for them it simply
doesn't exist. For the Roberts, however, isolation means that they
must live with a disapproval that i s pervasive, but that can never
be argued or even confronted because it is never acknowledged.
Robert's expression at this point suggests that he is finally
understanding, and feeling, how this mechanism works. He i s
ready to confront his symbolic internalized Lance-the intro-
jected high school norm.
Richard: Well, there is somebody here who wants to talk to you
about it, Lance.
Robert (as Lance): Um-hm?
Richard: And I think you might find it very interesting to have a
conversation with this young man.
Robert (as Lance): Hmm. OK.
Richard: Robert, move over here (Robert moves to a spot on the
 Challenging a Cultural Script 139

mat across from where he sat as Lance).Go back to high school, and
talk to Lance. But I'm going to be here, so he doesn't deck you.
Switching positions is a technique designed to highlight the
internal conflict. The internal conflict is externalized and the
repressed reactions can be expressed fully and consciously. This
two-chair technique also allows the therapist t o make use of his
or her own spatial relationship to the client. Robert's confronta-
tion of Lance needs to be done from the emotional age at which
the original introjection occurred. There is still some danger, in
spite of all the work that has been done, that the teenage Robert
may be too threatened by Lance, and collapse back into his old
position. To prevent this, the therapist throws his own strength
and protection on Robert's side by offering to "be here,"
backing him up; being seated just behind Robert provides a
kinesthetic reminder of his support.
Robert: OK.
Richard: So you talk freely this time.
Robert: OK. I think I just want t o start out by saying I think you're
an asshole. You-
Richard: You want to say it louder?
Robert: (louder) I think you're an asshole.
Robert's voice is still quite controlled, and Richard's concern is
that he not confront Lance from a controlled, cognitive place.
Robert has "known" all along that Lance's position makes no
sense. Rather, Robert needs to tap into his emotional response to
Lance, and use that emotional energy to deal with the introject.
Richard's request for more volume is intended to help him
maintain and increase his emotional intensity.
Richard: You want to say it even louder?
Robert: (shouting) You're an asshole! I don't think you've got a
brain in your head! I don't think you've ever thought about
anything seriously. The world is much more complicated than you
would like to think. And you can't, you can't make the world
simple. It's not simple.
Richard: Explain, simply, what you mean by that, Robert. Because
he thinks in simple terms.
It's not just that Lance thinks in simple terms: Robert's early
response to Lance, and all that Lance symbolizes, is also a simple,
140 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

adolescentlike reaction. Both the "simple" Lance and the Child

ego state who reacts to Lance need to hear the confrontation in
language that they can understand.
Robert: Well.. .
Robert's volume level has gone down, and his expression
and posture suggest that he may, again, be shutting down
emotionally.
Richard: Don't swallow those feelings, Robert. I'm not gonna let
him punch you out, smash you. Even though he's taller than you.
Robert: (pause) I, I don't know what I want to say to you. I guess I
want to, one of the things I want to say to you is, I don't care what
you believe.
Richard: But he sets the standards, Robert.
Robert: Oh, well maybe I'm just going to have to set my own
standards. (pause) His standards don't, don't account for how
complicated the world is.
One incautious remark directly to Robert pulls him immediately
away from his confrontation with Lance and into a discussion
with the therapist. Richard quickly removes himself from the
dialogue, directing Robert back to the business at hand.
Richard: Tell that to Lance.
Robert: Lance, you don't, you don't know. You don't know
anything. You don't know anything. You can't set rules unless you
know how complicated things are. I mean, you're like a five-year-
old. I don't know i f I want to listen to rules that are set by a
five-year-old.
Richard: Tell him what your life was like under those rules.
Robert: Well, as I think about it, it's awful.
Richard: Think about it. And tell him.
Robert: Oh, it's.. . it'ssostupid. Oh'God, it'sstupid. I'cause I have
no respect for you. And here I'm living, trying to conform to some
idiotic rule, made by somebody I don't really have any respect for.
Boy, what a .. . I'm a real dope.
At this moment, Robert seems to achieve a truly new kind of
emotional awareness. For the first time, he can experience the
world in a different way, free from a set of stifling rules imposed
by a group of naive kids. Up to this point, although Robert
 Challenging a Cultural Script 141

''knew" that the rules made no sense, he was unable to let go of

them. Now, suddenly, he does let go.
Richard: Go back to that previous statement, "I don't respect your
rules."
Robert: Well I, I suppose I've been, I've been afraid of them. Up
until now. But now I've decided I don't respect them, I'm not going
to pay any attention to them.
Richard: Louder.
Robert: I'm not going to pay any attention to them.
Richard: Shout it now.
Robert: (shouting) I'm not going to pay any attention to them!
Richard: And furthermore. . .
Robert: Well, I don't now if there's any "furthermore." (pause) I
guess, what I want to, I don't know what I want to say. I wish that
there was somebody around who.. .who what?. . .Who was more
mature than you. Somebody our age. Somebody who felt free to be
sexual with guys and girls, and felt OK about it. If there was
somebody around like that, then I think I could openly let you
know what I think of you.
Robert asks for exactly what he himself may be able to provide, a
peer who will understand, will be a model for openness about
sexual feelings and behavior. I t i s important that Robert learn to
be his own "backup,"so that he can stand up for himself outside
the therapy situation. Richard won't speak for him, but will
support his speakingfor himself; thus the "backup"can gradually
be withdrawn as Robert begins to experience his own potency.
Richard: Openly do it now. I'll back you up.
Robert: Well, Ijust think you're a real stink: You're just a peabrain.
Richard: Tell him how you been following him all these years.
Robert: Oh, it's, I can't believe it. Oh, I can't believe it!
Rebecca: Say the whole thing, Robert. I can't believe. . .
Robert: I just can't believe that I would have.. . I mean, I did the
same thing as you did, I took in these stupid rules without even
thinking about them. I guess we're both kinda dumb. But it was, it
was just easier to go along with what everybody else thought, and
not think for myself.
Richard: And right here, today?
142 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Robert: Well, today I am thinking for myself. And I really want to,
I'm really going to. I'm not going to feel uncomfortable because
you did. I'm not going to, you can have your uncomfortableness
back. That's not going to be a part of me.
This is the decision that the teenage Robert needs to make. How
will his introjected ego respond-how stubbornly will that part
cling to its condemnation of Robert's choice?
Rebecca: Switch, and see what he says, Robert. (Robert moves to
the "Lance" spot) Respond, Lance.
Robert (as Lance): Hm. Well, that's fine; you can do your own
thing, but just don't bother me.
Richard: Now tell him the psychological message underneath that.
That's a nice social message, and the meaning . . .
Robert (as Lance): (pause) Well, that's fine if you want to do that,
but I don't want to know about it. Don't bother me with it. Idon't,
yeah, I don't want to know about it.
The introjected attitude has shifted significantly, from being
disgusted and revolted at the very idea of homosexuality, to a
willingness to look the other way. But does this mean that Robert
must still live with a quietly disapproving part of himself?I f so, his
teenage Child will need firm and unmistakable support and
acceptance from his Adult ego state, so that over time the
introjected self-condemnation can be dissipated. Strengthening
the self-confidence and approval of his Adult ego state, his sense
of the irrationality of the introjected position, will allow the
process of integration that was begun there to continue.
Rebecca: Sounds like you're saying "Go live in your separate
world, Robert."
Robert (as Lance): Oh, yeah, I am. Um-hm.
Richard: Tell him that: "That's what I'm asking you to do, Robert.
To get psychologically gone."
Robert (as Lance): Oh, yeah, go live in your own world.
Richard: "You don't belong here."
Robert (as Lance): Yeah. That's right. You don't belong here.
By heightening the intensity of the impasse between what was an
introjected norm and the rest of the personality, Robert can be
helped to experience the unreasonableness, the impossibility,
of the Lance position. Seeing that position as unmistakably
 Challenging a Cultural Script 143

irrational, he can again refuse to buy into it, cognitively or

emotionally.
Richard: Now switch. Respond to Lance, at the psychological level.
Robert: (movingto the other place on the mat) I don't know what
you mean by "belong here." I mean, I belong in the world.
Richard: Louder.
Robert: I belong in the world, and I'm going to be the way I am.
And if you don't like it, that is just tough shit. I don't care. I just, I
don't care.
Richard: Is that true, that you don't care?
Robert: Yeah. Yeah. (pause)If, if he's willing to be my friend, that's
fine. If he doesn't want to, it doesn't really matter, there're a lot
more interesting, worthwhile people around. (pause) Yeah.
Richard: Anything more you want to say to Lance before you say
good-bye to him?The standard-bearer of the high school?Imagine
him with a big American flag right behind him, standing in front of
the school.
Robert: I feel sorry for you. I really feel sorry for you.
Richard: Band's playing in the background .. .
Robert: Yeah, I feel sorry for you. (pause) Because I think, you
know, Ithink you'regoing to miss a lot in life, by limiting yourself. If
you want to stay in your rigid little straitjacket, go ahead. Yeah, go
ahead. (pause) Yeah, Idon't think I need to say any more. Yeah, ..
I'm finished with him.

Robert really does seem to be finished. His face is smooth, his

posture relaxed. Lance's attitudes and values have become ego
alien; they are no longer a part of Robert's own self. There are,and
always will be, people like Lance in the world, but Robert no longer
needs to experience a part of himself allied with them. He can feel
sorry for them, but he no longer needs to fear them.
There is no magic in this kind of therapy of the exteropsyche,
although it often looks and sounds magical. Robert has experienced
a very real shift in his deeply held perceptions, perceptions and
expectations acquired years ago and held out of awareness ever
since. By bringing them to awareness, and allowing him to react to
them emotionally as well as cognitively, the therapy has given him
an opportunity to reject them-something that could not happen
144 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

as long as the whole package of disapproval and guilt was kept

underground. But self-acceptance is a process, not a thing: Robert
will need to continue to nurture his sense of OK-ness, and to
disown the introjeaed disapproval. Like a seedling, his new
experiencing of himself must be tended, fed, and protected so that
it can grow intoa strong, firmly rooted, and integrated aspect of his
total person.
 EMILY
From Dream to Script

In ordinary clinical practice, clients seldom walk into the office, sit
down, and begin to deal with their basicconflicts. Many new clients
present the symptoms of their problem, and do not understandthat
the roots of their present discomfort are deeply buried and out of
awareness. The therapist needs to respect the presented problem,
while at the same time focusing on the deeper issues.
Workshop and intensive group participants, too, are often
unaware of where their work will take them. Although these clients
are frequently sophisticated in the area of psychotherapy, they may
be quite unaware of their own personal dynamics. It is always easier
to see the forest when you're not lost among the trees!
There are many ways in which therapist and client can work
together to open a path into the introjections or childhood
decisions that will eventually need to be explored. Dream work i s
146 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

one such avenue. Working with dreams has a long and respectable
history: Even before the landmark work of Freud in the late 1800s,
physicians and philosophers had studied and speculated about the
implications of dreams. Dream analysis today takes many forms,
from the traditional psychoanalytic approach to the more active
approaches of Gestalt therapy.
Emily's work, presented in this chapter, begins with a Gestalt
treatment of dream material. Emily anticipates working with both
Richard and Rebecca; as we shall see, the dream directly involves
both of these individuals. As the meaning of the dream becomes
clear, the therapists shift to the style with which we have become
more familiar in previous chapters, helping Emily to deal with
Parental introjects. We join the work as Emily begins to relate the
contents of a dream from the previous night:

Emily: (speakingto Richard) Rebecca had asked me for a padlock,

and Isaid sure, I have a padlock. And I gave it to you. And I had the
combination to go with it. And then you came in into the room
downstairs, and said to me, Emily, we can't use the padlock, because
we can't find the combination. And I said, well I gave you the
combination. Well, we don't have it, we can't find it,so we can't use
it. And Isaid, well I don't remember the combination. And you said,
well, look in your yearbook, and you'll find it there. And I said, I
don't, even in the dream I was thinking, it wouldn't be in my
yearbook. But I looked in my yearbook, and there was a combi-
nation in there, and I told you that there was a combination there.
And it was my measurements. I mean, the combination number was
what my measurements were.
Richard: You mean, like (makes an hourglass shape with his
hands) ...
Emily: Yes. And I said, here are three numbers, but Idon't think it's
the combination. And you took the numbers, and that was the end
of the dream.
Richard: Fascinating dream. You want to work with it?
Emily: Sure.
The first step in working with the dream involves teasing out the
meaning of the various symbols. Unlike the psychoanalytic and
lungian approaches, in which dream symbols are assumed to
 From Dream to Script 147

have universal meanings, Gestalt dream work encourages the

client to discover his or her own idiosyncratic symbolism. Emily's
manner, up to this point, has been tense, fearful, "locked in,"
andit is likely that the lock in the dream issignificantlyconnected
to her internal experience of herself. Richard chooses the lock,
therefore, as a starting place.
Richard: just close your eyes. Put yourself back into the mood of
.
that dream.. Describe yourself as that padlock. Do it all i n the first
person: "I am a padlock,'' and describe all the characteristics of
being a lock. (pause) Do it out loud. What I'm looking for more is
what catches you by surprise, than what you say. Close your eyes,
and go ahead: "I'm a padlock.. ."
..
Emily (as the lock): I'm a padlock, uh . locked shut. Piece of steel,
can't get open without the correct combination.
When parts of the self are fragmented, the function of dreaming
is often integration of those parts. Each part of the dream i s a
projection of some aspect of the dreamer; each statement about
something in the dream is a statement about the dreamer. I n
order to experience the full impact of these statements, Emily
needs to own them, to bring them back to herself rather than
talking about an "out thereJ' object.
Richard: Start each sentence with "I"
I(
... say all those again, with
l am."
Emily (as the lock): I can't, OK, I, I'm a padlock. Ifeel like steel. Feel
locked shut. Feel that I don't have the correct combination to get
open.
Richard: Say that sentence again.
Repeatinga particular sentence or phrase tends to emphasize it,
to set it out in mental italics.
Emily (as the lock): I feel like I don't have the correct combination
to get open.
Richard: Keep going, padlock. Describe your function.
Emily (as the lock): My function is to keep things locked up so
nobody can get at them. To keep things protected.
Richard: Keep going, padlock.
Emily (as the lock): Once I, once I click locked, there's no way to
open me up without the correct combination.
Richard: Switch, and be the combination, and describe yourself.
148 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Emily (as the combination): I'm the combination. I am three

correct numbers,and only three. Have to go to the right, to the left
around past the number and back to the number, and then to the
right. Exactly that way in order to have me open the lock. If I'm not
doing it exactly that way, nothing will work.
Richard could have stayed with the combination, exploring the
way i n which "it" functions, or could have gone back to the lock,
and the relationship between the two. But he wants a better
sense of the overall meaning of the dream, so he moves on.
Richard: Now be the Rebecca in the dream,and describe yourself.
Emily (as Rebecca): I'm very frustrated that I don't have the
combination toopen the lock so that Ican use it. It's not any good to
me unless I can have the combination. It's a piece of trash, the lock
is a piece of trash without the combination. I need to have the
combination.
Each new elaboration brings out more information about Emily's
feelings, experience, expectations. I t is still early, and much
remains unclear; Richardis stillconcerned with allowing Emilyto
uncover her own meanings. He i s careful to keep his comments
neutral, so as not to intrude his own hypotheses into the picture
that is emerging. His task is to keep the work moving, without
prematurely closing off possible avenues for later exploration.
Richard: Keep going, Rebecca. Say that to Emily.
Emily (as Rebecca): Emily, I need to have the combination in order
to work the lock. The lock i s worthless to me without the
combination. I need the lock to protect my things, but it's no good
to me if I can't open it up and get at my things.
Richard: Tell her what you mean by the word "trash."
Emily (as Rebecca): What good is a lock that stays locked?
Richard: Now be the lock, and respond. (pause) Just make a
response, lock.
Emily (as the lock): You're right, I'm no good without the combi-
nation. And I just will be thrown away, without the combination.
I'm worthless without the combination. Totally worthless.
Richard: Now be Rebecca and respond.
Emily (as Rebecca): You're right, you are worthless without the
combination. A lock is no good unless it can be opened.
Richard: Repeat that sentence.
 From Dream to Script 149

Emily: A lock is not good unless it can be opened. A lock that stays
locked is a piece of trash.
Richard: Describe yourself again, lock.
Emily (as the lock): I'm a piece of trash unless I can be opened. I'm
no good if I stay locked.
Here is a clear existential statement. I n addition to wanting
additional professional training, Emilyhas come to the workshop
to learn about herself, to deal with her internal pain. She doesn't
know how to get into her out-of-awareness issues; they (andshe)
are locked up. And as long as she stays locked, she is n o good, a
''piece of trash." Richard decides to look further, to discover
what the other parts of the dream are saying:
Richard: Now be the yearbook and describe yourself.
Emily: (speaking in a shaky, breathless tone) I'm no good unless I
have perfect measurements. 34,24,34. Has to be maintained at all
times.
The statement that she is no good without her perfect measure-
ments is something new for Emily; it had not been i n her
awareness before. It is frightening to her, and yet compelling. For
the first time, she fails to follow the directions of the therapist.
Instead of shifting, as he requests, Emily continues to talk about
the importance of those measurements. She i s like a bird
transfixed by a cobra: terrified, yet unable to move away.
Richard: And maintaining it protects you from . ..
Emily: Being a real person, with feeling.
Richard: (very softly) A real person, with feeling.
Emily: Very scared of that.
Richard: A real person, with feeling, or a shapely, closed-up piece
of steel.
Emily: (her voice is very frightened) It's like I'm no good without
the correct measurements.
Emily's words and voice both attest to her fright; she looks ready
to bolt from the room. I n order to plan for the pacing of her
work, Richard needs a better sense of how well grounded she is,
of how much scare she can tolerate. The content of the dream
gives him a fine opportunity to look for this information without
changing his overall approach. The old inn i n which the
workshop i s held has a ground floor dormitory room, still
150 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

partially under construction; i t i s this room i n which Emily has

chosen to sleep, and to which she referred in the dream.
Allowing her to experience herself as that room (remember,
every part of a dream is a projection of some unintegratedpart of
the dreamer) will help her to find her solid, groundedaspect, and
it will also give the therapists an opportunity to see just how well
grounded she is.
Richard: Switch, and be the downstairs room.
Emily: Be what?
Richard: That downstairs room, and describe yourself. (pause)
Describe yourself, room.
Emily (as the room): I'm a brand-new room. Everything there
seems new, even the people. I feel like a stranger in there. I don't
understand why Richard's coming into the room, except that I
know he wants to get the combination for the lock.
Richard: Say your next idea.
Emily: (pause) The room feels cold.
Richard: Say that in the first person, room.
Emily (as the room): I feel cold.
Richard: Describe more of yourself. "I'm cold; I'm . .. "

Emily (as the room): (pause) Damp and unfriendly. Distant. Unfamil-
iar. Brand new.
The strategy has been successful. Emily is back with the dream,
and no longer sounds terrified. She does have a solid, depend-
able base that she can use for grounding and protection. Having
determined this, Richard moves on:
Richard: Now be Richard. Describe yourself.
Emily (as Richard): I'm in a hurry, cause I need something real bad.
And I want to be quick about it, and not take a lot of time. (pause)
Guess that's it.
Richard: Now talk to the Emily in the room, Richard.
Emily (as Richard): Emily, if you look in the yearbook, Ithink you'll
find the combination there.
Richard: Tell her what you mean, Richard.
Emily (as Richard): You know where to look for things, uh .. . (her
voice sounds frightened again) and ... if you get the kind of
coaching on where to look, you can find what you're looking for.
 From Dream to Script 151

Everybody needs some help on where to look. And Iwould suggest

that you look there.
As Richard i n the dream, she offers help andsuggests that the key
to the lock-to her own dilemma-is hidden i n the yearbook.
Richard: Tell her about your suggestion, Richard. What kind of
wisdom went into suggesting the yearbook?
Emily (as Richard): (sighing) I don't know. I'm not coming up with
anything.
Richard: Well, be Emily and respond to Richard.
Emily: I just don't know how you know that that's where I need to
look for the combination. How come I don't know where to look
for the combination?
Richard: Be Richard and respond.
Notice that we have now gone well beyond the actual events of
the dream. Emily i s creating new dialogue, through which the
dream characters and objects will be able to tell their story even
more clearly.
Emily (as Richard): I'm not saying, Emily, that that's where you're
going to find it; I'm just suggesting that you might look there as a
possibility.
Richard: Be Emily and respond to Richard. With what you dis-
covered in the yearbook.
Emily: Richard, I found three numbers in the yearbook that look
like the combination to the lock. You'll have to try those numbers
out on the lock,and see if they'll open the lock. I don't know if they
will. But I did find three numbers in the book, as you suggested that
I look there.
Rebecca: What about those numbers?
Emily: The numbers were 34-24-34.
Richard: Tell him what those numbers mean.
Emily: And those numbers are the measurements that I always try
very hard to maintain, no matter what.
Richard: Now look at the year on the yearbook. What's the date?
Emily: 1957.
Richard: And take the dream further. Look at that yearbook even
further. To find the important inscription in that yearbook.
Because it is a yearbook, it must have a year. It is likely that the
152 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

year she chooses will be the year i n which some traumatic event
occurred, an event that is connected to her decision to lock
herself away. Emily comes up with this information easily, so
Richard decides to find out how much more she will be able to
"read" from the yearbook.
Emily: (pause) Under my name it says, "Thou Swell.'' I don't know
who put it there, or why I wound up with that.
Richard: Describe what it means.
Emily: (very frightened, almost unable to speak) Ahh ...
Richard: Say it again, several times.
Emily: Thou Swell.
Richard: Say it with the meaning.
Emily: (pause) I think, um, I think I just tried to be perfect in so
many ways that it just came across that way. To whoever was writing
those captions under the pictures.
Richard: Now'finish the dream, as you look into the 1957yearbook.
You've given Richard the combination. It's your dream; now finish
it. Out loud.
Emily: I, um, to finish the dream I would, at this point in my life I'd
like a happy ending. I would like the combination to work.
Richard: Tell that to Richard and Rebecca.
Emily: Richard, I want this combination to work for me. Please do
what you can to make it work.
Richard: Now respond, Richard.
Emily (as Richard): I'll do whatever I can, Emily, to make it work.
And if this one doesn't work, we'll find another one. Until one of
them works. Because you don't have to stay locked up for the rest of
your life. I know that, and I want you to know that too.
Rebecca: Be Emily again, and tell Richard how those numbers are
going to be perfect for unlocking that lock. How they're just the
right numbers.
Emily: Idon't, Idon't know if they're just the right numbers. Those
are the numbers Isaw in the book. Idon't know, Richard, if they will
work. Those are the three numbers in the book that I found. And
you asked-
Richard: Trust in your intuition, what they represent.
Emily: (pause) I don't know if they're the combination to the lock,
 From Dream to Script 153

.
or if they're my measurements.. I'm just uh, asking Richard to try
them to see if they will unlock the padlock. Idon't know, if they will.
And I don't know if I'm answering the question. Am I?
Emily has pulledaway from the dream experience, and addresses
a direct question to the therapists. The initial work contract has
been met: She has explored the dream, and experienced its
message for her. Rather than take her back into more dream
work, and run the risk of pushing her farther and faster than she is
ready to go, Richardchooses to engage her Adult ego state as a
full, cooperating partner in deciding what to do next.
Richard: What do you make of all this, Emily?Will you look at us?
Obviously a profound experience for you.
Emily: I think all of the parts you had me talk from, it's the lock,
that stays locked. That I won't believe I will ever have the
combination to.
Richard: What did you lock up in 19571
Emily: Me.
Richard: How come?
Emily: Cause Iwas scared.
Rebecca: At 17 years old? Scared of. ..
Emily: (sounding frightened again) I just think I made a decision
then that no one would ever take advantage of me again.
Richard: The significant word was "again." Who was taking advan-
tage of you?
Emily: Uh, when I was 12 1 was taking accordion lessons, and, uh,
my accordion teacher locked me into his practice room and started
to try a few things on me. And Itried to get out, and Itold him that I
wanted to get out now, and, uh, and he tried to pull me away from
the door, and I, uh, I remember Iscratched him, not real bad, just a
little bit. And Iremember he opened the door and let me out. And
that's, uh...
Richard: Your 34-24-34 body. ..
Emily: No, not at 12. Although I was overdeveloped for my age.
Richard: I watched you get very tense last night. The reason I
turned to you during Jean's work was that you seemed to be
resonating off of what she was doing.
The previous evening, one of the other workshop participants
154 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

had done a very intense piece of work dealing with the

experience of being sexually abused by her father.
Emily: She was working with six-year-old stuff. Iwasn't that young.
Six is a little different.
Richard: The experience of being molested is the same at any age.
It's violation. That's what you're getting, is a violation. How did you
make that decision at 17?
We now have at least two and possibly three Child ego states in
the picture (all of whom were frightened by the incest work of
another group member the previous evening, and may be
identifying with her): The 77-year-old whose decision to stay
locked up was symbolized by her high school yearbook; the
72-year-old who was molested by a teacher; andpossibly an even
younger child. It's likely that the later two points served to
reinforce an earlier decision or belief, or that even those
memories are connected to a still earlier situation i n which the
original scripting occurred. The therapists need more informa-
tion, and will continue to work with Emily to sort all of this out.
Emily: Well, urn, I just seemed to have a series of events after that,
with different guys, that, um, brought me to that conclusion.
Richard: All of them wanting to get their hands on your body?How
come you decided to have a perfect body? How come you didn't
make the decision to have a very skinny, or a very fat body?
Emily: I, later on I got anorexic, got very skinny. After I made the
decision I went down to about 88 pounds.
The therapists continue to probe for material around the script
decision, and how Emily acted it out through her anorexia. They
discover that she has made a more overt suicide attempt, in
addition to the self-starvation, and that it was the caringattention
of a friend who helped her to pull out of the self-destructive
spiral. All of these later events appear to be directly tied to the
molestation experience, and i t is here that Richard chooses to
move in. We pick up the work again as Richard invites Emily into
an age regression:
Richard: Just close your eyes. Just go back, and take a moment to
look at your accordion. How your fingers would feel on those keys;
and as you do that, remember what it was like as your breasts began
to develop. Now look at that accordion teacher, and look at that
locked door in his little room.. .And look at him starting tocome at
 From Dream to Script 155

you. And you put him out there, and you talk to him. I'll be here
with you, Emily, to back you up. (there is a long silence; Richard
moves closer to Emily and continues) I'm right here. You just talk to
him. You tell him the things you wanted to say.
Emily: (very longpause) I have a . . . I think before I start on that I
think the thing that's popping into my mind right now i s what really
bothered me, uh, more than him, touching my breasts, was, urn,
when it was time to go for my next lesson Iwouldn't go. And then
finally my mother wanted to know how come Ididn't want to go any
more. And Itold her what happened and she screamed at me at the
top of her lungs not to tell Dad because he would go down there
and kill the man.
As traumatic as the molestation experience itself may have been,
Mother's reaction to i t was even more painful. This is where
Emily's energy is, and Richard follows her lead.
Richard: Talk to Mom.
Emily: And I really got scared. (her voice shakes) That I had done
something really bad.
Richard: Say that to Mom.
Emily: And so (her voice i s terrified) I knew right then and there I
could never leave the house again. That I was dangerous or
something.
Emily's voice is that of a child; she sounds much younger now
than she has previously. Richard, responding to this shift, uses
language more appropriate to a little girl.
Richard: You put your mama right there, and tell her how. Juststart
with what you know about.
Emily: (sighs)
Richard: Want me to do it for you?
Emily: I have a lot of problem with doing that because, uh ...
another incident that I had with her, she went crazy on me, and
uh ...
Richard: So you're in a real double bind. When you're needing
something and your mom goes crazy. (Richard turns slightly to
address an imaginary mom) Mom, Emily's gotta tell you something.
About what happened, and how it really happened. And don't go
crazy. You sit there and you listen to her. No, don't shake your head
156 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

"no," Mom. You're not going to go crazy. Your daughter was in a

difficult situation and you just sit there and listen. She's gotta tell
you exactly how it happened, Mom, so she can grow up healthy.
(shouting) Sit down, Mom, and listen. No hysterics!
Emily, overwhelmed by her fear of Mother's craziness, cannot
confront her and thus close the gestalt of her (Emily's) unmet
need. The power scales of that relationship are strongly tilted i n
Mother's favor. Richard comes in on Emily's side, evening the
balance. He uses his strength and authority to nullify Mother's
threat to go crazy (and thus abandon Emily), so that Emily can
finish what was begun and left unfinished for so many years. As
we shall see, Emily continues to be afraid to deal with Mother;
she talks about Mother to Richard, who i n turn continues to
direct her back to the confrontation.
Emily: You see, the thing that happened was, she wanted me to say
the Lord's prayer over and over (Emily can barely force the words
out), and that's what keeps running through my mind, is that I have
to do that.
Richard: Tell her what you really need, Emily, from inside.
Emily: I can see that, at this other level I know that she's not going
to be able to handle it.
Rebecca: We'll take care of your mom. Just start with saying,
"Mom, I need you to hear me. I need you to understand."
Emily: Ahhh . .. This is really hard for me, because she was never
there for me.
Rebecca: Tell her that. "Hard for me to tell you ... " (pause) "I
need you there for me, Mom. I need you to be in tune with me."
Emily: Iwish you could just listen and, uh, and be with me instead
of going crazy.
At last, Emily finds the strength to address Mother directly.
Rather than ask her to elaborate, the therapists choose to stay
with this simple request, strengthening it, and letting Emily pick
up momentum in the process.
Richard: Say that same thing again. And say it a little louder.
Emily: I wish you could listen and be with me instead of just
screaming and going crazy.
Richard: Try it once more, now, as a demand.
 From Dream to Script 157

Emily: (shouting, through tears) Iwant you to listen and be with me

instead of just screaming and going crazy!
Rebecca: (softly) Good, Emily, you're doing fine. Just keep going.
Let those feelings come. (louder) "Cause when you go crazy. ." .
Emily: When you go crazy that scares the livingshit right out of me.
Rebecca: Cause tell her what you start thinking about yourself.
Having noted Emily's earlier comment that she couldn't go out of
the house because she was "dangerous," Rebecca wants to
check out whether this self-concept is connected to a belief that
she is responsible for her mother's craziness.
Emily: What Istart thinking about myself is there'ssomething really
wrong with me.
.
Richard: Say it again. If you're crazy. .
Emily: When you went crazy listening to me and what I was trying
to say to you, it made me feel like there was something wrong with
me. And so what I did was make sure that I would fix it so that I
would never ever do anything wrong again.
Rebecca: And tell her what you really need, Emily.
Emily: What 1 really need is somebody to listen, be with me, so
that I can breathe and be real.
Rebecca: Right now, just take that breath. And feel all those
feelings.
Richard: (placing his hand on her diaphragm) Breathe right down
in there.
Rebecca: Now tell her about that hurt, deep inside.
By makingphysical contact, Richard accomplishesseveral things.
First, he provides support for the Child Emily at a tactile level,
support that she can take in and use even when she cannot
completely handle the verbal interchange. Second, he coaches
her breathing, both with the verbal-tactile combination ("breathe
to here") and by usingpressureand release to pace the breathing
pattern. Finally, the touch is diagnostic: He can monitor the
spontaneous breathing rhythm as well as the degree of muscle
tension in her midsection, and use this to guide his interventions.
Emily: (crying hard) The hurt is so bad, it's prevented me from ever
having my own k-, k- (the sobs are choking off her words) from
ever having my own kids.
158 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Richard: Tell Mom what you decided, Emily.

Emily: I decided I would never allow myself to live again.
Rebecca: That's it, breathe right into that. And tell your Mama that
decision you made. If you go crazy, Mom ...
Emily: I made a very bad decision for myself.. . I've been able to do
a lot of things anyway, but I've missed out on a lot of things I really
wanted to do.
Richard: Tell her about the living you stopped yourself from
doing.
Emily: I stopped myself from living. Really regret that now.
Richard: Tell her how you did that.
Emily: I didn't live because I never let anybody close to me again.
Richard: 'Cause when you don't listen to me, Mom . ..
Emily: (pause) What I did, Mom, was that Iwent out and Ilooked for
some "mother" people. To find some kind of direction and get
somebody to listen to me. And then Iremember that when you got
out of the hospital, how you hated that, how I was spending too
much time at somebody else's house.
Rebecca: Tell her what you did then.
Emily: (pause)Ifind it very difficult to tell her what Iwas doing then,
because . .. (her fist is clenching on the mat)
Richard: But your hand is talking. There's tension in that fist.
Emily: My mother was incapable of hearing anything about sex.
Richard: (holding his hand up to her fist, so that she can push
against i t ) Push here. Push against her, instead of against you, and
say it again. "You are incapable." (pause)Say that again to her. Feel
the tension in your fist.
Emily tends to get lost in the words, or in the need to find words
for what she feels; she then either breaks away from the
emotional contact with Mother, or becomes mute and terrified.
By encouraging her to push out against Mother, the therapists
provide a way for her to express herself without having to find
words. As the emotional expressionand release come, the words
will follow more easily.
Emily: (she pushes, hard, saying nothing)
Rebecca: Just push; let yourself feel all of that.
 From Dream to k r i p t 159

Emily: You're incapable of hearing anything about sex!

Rebecca: Keep going.
Emily: And sometimes I think you want me to be sexless or
something.
Rebecca: And tell her how you feel about that, that she wanted you
to be sexless.
Emily: (shouting) But how can you want me to be sexless in a real
world? Idon't know where you're coming from! I never understood
you anyway!
Being "sexless" may mean a variety of things. What's important
here is what it means to Emily, and what she did about dealing
with that demand from Mother. Rather than assume that they
understand what Emily means, Richard asks her to define it; he i s
careful to do so in the context of her encounter with Mother.
Richard: And if you want me to be sexless, that means. . .
Emily: That means I lock myself up. And I've done enough of it!
Rebecca: Yeah, say that again to her.
Emily: (screaming) I've done enough of it!
Richard: Just open your mouth, and scream it! "No!"
Emily: No, I'm not going to be sexless! (she i s pounding a pillow
with the clenched fist) I'm not going to lock myself up for you! 1
can't believe you wanted that for me!
To say "no" to the unreasonable demands, real or imagined, of a
parent is a major recurring developmental task. Most children
receive explicit instruction in how to say "yesD'-that is, how to
adapt to the rules of the family and the larger society-but
seldom are supported in saying "no." Those who don't learn on
their own are forced to go through life as Emily has done,
threading their way through a mine field of forbidden thoughts,
feelings, and behaviors. In this last statement, Emily begins to
experience the strength of her own "no," but quickly backs off,
redefining the relationship with Mother as one in which Mother
didn't make the unreasonabledemand after all. Rebecca, noting
the danger of readaptation, supports Emily's expressingher "no"
even more intensely.
Rebecca: Try it with both hands, Emily. (Emilysighs, andburies her
head i n her hands) You don't have to hide, Emily. What you're
doing is just right. You need to say a lot of those things.
160 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Emily: (weeping) I can't believe my life turned out like this!

Rebecca: Tell her, "I'm angry that my life turned out like this."
Again, Rebecca moves to counter Emily's tendency to readapt
andshut down. Rather than swallow the anger, she is directed to
put it out where it belongs. Becauseshe is well into the work, and
has allowed herself to experience the angry feelings, she is able
to comply with the directions, to pick up the threadand continue
to work.
Emily: (poundingthe pillow) I'm so angry with you that when Isee
you, I want to choke you. I know I would never do it, but.. . I want
to shake you, real bad!
Rebecca: Go ahead and do it. Grab the pillow. Go ahead and shake
it, so you're not locking up your arms, too. And scream at her,at the
same time. Open up your mouth, Emily, and let it come.
Emily: (shakingpillow violently) You were bringing up a girl, you
had to teach me something! You couldn't stay in your depression
forever and a day! (screams) And you're still in it!
Rebecca: Yeah, scream it at her. "Get out of your depression!"
Emily: You're still in that goddamn depression! I hate you for that!
Rebecca: Yeah. (shouts)"Listen to me! Get out of your depression
and listen to me!"
Emily: Justget out of it for one second! I can tell you in one second!
Richard: So tell her now. Just shake her out of it, and tell her.
Emily: I can't believe you wanted me to be sexless! I just can't
believe it, it's so hard to believe it! (sobs)
Rebecca: Yeah, you do believe it, though. Tell her what you're
feeling.
Emily: Justlast year Isaid to her, I really am thinkingseriouslyabout
adopting a child. And she says, "Well why didn't you have one
when you were supposed to?"
Rebecca: Tell her, Emily.
Emily: (sobs, unable to speak)
Rebecca: Tell her the answer to that, the real answer.
Emily: I can't do it. I've thought about it so many times, but it's just
like I'd be doing it to, to get back at her or something.
Richard: Then do it here. Tell her the real reason. So you don't
carry that Spook around inside your head.
 From Dream to Script 161

Richard refers directly here t o the Parent ego state, the intro-
jected values and perceptions and expectations of Emily's
"crazy" mother, which Emily has been responding to, out of
awareness, as if they were a part of her. In order to "de-Spook"
herself, Emily needs openly to renounce these introjects, both
cognitively and emotionally-to defy and say "no" to the
craziness, thus clearing the way for a new decision about how she
will live her life.
Emily: I haven't been able to have kids because I learned how to be
phobic. And it's been my whole life.
Richard: In order t o . ..
Emily: (still sobbing) In order to protect myself and to be sexless.
Richard: Listen to that adolescent decision.
Emily: So I wouldn't ever, ever do anything that would cause you to
go crazy.
Richard: Tell her what life is going to be like in the future, if you
continue to live this way.
Emily: (pause) I f I continue this way, there is a part of me that
doesn't want to be here.
The suicide theme recurs. It is as if Emily is warning the therapists
that these are indeed deep waters, that if she is to continue her
process she needs to finish, go all the way through it; she will not
tolerate being left in the middle, aware but unresolved.
Rebecca: Emily, tell her how you protected her. By being phobic.
Emily's phobias (she had revealed earlier in the workshop that
she had once counted more than 30 objects or situations about
which she was phobic) served to protect her from having to deal
with the terror and pain of her early experiences; they may also
have provided her with some tangible secondary gains. More
important in this piece of work, however, is the way in which the
whole phobic pattern protects Emily's introjected Parent ego
state: By maintaining her own script system through phobic
responses, Emily avoids dealing with Mother. In the shadow logic
of childhood, Mother will be kept sane only if Emily is good,
agreeable, adaptive--and sexless. Being phobic guards her
against her natural sexuality, and thus ensures less conflict with
the intrapsychic influence of the introjected mother.
Emily: (sigh) I did. I'm still doing it.
162 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Tell her that. By being phobic. ..

Emily: Can't believe how you went crazy right in front of me.
Richard: You believed what you were seeing.
Emily: And I've always been afraid it was going to happen to me.
Every time I had an anxiety attack, of course, it was the proof. This
was it.
Richard: Now tell her what you were truly anxious about.
Emily: What I am truly anxious about with her?
Richard: Yeah. Like what it's like to have a mama you can't rely on.
Who's not solid and dependable.
Emily: It's always felt like one great big discount. Like she wanted a
daughter, but she didn't really want a real daughter. She wanted my
hair to be pretty, she wanted everything about me to be pretty. But
she didn't want me to be me.
Richard: Say it to her: "You wanted . . ."
Emily: You wanted me to be real pretty, and to be able to say when I
walked out of the house, there goes my beautiful daughter, isn't she
beautiful? But you never wanted me to be real. That's what blew
your mind. Iwas some kind of a Barbie doll. Real kids are real kids!
The energy level ebbs and flows, as Emily moves into confronting
Mother and then pulls back to talk to the therapists about what
Mother did to her. Again and again the therapists redirect her,
encouraging her to deal directly with Mother. And with each
return to the confrontation, Emily appears to gain both strength
and insight into how she adapted, compromised, set into
operation the maladaptive responses that eventually developed
into a constrictedand phobic life-style. Cognition, emotion, and
intent to changeare all present in this work. Piece by piece, Emily
is laying the foundation for a new way of relating to Mother, and
to the world that she has (up to now) been experiencing in the
context of the old catastrophic fears.
Rebecca: And that means . ..
Emily: That means you don't just dress 'em up.
Rebecca: "Don't dress me up, Mom."
Emily: (pounding) The biggest thrill of your life was to see me in the
Rainbow Girls, dressed up in those frilly gowns. That's what you
thought it was all about. Meanwhile I was encountering all these
 From Dream to Script 163

other experiences in the real world, and I needed you to talk to, and
you just weren't there.
Richard: Tell her now, all about your real experiences.
Emily: I'm still protecting her.
Richard: Tell her.
Emily: I'm still protecting you, Mom.
Richard: Tell her what a good mother you are to her.
Emily: I'm really good. I'm a mom to you.
Emily is encouraged to look at her own behavior with Mom i n
terms of its strength, its purpose. As she begins to experience her
actions as choices, rather than as something she was forced into,
she will be able to recognize that there were (and are) other
options as well.
Richard: Cause as long as I protect you . ..
Emily: As long as I protect you, I'll be protected myself.
Richard: Say that again, and listen to it carefully.
Emily: (longpause) As long as Ikeep protecting her, I can still hang
on to it myself.
Richard: Now tell her about the experiences in the real world.. .
Too soon?
As soon as she is invited to deal directly with Mother about those
loaded, real-world issues, Emily begins to collapse again. Her
face looks terrified and she seems almost to shrink physically.
Richard's "Too soon?" is a recognition of this; it also plants the
seed that, even though now may be too soon, Emily will
eventually do this work. With this introduction, Emily begins to
deal with the question o f how to get ready to move into the next
phase of her work.
Emily: Yeah. I don't know what it would take to do that.
Richard: A willingness to lose protection? Her protection of you?
Emily: A willingness to lose her protection of me?
Rebecca: A protection which was false, anyway. The myth that if
you don't tell her anything, she won't go crazy, and she'll be there
for you.
Emily: The myth that if I don't tell her anything, she'll be there
for me?
Rebecca: Yes. Cause she won't go crazy. The fear is that if you tell
164 1NTK;RATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

her about what's real, she'll go crazy, and then you'll lose your
mother. Is that right? By locking yourself inside, at least you can
pretend that she'stherefor you.. . You want to come back and look
at me, Emily?You understand what I'm saying?
Emily has been staring down at her hands, locked together i n her
lap. She is beginning to withdraw, to close down on her contact
with the therapist, and may be reexperiencing the old sense of
aloneness and abandonment. To forestall this, Rebecca invites
her to "come back" and make contact with her again.
Emily: That I pretend that she's there for me, but I know that, uh,
she just isn't, she's never been. She's always been a very depressed
person.
Rebecca: And what are you scared of when you think of really
telling her what went on?
Emily: Well, the other thing that I really feel bad about for her i s
that two years before I was born she had a very handicapped child,
that died, when he was nine. And all the while she was trying to take
care of me, and trying to get care for him, and find out if he could
even be helped, she felt that God had punished her for having that
. .
baby. And so, I just . I always. .. when I think about it on an
intellectual level I think, why should I add to the sadness that's
already gone on for her?So 1 know I protect her. I know I do that.
Emily has moved out of the regression, into an Adult consider-
ation of her relationship with Mother. But there i s a contami-
nation: She is unable to separate her need to protect herself (by
locking herself up, keeping Mother sane, and thus avoiding
abandonment) from her desire to protect Mother from addi-
tional distress. Emily's Child ego state is overwhelmed by the
strength, the craziness, the unpredictability of the intrapsychic
influence of her introjected mother. Even with the support of the
therapists, she has been unable to confront that Parent directly
and follow the confrontation through to a new and healthier
decision. Something needs to be done to upset the balance of
PO wer.
Rebecca: You said before, "I don't know what it would take for me
to be able to tell her." Ithink the next therapy piece we need to do
with you i s for us to talk to the mother inside of you. And if we take
care of her, at least somewhat, then I think that Child i n you will
have the safety and permission to go ahead and be real. But I think
 From Dream to Script 165

we need to adjust the Parent first. Then the ideal is, when we take
care of the Parent and take care of that Child then you will
experience yourself as being whole, today. You won't have those
two infringing on who you are today.
Emily: I don't think I've ever made a clear separation from my
mom. She was scared of everything, and still does that .. .
Rebecca: Yeah. I think a lot of your phobias are her. You took on
her scare. With some clear traumatic events to support your taking
on those scares, to validate the "Mom really had a reason to be
scared, and I should be like .. ." whatever you decided. That
protects you, and it protects her. But it keeps you two hooked.
That's why Ithink the next step is for us to work with the Parent, and
unhook that end of the hook. Then you'll be able to unhook the rest
yourself.
Emily and the therapists continue to talk for a few more minutes,
bringing the work to a close. Emily ends by saying that she wants
to leave the group now, to go and be by herself, but recognizes
that this is her old pattern of locking herself away; the therapists
agree and advise her to stay in the group-which she does.

Emily's script has been built both out of introjections-pieces

swallowed whole-from Mother (and perhaps from others as well;
we've not explored those avenues) and out of decisions that Emily
herself made. This is typical of most script patterns. Most of us
introject bits and pieces from the significant adults in our lives, and
we also (often unconsciously) make decisions about what we have
to do in order to get along with those adults. Then we spend our
lives, as Emily has done, playing out variations of the internal
dialogue-the Parent stimulus/Child response pattern. I n Emily's
work, the therapists recognized that both of these elements were
significant in the segment of script that determined Emily's compul-
sion to lock herself up. It was also clear, from the initial dream work,
that Emily was intellectually and emotionally invested in breaking
that compulsion, and wanted help from the therapists in doing
so-that is, she had formed a strong therapeutic alliance.
A number of gains were made in the course of this work. First,
Emily was able to experience her own dynamics, the conflict
between Child and Parent ego states, in a new way. She has new
cognitive as well as emotional information that she can integrate
166 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

and use to understandand modify her own behavior. The therapists

have also learned a great deal, and are now in a position to plan
Emily's future treatment; in fact, the final portion of the work
consisted of mutual treatment planning and contracting.
Finally, a major outcome was Emily's non-script-bound behavior
during the work itself. With the support and direction of the
therapists, she did begin to confront Mother, and she did reveal
parts of herself that had been locked up. Furthermore, nobody
went crazy or abandoned her as a result of that behavior. Her Child
ego state thus had the opportunity to experience new and
previously forbidden behavior, and to have that behavior rein-
forced rather than punished.
Emily did several more pieces of work during the workshop,
including a focus on her suicidal decision, with immediate cessation
of many of the phobic reactions. She continues in treatment with a
therapist in her home community. Her script pattern is deeply
entrenched, and Emily will need to renew these therapeutic
experiences in a variety of contexts before she will be free of it. But
she has made a significant beginning: There is a chink in the wall,
and she no longer sits alone in the darkness of her self-imposed
prison.
 SARAH
The Emerging Plan

Integrative psychotherapy maintains that the client frequently

knows, better than anyone else, what he or she needs to do. The
client is-when not hampered by his or her own denial-the
world's greatest expert on him- or herself, because he or she is the
only one who lives inside that particular skin. As the client's
awareness unfolds, he or she will let the therapist know what step is
next in the intricate therapeutic dance. At the same time, however,
integrative psychotherapistsare trained to think in terms of defense
mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment planning. We expect our-
selves to recognize our clients' script issues, to look beyond their
confusion and scare and resistance, to plan interventions that will
help them to go where they cannot go on their own. They know
best what they need-but we must know better than they. It feels
like a paradox,a contradiction, which demands resolution if weare
168 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

not to become paralyzed in our efforts to be both therapeutic and

respectful of our clients' inner wisdom. How can this paradox be
resolved?
Actually, the paradox is more apparent than real. Diagnosis in
integrative psychotherapy has to do with identifying the ways in
which a client interrupts and distorts contact, both internally and
externally. Internally, the therapist looks for splits (in which one or
more aspect of the self is experienced as separated out and in
conflict with theothers), for introjects (some "foreign body," some
thought/feeling/behavior configuration that has been borrowed
from another person and not integrated into the self), and for any
fixations from the past that may interfere with or disrupt the natural
flow of assimilation and accommodation processes within the
client. Externally, patterns of communication with others and the
transferring of old reactive patterns of behavior into the current
environment are the focus of diagnosis. Treatment planning,
logically, grows out of the diagnosis of these distortions and
interruptions: It is a series of hypothesesabout what i s occurring for
this person, what needs to be shifted or strengthened or sorted out,
and how such changes may best be accomplished.
If we keep in mind that diagnosis and treatment planning are, in
fact, hypotheses-subject to validation or rejection by the data
provided by the client-then the paradox between "respecting the
client's wisdom" and treatment planning is dissolved. We have
tended to think of both diagnosis and treatment plan as nouns. In
integrative psychotherapy, they are verbs-they are processes,
changing and evolving through the course of therapy. The treat-
ment plan leads the therapist to pay particular attention to one
aspect of what the client says and does, to ask this rather than that
question, to set up a particular exercise or experiment. If the client
does not respond in the expected way, the therapeutic hypothesis
may be disconfirmed; the unexpected behavior stimulates a new
wave of hypothesizing, or encourages the therapist to consider a
different theoretical perspective. Gradually the pieces begin to fit
together, the percentage of disconfirmations grows smaller and
smaller; client and therapist are both aware of the treatment plan
and are both invested in implementing it.
The work presented in this chapter provides an example of this
kind of unfolding, developing treatment plan. At the outset, the
therapist focuseson what is apparent to both him and the client: the
 The Emerging Plan 169

feelings the client has toward him. The transferential aspects of

these feelingsare immediately obvious, and the work appears to be
proceeding in a predictable, if dramatic, fashion. Later, however,
the work takes a new and rather unexpected turn: Though the
contact disruption remains clear, the underlying cause (and that
which demands remediation) is not as it initially appeared.
Sarah is a quiet, rather stern looking woman in her midfifties.
Throughout the workshop, she has become increasingly agitated.
With the cooperation and support of both therapists, she has
allowed herself to experience a great deal of painful affect: she has
wept, screamed, huddled; at times her whole body has seemed to
be in spasm. Because she is ordinarily a highly cognitive person,
who tends to cut off her feelings (and thus an important avenue to
awareness) by overanalyzing them, she has been encouraged to
move into these affective experiences without attempting to
understand them but rather simply to experience what her body is
demanding. It is now late in theworkshop, and time to put together
some of the pieces that have emerged from this strategy-this
treatment plan.

Richard: What's on your mind, Sarah?

Sarah: (whispering) It's in my body, Richard.
Richard: What's in your body?
Sarah: (whispering even more softly) Fear. I mean, you said it the
first time-the love and the hate.
Richard: Wait, I can't hear you. And you're this close. ..
Already, Sarah is showing her ambivalence both verbally and
nonverbally. Her words, "the love and the hate," are echoed in
her almost inaudible speech: Iwant to make contact, and Iwant
to stay away. By confronting the nonverbal message, Richard
engages Sarah's healthier aspect in an agreement to be present
for the work.
Sarah: (pause) I don't know what to say. . .
Richard: I just heard you say the word "hate" a moment ago; give
me the first part of that sentence.
Sarah: It was what you said, the first day, it's love and hate.
Richard: Ah. What do you experience?
I t is unclear, and for that matter relatively unimportant, whether
170 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard remembers the context of the remark attributed to him,

or understands what Sarah wants him to remember. Instead,
Richard focuses on what Sarah is experiencing i n the here and
now. This i s a direct outgrowth of the current treatment
plan(ning), in which Sarah has been invited to feel, rather than
analyze, her situation.
Sarah: I go back and forth.
Richard: Will you tell me more about that going back and forth?
Sarah: It's easy for me to hate you. And when I see you being soft
and gentle, I can feel myself wanting to love you, and that terrifies
me. And so I go back to hate.
Richard: And what do you use to hate me with?
Again, the intervention is designed to help Sarah to focus on her
current internal state, and to take responsibility for that state.
Rather than experiencing the "hating" as something that hap-
pens to her, out of her control, she is asked to attend to how she
achieves that feeling-what she 'uses" to accomplish it.
Sarah: Stay away.
Richard: What do you mean-my staying away, or your staying
away?
Sarah: No, I do.
Richard: Iasked you what you use to hate me with: What is there in
my behavior that you're using as the focal point to hate me?
Sarah: Tenderness.
Richard: So you hate me because I'm tender. And you love me
because I'm tender.
Richardpoints out the essentialcontradiction in Sarah's position.
The very thing that draws her toward him is also what she finds
hateful about him. Rather than exploring the contradiction
further, though, she uses it to label and discount herself.
Sarah: And it's crazy.
Richard: What do you mean, it's crazy?
At this point, Rebecca moves in; she has worked with Sarah in a
separate small group session, and thus has access to information
not shared by Richard.
Rebecca: (after a pause) What if you substituted the word "scare"
for "hate"?
 The Emerging Plan 171

Richard: (after a pause) Do you agree with her?

Sarah: I guess the hate is the way not to feel the scare.
Richard: Um. Now what's scary about my being tender with you?
Having taken Sarah's somewhat tangential response as confirma-
tion of Rebecca's interpretation, Richardcontinues to help Sarah
to go more deeply into the internal meaning of her experience.
Sarah: (pause)Cause it makes me feel.
Richard: And what memory will you have if you feel?
Sarah: (crying) Of hate.
Richard: What memory will you have?
Sarah: You're asking me what conscious memory, what things
come to mind . ..
Richard: You won't tell me?
Sarah: Right now, right now I can't tell.
Sarah's nonverbal behaviors contradict her verbalizations. She
says that she "can't tel1"of her memories (and, by extension, her
thoughts and feelings), but her weeping, her facial expression,
and her gestures indicate that something important is going on
internally. Richard calls attention to that contradiction, just as he
earlier called attention to the conflict around loving and hating.
Richard: You just did, Sarah. You just had a memory. Starting to cry,
that's a signal of an emotional memory. I didn't particularly ask you
.
what pictures, or what conversation you recall . . What memory
comes to mind, as you focus on that fear?
Sarah: 1 have the feeling that if I say anything, something will .. .
As Richard gently but persistently redirects Sarah's attention to
her ongoing experience, she uncovers a new awareness: She
resists talking about her feelings and memories out of fear.
Something bad will happen if she tells. This sense of foreboding
is, in itself, the emotional memory. Sarah's nonverbal behavior
has been suggesting that she is responding to some sort of
prohibition, somesense of "I mustn't talk about it,"andnowshe
confirms the hypothesis. With the confirmation, Richard moves
more strongly to deal with the resistance itself.
Richard: What happens if you talk about my tenderness with you?
(shebegins to cry again and her hand moves to her throat) Be aware
of how you're squeezing your throat tight. Just feel those two
172 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

forces: the desire to squeeze your throat so tight that you can't talk;
and also, inside, the desire that's wanting to come through, to tell
me. So squeeze tighter; feel that squeeze. Also pay attention to the
..
desire to tell me about the tenderness. there's a memory about
the tenderness. ..
Throughout this long intervention, Sarah continues to cry and
clutch at her throat. Although Richard i s the only one who is
actually talking in words, there is really a dialogue here: Sarah is
communicating nonverbally, and Richard speaks to those mes-
sages. He monitors her responses, timing each statement so that
it either reflects or paces the ongoing process.
Richard: (continuing) There's a feeling in addition to the scare
about telling me. Squeeze that throat tighter, so you feel the two
.
forces.. the desire to tell me about the tenderness and its effect on
you, and the desire-the demand-not to speak out.. . Rebecca is
.
right there behind you,for support.. Now feel that defense in that
. .
hand, more.. squeezing off the voice box.. squeezing tighter,
.
holding it in. Holding in all that which wants to come out.. hold it
even tighter now, so you feel how much energy goes into holding
back ... Now do the opposite-just drop the hand, and see what
comes.
Sarah drops her hand to her side, and her sobs come more
deeply. Her face and throat relax, and she seems to be experi-
encing herself through her whole body.
Richard: (continuing) Um-hm, let the shake come. My guess is that
there's some significant punishment for telling. Or some painful
memory that you're anxious about. (long pause) Sarah, you're
wanting to tell me something about the tenderness.
Sarah: I want to, and I don't.
Richard: Well, if you don't do it we're going to run out of time, and
then you're going to be real depressed about not having done what
you wanted to do. So you're in a real double bind.
Sarah has indicatedthat the resistanceshefeels is now conscious;
she is clearly aware that she is makinga choice about whether or
not to talk. Richard's responseacknowledges this awareness, and
reminds her of what she already knows: that she will be
disappointed i f she chooses to stay closed. Leavingthe decision
up to her, he is nevertheless respectful of the difficulty she
 The Emerging Plan 173

experiences, and (in his next response, below) willing to help the
frightened and confused part of her.
Sarah: I don't know what to do.
Richard: That's my job, is to know what to do. Your job i s simply to
talk to me about your inner experience.
Sarah: I, I,words don't come. I don't know what you want me to
say.
.
Richard: Idon't have a want.. but listen to all of what you do. How
you expect me to have a want for you to adapt to.
Rebecca: Also think about what you did yesterday. How it was so
much easier, and the way you could be close with your dad, was
when you looked for what he wanted, so you could match it, in
order to be close. But not asking him to be close with what you
wanted. You fit into him, without asking him to fit into you.
Rebecca, who worked with Sarah the day before, offers her a
cognitive explanation. Perhaps, recognizing what she is doing
now as an old pattern, she will be able to find new options i n this
situation.
Sarah: Well, I guess that's what he just said. I'm waiting for him to
say something so I could please him.
Richard: Well, I'm not going to do that.
Sarah: (ina despairing tone) But then I have nothing.
Richard: No. You've got you. (he holds out his hand to her, and she
flinches away) Just feel that recoil, Sarah.
Sarah, deeply reliving an old emotional pattern, responds with
fear to the hand held out to her in support. What is the symbolic
meaning of Richard's gesture, within her old framework?Sarah's
response prompts a hypothesis, which is tested-and that she
immediately rejects.
.
Sarah: (sobbing) It's just a hand: Why does it.. Why do Isee it as a
threat? It's just a hand. Just a hand. Just a hand. I feel like it's
reaching out to suck me in, and then Iwon't have anything; I'll have
nothing. And I don't have anything if I don't. . .
Richard: It's not your mother's hand. That's the difference. It's not
your mother's hand.
Sarah: It's my father's hand. It's not my mother's hand ... It just
looks like his hand. (crying) Richard, take it away! Take it away, take
it away! (sobs loudly)
174 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

So the issue is not with Mother, but with Father. Father's hand is
threatening-of what? The kind of ambivalence Sarah has been
expressing: The "tenderness is good, tenderness is frightening,"
and the fear of telling (a secret?)are often found among children
who have been sexually abused. The therapists do not want to
program this idea, especially with a client who adapts and agrees
as easily as Sarah does, but they do need to be alert to the
possibility so that they can help her to deal with it clearly and
openly. Here is a hypothesis they will keep to themselves,
checking it against the data that emerge in the therapeutic
process.
Richard: Now say that to Dad: "Take it away."
Sarah: Take it away.
Richard: Lookat his face. Close your eyes, and look at your father's
face. Say that to him: "Take it away."
Sarah: Take it away.
Richard: Louder.
Sarah: Take it away.
Sarah's "take it away" has been quiet, mechanical. She is obeying
Richard's directions, but has withdrawn herself from her earlier
emotional response. This is a familiar protective mechanism for
her, one that allows (and allowed) her to overcome her distress
and get along in her daily life. But it is not useful now, when she
needs to access that frightened child part of herself and learn
some new and different way to respond to her father. Richard
continues to nudge her into a more affectively impactful
experience.
Richard: Now feel all the emotions, like you felt with my hand, and
say it to him: "Take it away."
Sarah: Take it away1
Richard: Louder.
Sarah: Take it away, take it away!
Richard: Don't hold it back now; just open this throat. Say "take it
away."
Sarah: (crying loudly now) Take it away!
Richard: Louder.
Sarah: Take it away!
 The Emerging Plan 175

Richard: Scream it at him!

Sarah: (screaming)TAKE IT AWAY!
Richard: (holding his hand out to be pushed against) Push it away.
Push on him. Push on it.
Even with her full verbal involvement, Sarah is still holding back.
Her body is tense; she has not completely released the intense
emotion of the earlier scene she is working through. By giving
her his hand literally to push against, Richard offers her a chance
to do physically what she needed to do as a child: take care of
herself by rejecting that which was not wanted. Sarah responds
by pushing the handaway and flinching back at the same time, as
she screams in terror; she then begins beating on her knees with
her clenched fists.
Richard: Push on it. Keep going, Sarah. This way. Not against you;
out here. (he guides her hands away from the self-beating, toward
himself) Out here, Sarah. Come on. Out here.
Rebecca: It's all right; you're not going to kill anybody. Go ahead.
Often, when a person is experiencing strong feelings of anger
and fear, and acts out those feelings in gestures against the self,
the underlying concern is that the feelings will go out of control
and that someone else will be hurt or even killed. This fear relates
to the grandiosity of the young child, who experiences her anger
as so intense and so enormous that, if not held in check, she really
might kill the (also loved) object of her rage. It is this hypothesis
that guided Rebecca in her intervention.
Richard: Push against me!
Sarah continues to scream, and try to beat on herself, while both
therapists redirect her movements against Richard's hands.
Rebecca: You're not going to kill him, Sarah. Just go ahead and
push.
..
Sarah: (herscreamsgraduallybecomewords). No! No! No! No!
Richard: (shouting)Yes! (Sarah sobs, and then begins screaming
NO! again) Yes! Yes, yes, YES! (suddenly,Sarah stops screaming and
pushing, and seems to collapse in on herself)
If Sarah is to learn to fight for herself, for her identity and her
right to think and feel, she needs something to fight against.
Pushing allows her to enact this scenario physically; countering
her "No" with a "Yes"provides a verbal counterpart of the same
176 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

struggle. Sarah, however, is unable to sustain the experience; her

collapse i s a sudden retreat into the old, "give up" pattern that
she has been trying to replace.
Rebecca: Push, Sarah. Don't go dead inside. Stay here.. .Sarah.. .
..
(to Richard) She's gone . Sarah, come back here. Sarah. Come
back; you need to feel what you're feeling. Don't go away. You
need to feel your body again. Come back and feel your body.. .Tell
me what's happening.
Another typical characteristic of abused children is that they
learn to dissociate-literally to turn off their physical sensations,
and not-know what is happening to them. I f this is indeed what
happened to Sarah, her collapse is probably a response to the
re-creation of that early family environment. She needs encour-
agement and support now, to bring her back from the dissoci-
ation. Rebecca takes the supportive role, while Richard's tempo-
rary role as antagonist is preserved.
Sarah: (after a pause) I don't know.
Rebecca: (kindly and supportively) Yeah, you do. Come on back.
Sarah: He isn't my father.
Rebecca: Um-hm. Look at him.
Richard: (still holding out his hand) Say "take it away."
As soon as Sarah is "back," she is encouraged to return to the
unfinished business; it's important that she not end her work
having simply reinforced the old pattern of giving up and
believing that her own needs won't be attended to.
Sarah: Take it away.
Richard: Push.
Sarah: Take it away.
Richard: Get your hands out here and push; push out here. Push
against me. Use me as him. Push. Say "take it away.''
Sarah is sobbing and crying again, and begins again to pound her
knees.
Rebecca: Sarah, don't hurt yourself.
Sarah: I don't want to hurt him.
Rebecca: Just push. Push.
Richard: "Take it awayl"
Sarah: Take it away.
 The Emerging Plan 177

Richard: Louder.
Sarah: Take it away. (screaming)TAKE IT AWAY 1
She moves back into the scene more easily this time, andappears
to have more energy available to fight for herself. Richard
decides to escalate-remember, he isstill evaluatingthe hypothe-
sis of sexual abuse.
Richard: Here comes the hand-the hand is coming-(moving his
hand closer and closer to her)
Sarah: (screaming)NOOOOO! NO! NO!
Rebecca: Keep going, Sarah; push!
Richard: Here comes the hand. ..
The form of the drama has emerged clearly now: Richard is the
"bad parentJ' while Rebecca is the supportive "good parent"
from whom Sarah can borrow courage and energy to do the
work.
Sarah: (continues to scream ''No!" as she fends off Richard's hand)
Rebecca: Push! Let them hear your scream!
..
Richard: Here comes the hand . (Sarah screams and sobs as she
..
tries to fend off the intrusive hand) Here it comes .
Rebecca: Push, Sarah. That's it, push!
Sarah's sobs are more and more deep and totally involving; she
begins to make gagging noises. While this may be simply a
physiological effect of the deep sobbing, it also may be con-
nected to early sexual abuse; the gagging reflex is a common
response to forced oral sex.
Rebecca: Keep pushing, Sarah.
Richard: And bite. Here. (he offers her a folded towel to bite on)
Sarah: (bites down hardon the towel, as she continues to push and
scream)
Rebecca: With all that energy; that's good. (her hand is on Sarah's
diaphragm, to support and guide her breathing) Let it right out of
there, Sarah.
Richard: Bite. Here comes the hand!
Rebecca: Go ahead and bite!
Sarah bites, screams, and then quiets down, breathing heavily.
Unlike her earlier collapse, this seems a natural and gradual
transition from the intense effort she has been making.
178 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Rebecca: Now be aware of the next feeling. (Sarah begins to

pound her knees again) Don't hurt yourself. Just be aware of that
next feeling.
Sarah: Ohhhh ... it's an awful kettle of worms.
.
Richard: Let me. . I know how to handle worms. Come on. What
just happened, Sarah? (She has begun sobbing again) What just
happened?What's in that kettle of worms?
Sarah: Oh, dear. . .
Richard: You know, Sarah. You know. You just saw it. You know
about the kettle of worms. Tell us about that kettle of worms.
Is the "kettle of wormsJ' the emerging conscious awareness of
early abuse?If Sarah verbalizes this, the therapists can address it
directly. But her answer is still ambiguous; the hypothesis
remains to be validated:
Sarah: I keep saying he was never there and he never touched me.
And yet I saw a picture of him reaching out to touch me.
Rebecca: What was with that reaching out?
Sarah: I don't know what was with it. It was just his hands.
Richard: You know what those hands can do.
Rebecca: Let yourself know, Sarah. You're very frightened about
something.
Richard: What do those hands do? (again, moving his hand closer
. .
to Sarah) Here comes the hand.. here it comes.. Look at it, Sarah
... ..
here comes the hand . (Sarah pushes the hand away, but her
gesture is halfhearted; she is staringat the floor, andseems to be on
the verge o f dissociating again).. . Sarah, you gotta look at it. You
said you were going to do this work.. .you gotta look at that hand,
so you know what it's going to do to you.
Sarah: Should I look at it inside with him, or outside with you?
Richard's abrupt shift from the role he has been playing to a more
cognitive appeal to Sarah's "observingself'has accomplished its
purpose: She abandons the dissociation, and again commits
herself to deal with the issue.
Richard: Inside.
hrah: (breathlessly) I'm seeing it.
..
Richard: OK. It's coming closer. now push it away. Push it.
.
Sarah: I want it.. I want it!
 The Emerging Plan 179

A major change: Sarah, having allowed herself to experience

fully her need to get away from the hand, is now able to feel the
opposite. Love and tenderness, as she said at the beginning of
this work, are the other side of her hatred.
Rebecca: OK,feel that. Reach out for it. Do that feeling; reach out
for it.
Sarah: Ohhh, ohhh . . . (after only a second or two of softness, she
suddenly begins to scream and sob again)
Rebecca: Let yourself feel that-(the screams almost drown out
her voice)-you want it, and you don't want it. (Sarah's cries are
becoming more infantlike) All right, go with it, Sarah. Don't bite
yourself.
Richard: There's something with your mouth, that's important.
Rebecca: Pay attention to that hand, Sarah.
Richard: It's coming for you. Take the hand, that you said you
wanted. It's coming closer now. (Sarah screams and pushes herself
away)
Rebecca: Sarah, let yourself know. Go with it. Let your hands
move.
Richard: Push, push it away.
Sarah: (Sarah is now screaming and pushing against a pillow that
Richard holds up. Gradually, words emerge) . . . I hate you! I HATE
YOU! (slowly, the screams subside)
Rebecca: Be aware of what's going on inside. Don't worry about
taking care of Richard.
Still careful not to program their own interpretation of the
work-though everything that Sarah has done is consistent with
the sexual abuse hypothesis-the therapists continue to follow
the ebb and flow of Sarah's work. The therapy has taken on an
almost rhythmic pattern, with each new surge moving further
into unknown territory.
Sarah: (beginning to push again, and to scream; the next few
moments are hectic-Sarah is screaming and struggling with
Richard, who talks about "the hand"comingcloser, while Rebecca
coaches her to "pushJ'; after some time, she appears to tire, and the
struggles stop). . . I don't know why I feel like that.
Richard: The "why" at this moment is premature. Justthat you do
know. It comes from inside of you, and your experience.
180 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Sarah, after a brief rest, is ready to work again. She begins to push
against Richard, who asks for a mattress so that she can use her
whole body to express the pushing away. After some encour-
agement, she moves again into the screaming and struggling;
finally words come:
Sarah: I want to kill you! Iwant to hurt you! Don't want to hurt you.
Rebecca: Yes, you do. Of course you do, for a good reason. That
energy is good energy. It's going to help you know. (Sarah
continues to scream and fight against the pillow) Push! Push, Sarah,
and just say No.
Sarah: Noooo!
All three are active again; Rebecca is coaching Sarah, who
screams "No!" as she fights against the mattress; Richard yells
"Yes!" in counterpoint.
Richard: Yes! Do it my way! Do it my way!
Rebecca: Keep going, Sarah! Don't give in, just push!
Richard: My way's the only way!
Rebecca: Push! Tell him, "I want to kill you!"
Richard: My way!
Sarah: (sinking down, panting for breath) I have to rest . . .
Rebecca: You want to stop it here for now?Or do you need to keep
on?
Sarah has been working very hard for some time, and her
physical reserves must be significantly depleted. While the work
is clearly not finished (and the sexual abuse hypothesis remains
neither confirmednor rejected), she has not caved in nor has she
dissociatedin these later rounds of activity. The work could end
here, leaving her with the experience of having fought rather
than given up, a significant therapeutic advance. Indeed, it may
be this new experience that prompts Sarah's determination to
continue:
Sarah: (pause) I would like to do just one more piece, one more
little bit. Iget another image, which is scary, but Ithink if I get one
more image, maybe I'll have that with my eyes open.
Richard: What have you had up till now?
Sarah: Just images of my father; I won't really see him.
 The EmergingPlan 181

Rebecca: What do you see?

Sarah: A hand. Coming toward me, and reaching to me.. And his .
face.. . (her voice becomes so soft that the words are unintelligible)
This new beginning really is different! Sarah's whole presentation
has changed. Her voice is sad, almost tender. How does this fit
with the terrorandanger that sheso recently experienced? How
does it fit with the hypothesis that she is dealing with the trauma
of sexual abuse? The therapists patiently follow her lead.
Rebecca: Look at the eyes; go back to the picture; look at the eyes
.
in his face.. Now let yourself know what his intention is. Look at
that face, and let yourself know what his intention is. He's reaching
.
out to you . . He reaches out his hands to you. ..
Sarah: I s t i l l can't see it clearly. I know that at night he slept in the
same room. For a year, almost a year. (she sighs sadly)
Rebecca: As a baby, you mean?
Sarah: No. When I was four. When my sister was.. when she was.
sickly. So she stayed in the room with me, and he came and slept in
the room with me.
Rebecca: And he'd come to your bed, and what?
Sarah: (twisting her hands together) I, I don't know.
Rebecca: Watch those hands.
Sarah: I think he was lonely. Wanted comforting.
Rebecca: What happened?
Sarah: I think he just wanted comforting. I think he wanted me to
.
take him . . (begins to cry)
Rebecca: Let it come, Sarah.
Sarah: (crying) I don't know why I'm so afraid. I'm just so afraid of
my mother's anger.
A brand-new piece of information-suddenly, Mother i s back in
the picture. Rather than a feared father, is Sarah dealing with a
desired father and a feared mother?Does "the hand" represent
both, the tenderness of Father and the punishment of Mother?
The sexual abuse hypothesis may be in the process of being
disconfirmed; the therapists continue to follow Sarah's lead.
Richard: Say that again.
Sarah: I was afraid of my mother's anger. She, she, she (stuttering)
. . . abandoned me.
182 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Let yourself know what Mom will do if you get close to
Dad.
The most crueland terrifying threat to a small child is the threat of
abandonment.
Sarah: (still crying) She did. She kept saying I was his daughter; I
wasn't her daughter.
Richard: And what happens if you get close to Dad's touch?And if
his hands are tender? And his voice is tender? And his relationship
with you is loving?
Sarah: (sobbing) I lose me. I, I just live for him.
Richard: What happens between you and Mama?
Sarah: I become him, and I have no mother. It's like I feel
everything he feels, and I don't feel anything I feel.
As Sarah experiences being cut off from Mother, she compen-
sates by moving closer to Father. And she goes too far-like a
child going closer and closer to the edge of a pool, and finally
falling in, Sarah "loses herself' in Father. She no longer experi-
ences her own boundaries; her desperate search for connected-
ness has led her to the kind of contact distortion called
confluence, in which contact i s not truly experienced because
there are no longer two distinct individuals to make that contact.
O r is this shift i n Sarah's responses a defensive maneuver, to take
the therapists'attention away from Father's abuse?At this point,
the therapists hold several alternative hypotheses simultane-
ously. They choose interventions that will continue to provide
data, so that all three participants-client and both therapists-
can gradually eliminate that which is not usefuland can focus on
the areas in which healing is most needed.
Richard: And if you push him away-
Sarah: Like I know when he hurts, and when he feels depressed,
and when he wants to kill himself. I have no me, and-
Richard: What happens between you and Mama if you feel his
tenderness? That's how you lose the sense of you, by not focusing
on your relationship with Mama.
On the basis of the last few minutes of work, Richard begins to
suspect that Sarah's relationship problem with Father grows out
of her loss of contact with Mother. This series of interventions is
designed to test such a hypothesis.
 The Emerging Plan 183

Sarah: But she's not there for me.

Richard: What happens between you and Mama if he gets close to
you?
This is the fifth time that Richard has asked this question. The
Adult Sarah can understand the sequence of Dad's tenderness-
Mom's angry rejection-child's fear, loneliness, overattachment
to Dad; but her emotionally debilitated and overwhelmed Child
ego state also needs to understand. Her unwillingness to state the
relationship clearly may indicate that, emotionally, she hasn't
gotten the message yet.
Sarah: She gets angry.
Richard: Yeah. Justfeel that. What happens to a four-year-old girl
when Mama's angry with her?
Sarah: I tried to run away.
Richard: What happens deep inside?To a four-year-old girl whose
mother's angry because she's close to her daddy?
Sarah: Ahh, I get so confused and Ijust don't get close to anybody.
I just-
A major part of the script decision, in SarahJsown words. Richard
interrupts, to keep her from moving away from this point, and
probes for the feelings that accompany the activation of this
aspect of script belief.
Richard: That's how you solved it. What happens when you feel
Daddy's tenderness? What happens when Mama sees him tender
with you? And sees you loving him?
Sarah: She, she gets hurt.
Richard: What does she do then?
Sarah: She gets real hurt. She cries, and she gets depressed.
Richard: And what happens between you and Mama when Mama's
depressed?
Sarah: Ohhh, I have to take care of her too.
Richard: And then what happens to you, inside?
Sarah: I hurt. I hurt all the time.
Rebecca: You hurt for Mama and you hurt for Daddy.
Sarah: I, I, I just keep it all in to myself.
Richard: Well, this time you put your mama right out there. And
just begin with these words: "I want my daddy."
184 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

The hypothesis of sexual abuse appears to have less support; it is

more likely that the therapists are dealing with a child who was
forced to choose between Mother and Father. In order to keep
Mother there for her, she had to give up-actually resist-
closeness with Father. Yet, at the same time, her need for contact
drew her into a confluent loss of boundaries with that same
father. She needs to reexperience these relationships in a
different way, demanding from the external world that which she
needs, rather than burying those needs deep inside and covering
them over with pain and depression, andlosing her own sense of
self in the process.
Sarah: (sobs loudly)
Richard: "I want my daddy, Mama."
Sarah: (very softly) I want my daddy, Mama.
Richard: Again-and tell her how you want her to react, emotion-
ally.
Sarah: I want my daddy.
Richard: "And I want you to . . ."
Sarah: And I want you to be pleased that he's there for me.
Richard: Oh, good for you, Sarah. Say it again.
This is very much forbidden ground for Sarah; this was the need
that she was not allowed to express. Richard quickly reinforces
the request, to forestall any automatic self-punishment that
Sarah may administer, and then invites her to repeat and
strengthen the new response pattern.
Sarah: (still i n a soft, gasping tone; her hands are laced in front of
her) Iwant you to feel pleased about the fact that he's there for me.
Richard: Now, let your hands know what they're doing. Look at
that gesture. Instead of praying for it, demand it. lnstead of pleading
for it, demand it. (ina strong voice) I want my daddy, and I don't
want you to get angry. I want my daddy, and I don't want you to be
depressed.
Sarah: I want you BOTH to be adults, damn it!
Rebecca: Um-hm. Right!
Richard: "And I want my daddy's tenderness. ." .
Sarah: Ahh, I want his tenderness.
Richard: (helpingher to strike with her hands against a pillow) Do
it with these hands harder, now. "I want his tenderness.. ."
 The Emerging Plan 185

Sarah has consistentlykept her feelings dammed up by physically

holding herself in. As she learns to move freely, in a manner
congruent with her emotional response, she will be able to
access those emotions more and more fully.
Sarah: I want his tenderness. I want his tenderness. And I don't
want to feel I'm going to be punished if I get it.
Richard: Say it again: "I want his tenderness, and Idon't want you
to punish me, Mom."
Sarah: I want his tenderness, and I don't want you to punish me,
Mom. (she is crying)
Rebecca: There you go, Sarah. Keep going-"I want. . ."
Sarah: (sobs) Iwant to be able to say what Iwant! I want to be able
to feel!
Richard: "And I don't want you, Mom, to . . ."
Sarah: (sobbing) I don't want you, Mom, to punish me.
Rebecca: Right.
Sarah: (sobbing even more loudly) I don't want you to be angry
at me.
Sarah's responses have a new quality here: She i s dealing with her
needs and wants in a genuine way, with body language and voice
tone that match the content of her demands.
Richard: Again, harder, with those hands: "Don't punish me!"
Sarah: Don't punish me!
Richard: Harder.
Rebecca: Keep going, Sarah. Like this (guidingher hands to pound
the pillow).
Sarah: DON'T PUNISH ME!
Richard: "I want my daddy!"
Sarah: (the words are forced through her tears, as she energetically
hits the pillow) I want my daddy! Iwant my daddy! And I want him
to want ME! And to feel he can have me!
Rebecca: Right!
Richard: "And don't punish him, either!"
Sarah: Don't punish him!
Rebecca: "I want a mommy and I want a daddy."
Sarah: I want a mommy and a daddy! Ohhh . ..
This is the core of Sarah's unmet need: both Mommy and Daddy,
186 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

rather than having to choose either one or the other. Again, her
clear expression of it is supported, strengthened, approved of.
She gains from the therapists the permission she needed, and was
not given, as a child.
Rebecca: That's what every child needs. A mommy and a daddy. A
mommy and a daddy who love each other and can both give that
little girl what she needs.
Sarah: (pause; she begins to make a curious, reaching gesture
toward Richard but cuts it off and returns her hands to her lap)
Richard: You're holding something back right now. ..
Say that,
that the hand was holding back. First thought that came into your
mind.
Sarah: (pause, then very softly) I want to come over to you,
Richard.
As the permission is taken in, and Sarah's Child ego state begins
to experience her new freedom to express herself, she takes the
first, tentative step to act as she wants to, rather than in
accordance with her old restrictions. This is a clear sign that script
change is taking place: new behavior patterns replacing old
ones. Note that it is Rebecca, still i n the role of "'good mother,"
who quickly supports Sarah's request for closeness with Daddy/
Richard.

Rebecca: Go on over
Sarah: (whispering) It's scary.
Rebecca: I'm right here with you.
Richard: What are you anticipating Mom will do right now?What's
the punishment for your reaching out to me?
Sarah: The punishment i s for me to, if I reached out to him, he
withdrew.
Richard: That's secondary.
Sarah: But that's what I saw.
Richard: OK, you just said it in here, why he withdrew. She also
punished him for being close with you.
Sarah: But I think I felt more his withdrawal. Cause I wanted.. .
Richard: Well, if he got you, he probably lost his wife.
The therapy is in danger of sliding off into a cognitive discussion,
before Sarah has had the opportunity really to cement her script
 The Emerging Plan 187

change by acting on the new permission. Rebecca brings it back

by assuming again the role of the "good mother."
Rebecca: So look at my face . ..
What do you see in my face?
Sarah: (pause) It's all right.
Rebecca: (shifting her position so that she is beside Sarah, and
there is an unobstructed path from Sarah across to Richard) Now,
go ahead and reach out.
Sarah: (begins to sob frightenedly)
Rebecca: Sarah, look at me.
Richard: Let her get her needs met, Mom. Mom, don't you dare
get angry at her! For what she wants. You stop it, Mother!
Both therapists are now overtlysupporting Sarah's new behavior:
Richard is lending his own energy to Sarah's demands, acting as
the strong, able-to-take-care-of-himself father who will protect
Sarah from Mother's punishment, while Rebecca is providing a
new and positive "mother" for Sarah to experience.
Rebecca: Now look at my face.
Richard: You respect her wants, Mother. And don't punish her.
(Sarah suddenly moves into Richard'sarms and there are delighted
chuckles from the group; Richard holds Sarah, while continuing to
address the fantasied mother) Don't you ever get angry at this girl
because she wants to love.
Sarah: Tell her not to get angry at you, Richard.
Richard: And no getting angry at me! Iam going to do what's good
for her.
Sarah: (begins to cry and tremble)
Richard: Stop it,Mother! Justknock it off! This little girl i s just fine.
(Sarahgrows quiet and begins to relax in his arms) And there's room
for you to get affection too, Mother. There's room for you to get
affection; there's enough affection for everybody. You don't have
to be jealous of your little girl. I know you're tired, you need more
affection-we all do. And there's enough to go around.
Sarah: (snuggling into Richard's arms) Ahhhhh . ..I know that's a
big lie. But it feels so good!
Richard: There's enough. There really is.
Rebecca: It was a lie back there, maybe. They didn't know how to
make it work. There was enough.,but they didn't know how. But look
188 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

at what's true here. Look at.. . With all these people here, there's
enough!

With this final statement, Rebecca sums up the essence of script

change: that which may have been needed for survival when the
client was young is no longer needed in the present. Sarah's old
decision, that she had to repress her needs in order to protect
herself (by protecting Father from Mother's rage, and herself from
abandonment by both parents) is no longer necessary. Even though
the significant people in her early life didn't know how to share
affection, the significant people in her life now can do so, and
Sarah's expression of needs will no longer destroy contact with
those significant people.
This piece of work illustrates a number of central aspects of
integrative psychotherapy. It shows graphically the importance of
allowing a hypothesis to be tested, and kept or discarded, on the
basis of the emerging therapeutic process rather than programming
in the responses and directions that the therapist expects. Had the
therapists not been careful to allow Sarah to explore her feelings
about Father on her own terms, they might well have ended up
working with a nonproblem, trying to change a script pattern that
never existed. This could have resulted in a new, and similarly
destructive, script overlay ("My father really was abusive and not to
be trusted," or "Nobody, even therapists, can understand me," or
"There really is something wrong with the way I feel"), with a
further defensive closing down and strengthening of the old,
retroflective pattern.
Another feature of this work i s the therapists' sensitivity to
closure-or its absence. We saw in Chris's work, in Chapter 3, the
importance of stopping the work at the point at which the client has
had enough. In the work with Ben (Chapter4), the piece was ended
even though Ben himself was willing to goon; to do so would have
weakened the impact of what had been accomplished. I n Sarah's
work, it was desirable to find a point of resolution, a way in which
Sarah could enact the new decision behaviorally. Had this not been
done, her powerful and punishing Parent ego state might well have
undermined the affective and cognitive changes she had made. To
be sure, Rebecca did suggest at one point midway in the work that
Sarah might be ready to stop; but this would have been a second-
choice solution to her temporary "stuckness." Until she moved into
 The Emerging Plan 189

Richard's arms,Sarahls body language continued to signal her fear,

the ongoing influence of the introjected destructive messages.
Only as she allowed herself actually to receive that which she so
deeply needed-the safe affection and protection of a strong
father-did her cognition, affect, behavior, and physiological
responses come together into a total experience that could be
carried out of the therapy situation into her ongoing social
interactions.
 BILL
Replacing a Destructive lntroject

As we have pointed out in many of the preceding chapters, script is

formed through defensive decisions made by the Child, or through
introjects stored in the Parent ego state; most often, a given script
belief or feeling involves elements of both Parent introject and
Child decision. If a strongly held script belief i s to be changed, the
Parental aspects must be defused or decommissioned, and the
Child decision must be given up or changed. Sometimes these two
processes will take place in tandem; in other pieces of work, either
the Child or the Parent aspect will be treated first, with a follow-up
needed to deal with the other.
Identification and internalization are natural developmental
processes that help a child assimilate and learn about the environ-
ment-they facilitate contact. Introjection, on the other hand, is a
defense mechanism, an avoidance of contact. The young person
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 191

introjects parental figures because there is no real contact with

them. He or she may also use introjection to avoid conflict too
intense to handle, because internal and external supports are not
yet fully developed. Through introjection, the conflict is internal-
ized, giving the child the illusion of being in control.
When a client has introjected a particularly destructive set of
messages from parents, addressing those messages is often the first
task in therapy. Until the punitive parental introject has been
removed or at least weakened, the Child cannot make a new
decision-to do so would not be safe. The original decision was
made out of the need to survive in the face of destructive parental
behavior, and until that threat of punishment is changed, the
decision must be maintained. A punitive, harsh, critical Parent ego
state must be decommissioned (as we have seen in the Parent
interview work in previous chapters), cutting off the internal
influence. When this cannot be accomplished, the therapist may
develop a close, protective relationship with the client and inter-
vene in such a way that he or she forms an interposition-like a
wedge-between the influencing Parent ego state and the fright-
ened or adapted Child ego state. In other situations, where the
Parent ego state is particularly rigid or the client does not have a
sense of self in the face of the influencing Parent, the client may
need to internalize the thoughts, feelings, and behaviors of a new
parental figure: the person of the therapist and the therapeutic
environment provide a temporary relief from the harsh and
punitive Parent ego state. The therapist interposes him- or herself
between the punitive Parent ego state and the Child, allowing the
client to work on early experiences that may otherwise remain
repressed. The therapist provides a caring and safe environment,
free from Parental abuse, in which the Child ego state can confront
parentalfigures or experimentwith prohibited behaviors. After the
client has internalized an increased sense of support, has dropped
some defenses or made redecisions, then the treatment plan may
call for actually defusing the Parent ego state and integrating the
entire experience of childhood (seen now from an expanded
perspective) into the Adult ego state.
Bill, whom you will meet in this chapter, exemplifies the client
suffering from severely destructive introjects. Bill is a young
psychiatrist who has finished his residency and is frightened about
192 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

going on with his career. He acts unsure of himself, and holds

himself back in social situations, particularly with women. Bill's
mother was physically and psychologically abusive, and Bill's Child
ego state is virtually immobilized in the face of her attacks. His
terror is so great that he retreats to the same archaic defense
mechanism that we saw in Sarah's work in Chapter 8: dissociation,
simply leaving the psychological field. As the work progresses,
Richard becomes the good parent, who offers his own protection to
Bill; later, Rebecca serves as a stand-in for the bad mother. In this
new setting, Bill is able to take the first tentative steps toward script
change.
During another participant's work, the therapists have noticed
that Bill seemed engrossed in the process. His interest was more
than cognitive; he was emotionally caught up in the work and his
face reflected a kind of wistful longing. Richard decides to
capitalize on Bill's identification with the other participant as a way
of bringing him into his own work.

Richard: Bill, you looked so keenly interested in Tanya's work-

what's happening with you?
Bill: 1 was more interested in the way you were talking to Tanya,
than in her actual story.
Richard: How would you like to be talked to?
Having formed, from Bill's initial check-in and from his behavior
during the first days of the workshop, a hypothesis about his
Child fearfulness and need for support, Richard is quick to
recognize what Bill i s responding to. The work with Tanya had
involved listening carefully and respectfully to her ideas, rein-
forcing her ability to think for herself, helping her to decide that
she is of worth i n and of herself. It is not the ideas-not the
content-however, that have fascinated Bill. It is Richard's
consistent and caring interest. Richard's question recognizesthe
appropriateness of Bill's focus, and encourages him to explore i t
further.
Bill: (laughing softly) The same way.
Richard: How is that, Bill?
Bill: Um . . . gently.
 Replacing a Destructive Introject 193

Richard: Well, come and sit over here, and let's talk gently to each
other.
"Come and sit over here" invites Bill out onto the mat, where
therapy is done with those who request time in the group. As Bill
accepts the invitation, he tacitly agrees to work, and provides
himself with a set of visual and kinesthetic anchors that will
further strengthen his experiencing himself as a person who is
actively involved in the therapeutic process. Even more impor-
tant, though, he moves close to Richard, into touching dis-
tance-within the boundary that often defines how far support
and reassurance can travel between child and adult.
Richard: (continuing) You want to include Rebecca in this? Or
would you rather leave her out?
It is not clear whether Richard is responding here to some earlier
communication with Bill, which led him to suspect that Rebecca
might usefully play the role of the bad parent, or whether he is
still searching for the best way to build on Bill's response to his
gentleness. In either case, Bill's answer is revealing:
Bill: (pause)I'd like to turn my back on her.
Richard: All right. You want to do it even more overtly? (Bill and
Richard shift so that Bill's back is toward Rebecca) Now what does
that symbolize?
Bill: That my mother used me to fight against my father.
Richard: She used you as a weapon against him?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: How?
Bill: (pause) She needed an ally. She came to a place with him
where she felt all alone,and she needed somebody to fight for her.
Bill's voice has gotten softer and breathier. He is staring at the
floor, rather than lookingat Richard. His whole posture is one of
cowering, as if he expected to be punished for what he is saying.
This quality, as well as the way in which he has shifted t o offering
excuses for his mother's behavior, signals Richard to attend to
Bill's present emotional experience.
Richard: How are you feeling, as you tell me this?
.
Bill: (pause)Sort o f . . frightened.
Richard: Did your dad talk to you gently?
194 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

We know that Bill was not treated gently by his mother-did he

get good, positive parenting from his father? I f so, he can be
helped to access his experiences with Dad as a resource in
dealing with Mom.
Bill: No.
Richard: How did he talk to you?
Bill: We would fight a lot.
Richard: Was he an alcoholic?(Billshakes his head ''no") Well, why
would he fight with a little boy? Instead of talk to him gently?
Notice the repeated use of the word gently. Richard doesn't
know specifically what this word means to Bill, or why it is
important-but it was "gentleness" that caught and held Bill's
attention. As he explores Bill's interactions with both parents,
Richard both speaks gently and kindly, and repeats the words
gently and gentle as a way of continually reminding Bill of this
focus.
Bill: I don't know, he wanted to be gentle, but didn't know how.
Richard: So what's it feel like tosit hereand listen to me be gentle?
Bill: Feels like you can be the way that he wanted to be.
Richard: Do you like that?
Bill: Um-hm. I do.
Richard: What do you like about it?
Bill: Well, I wanted to spend more time with my father . . . but I
couldn't, because we were always fighting.
The transference is overtly acknowledged: It feels good to be
here with you, the way Iwould have liked to have been with my
father. And, slowly, the energy and attention begin to have an
effect on Bill. While his voice is stillsoft, and his manner hesitant,
he is gradually gaining assurance. Richard continues to "trans-
fuse" him with good parental energy, while at the same time
giving him time andpermission to sort out for himself how he can
best use this experience.
Richard: Would you like t o spend more time with me?
Bill: Yes, I would.
Richard: What would you like to do with me?
Bill: (pause) Maybe go for a drive in the country.
 Replacinga Destructive lntroject 195

Richard: What'd you like to see in the country? Or to talk about

while we are driving?
Bill: Just maybe about everything. So that I could understand it
better.
Richard: Everything in nature, the countryside, o r . ..
Bill: Well, I'm thinking that one of the things that my dad did do is,
he sometimes took me for rides on Sundays.
Unlike many clients, Bill is very clearly aware of the transference
feelings-of the way in which he is responding to Richardas i f he
(Richard) were Father. Bill wants to spend time with Richardjust
as he did during the rare pleasant interludes with Dad. And, in
the interest of strengthening that positive aspect of a parental
relationship, Richard offers to extend himself in that role beyond
the ordinary boundaries of the therapeutic setting.
Richard: Want to go to the garbage dump with me today?
Bill: (laughing) Is that where you're going?
Richard: Uh-huh. Take a ride to the dump?
Bill: Sure.
Richard: Most exciting place in town. There's treasures in the
garbage dump! ... You never got to play in the garbage dump?
Bill: No.
Richard: I think that's deprivation. (chuckles from the group)
Disguisedas mild humor, this comment marks a shift into a new
phase of the work. Bill has been deprived of the opportunity to
act like a child, to play normally; his soft-spoken, tentative,
careful manner is, in part, the legacy of this deprivation. And,
again, Bill's readiness to pick up on this theme indicates that he,
too, understands what has happened to him as well as (less
clearly) what may now be possible to change.
Bill: Cot to play i n the ditch.
Richard: Did you like playing in the ditch?
Bill: Yes, but I had to be careful not to get dirty.
Richard: Wait a minute. Something's crazy. How can you play i n
the ditch and not get dirty?
Bill: By walking along the edge, very carefully.
1% INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Then you're not playing.

Bill: Oh, sometimes I went ahead and went in.
Richard: At what price?
Bill: I wasn't supposed to.
Richard's question hits Billhard; not only does he givea nonanswer,
but his face contorts slightly, he moves back into a more
hunched, cowering position, and his voice is frightened again.
Gently still, Richard repeats the question.
Richard: At what price?
Bill: (long pause; he is fighting tears)
Richard: Go ahead, Bill.
Bill: (almost whispering) If I got dirty, I got spanked.
"Spankedis a euphemism; Bill has already described the vicious
beatings his mother administered to him whenever he showed
signs of breaking out of her control. Bill was not allowed to
behave like a little boy, and he needs to have that experience-
without threat of retaliation. His manner indicates that he has
indeed cathected the Child ego state from which the work needs
to be done; he is reacting like a little boy now, rather than like a
grown man.
Richard: Would you like it if we could fix it up so you could get
dirty with no punishment?
Bill: Urn-hm.
Richard: What do you think, Vic? You think he ought to be shown
one of your favorite places?
Vic: Sure.
Vic, anotherparticipant, has attendedseveral workshops and has
dealt with some issues similar to Bill's. The previous summer, Vic
had been encouraged to play i n a muddy area at the edge of the
pondbehind the lodge at which the workshops are held; it is this
mud hole that Richard is talking about.
Richard: (continuing) Vic's got a favorite place around here. It's
very mucky.
Bill: (laughing) The pond.
Richard: Yeah, he found a favorite spot in the pond, that he likes to
muck in. Ever had a mud fight? (chuckles from the group) When
you played in the ditch? Did you ever throw mud balls at each
other?
 Replacing a Destructive I n t r o w 197

Bill: Well, I, no, I didn't. I went in the ditch but I didn't play, I fell in.
Richard: Would you like to have played in the ditch? And made
mud pies, and mud balls, and throw them at each other?
Bill: Um-hm.
Rather than return to a scene of pain and humiliation, of falling in
the ditch and facing Mother's rage, Richard redirects Bill to the
positive fantasy, and the possibility of enacting it here. Bringing
in Vic as a helper allows for the expansion of the fantasy to
include supportive, caring playmates; the group's obviously
genuine enjoyment attests to their willingness to be a further
resource in the playing out of what Bill needed, but didn't have,
in childhood. With all these resources in place, and the prospect
of fun-with-permission in store, plus the benefit of having been
"talked to gently" for some time now, Bill may be ready to take
another major step: to begin to deal with Mother.
..
Richard: Without getting spanked. Now what do you suppose
you'd feel if you turned around and talked to Rebecca?
Bill: (pause)I'd feel good.
Richard: You would?
Bill: Um-hm.
Bill's response here is surprising; we might have expected some
carryover of his fear of Mother onto the suggested talk with
Rebecca, because he certainly seemed to be setting Rebecca up
as a mother-substitute early in his work. At this point, it isn't clear
whether he is being a ''good boy" by going along with what he
thinks Richard wants, or has dropped the connection between
Rebecca and Mother, or is dealing with some other part of a real
or fantasied contact with her. Whatever is going on, though, it
will still be important to provide continuing support for Bill, so
that he will not collapse back into weaklysubmitting to Mother's
abuse.
Richard: Well, let's try something. You turn around, where I can
back you up and be your support. OK?(Bill turns to face Rebecca;
Richard moves in very close behind him so that he can feel
Richard's chest against his back) Feel my support?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: Now you just go ahead and tell her what you wanted to
say.
Bill: (long pause) I can't say anything.
198 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Say that again.

Bill: I don't feel like I can say anything.
Richard: Cause you're feeling scared?
Bill: No, cause I'm getting angry.
That Bill would be afraid was a reasonable guess, given what he
has already said. His reply is somewhat unexpected, but only
because it (and the feelings it describes) comes so soon. Surely
that little boy must have been angry about how he was treated;
equally surely, to have expressed the anger would have invited
swift and severe punishment. The fear that he showed earlier in
his work served a defensive function in that it kept him from
behaving so as to be punished. That he has been able to go
beneath the fear to the angry feelings i s a good sign: The work is
proceeding well.
Richard: Go ahead and say that: "I'm angry at you."
Bill: I'm angry at you.
Richard: Louder. Cause I'm going to be here so you don't get hit.
Rebecca: I'll listen; keep going.
The reenactment is now explicit. Richard will protect Bill from
being punished for his anger; Rebecca will serve as a screen, a
symbol of the mother who was the appropriate target for that
anger.
Bill: (pause, then softly) I'm angry at you.
Richard: Just begin to squint your eyes, so you don't quite see
Rebecca. She's just an image out there.. .
Bill, while needing an external object on which to focus his
anger, has difficulty using Rebecca in this way. He likes and trusts
her, and his positive feelings for her may be interfering with his
keeping her in the role of the bad mother. Richard provides a
strategy for dealing with this problem, and then invites Bill back
into the fantasy.
Richard: (continuing) Say "I'm angry." (pause) "Angry at you."
Bill: I can't say I'm angry.
Richard: (holding Bill's hand firmly) Well, just feel my hand here.. .
feel it right into this hand.
Bill: I feel really bad if I say that.
Rebecca: That's something you're not supposed to say to me.
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 199

Bill: I'm angry at you. (longpause) Cause you kept using me to fight
against my father.
By speaking up again as Mother, Rebecca helps Bill to use her in
that role. Saying the forbidden words frightens him badly; he is
pale and shaking, his face is contorted, and he is breathing
rapidly.
Richard: Just take a deep breath-see her, Bill. (pause) You're
scared, aren't you? Can you feel my touch?
Bill: Yes.
Richard: That touch will protect you. You won't be punished for
telling her what you know and what you feel.
Bill continues to breathe very rapidly. He has lost eye contact
with Rebecca, andis clutchingat the mat with both hands. As his
hyperventilation accelerates, he begins to lose sensory contact
with his environment. In ego state terms, his Adult is no longer
available to help in the therapeutic process; he looks, feels, and
breathes like a terrified child. In order for him to have a new,
healing experience, rather than reinforce his old script beliefs,
Bill must have access to some new source of energy and
protection; he must maintain contact with the supportive
therapist. Both therapists tacitly agree to take time out from the
regression experience in order to bring Bill back into contact
with them; they will provide the support that is not, at this time,
available to him within his own neopsychic functioning.
Rebecca: Slow your breathing down.
Bill: (barely able to force out the words) I can't hear you. I'm
tingling all over.
Rebecca: Slow your breathingdown. The tingling will go away. Bill,
just take a breath in and hold it.
Richard: (as Bill manages to inhale deeply and then exhale) All the
way out, Bill, push it out. Now all the way in, take it in, hold it-now
let it out. All the way in . . . and all the way out.
This is a nice example of the way a very brief grounding can bring
a dissociating client back into contact. Slowing his breathing
breaks the hyperventilation cycle; it also provides a new rhythm
that can help Bill t o slow his racing thoughts. As this is
accomplished, he is ready to refocus on his affect.
Rebecca: And feel what you're feeling, Bill.
200 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Lots of feelings there. Angry, and scared. Squeeze my

.
hand, so you feel me.. What would it have been like if you'd had
somebody there as your protector, who you could squeeze onto?
Bill: (his breathing is quieting) Been good.
Richard: Um-hm. What does it feel like right now, that I'm here for
you?
Bill: Tingling again, all over.
Richard: In a good way? (Bill's breathing begins to accelerate
again) Breathe slow.
Why is Richard's invitation to think about and feel the support so
frightening to Bill? It would be useful to explore this, but it is a
side issue i n terms of what has already been begun. The therapists
choose to go back to the anger with Mother, rather than
switching to another avenue of exploration.
Rebecca: Bill, let yourself really feel what you're feeling emo-
tionally. Even though it's scary. Start telling me about being mad at
me, for how I used you. You need to feel it.
Bill: Can't.
Rebecca: You need to. Come back to that: "I'm mad at you for
using me."
Richard: (pause; then whispers something unintelligible to Bill)
Rebecca: Ready to come back to it?
Bill: No, I don't want to be angry with ... Want to be by. myself.
.

Richard: Feel me. Insteadof being by yourself, feel me. (pause; Bill
is hyperventilatingagain) Justgrab onto me, Bill. Justnotice. It's you
and me here. Stead of being all alone, you got an ally. Justfeel this!
Feel how solid my arm is. I can push her away. Would you have liked
that, as a little kid?
Bill's "want to be by myself" is a direct return to script. The
survival choice he made was to cut himself off and be alone
rather than open up to an unreliable father or an abusive mother.
Richard makes no attempt to deal with this cognitively-Bill,
experiencing the world like a scared little boy, wouldn't be able
to hear. Instead, he moves i n physically, choosing the primitive
modality that even a frightened child can attend to. And the
strategy is effective: Bill begins to put into words the core of the
struggle with Mother.
Bill: You wouldn't let me be a boy. You wanted me to be a girl.
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 201

Rebecca: Mom or Dad?

Bill: Mom. She wanted a girl.
Richard: You tell her what that's like for you.
Bill: I think they wouldn't let me be a girl either.
Richard: Yeah. Confusing, huh?Why didn't she like the little boy in
you?
Bill: Because he was, kept getting into trouble.
Richard: Well, Ilike troublesome little boys. You know why?Cause
they're spunky. And they grow up to be exciting men . . Feel me? .
(Bill i s holding tightly to Richard's arm, and begins to sob) Just let
.
that come. Let that come. You needed a protector.. Let it come.
(Bill sobs hard for a few seconds, then grows quiet)
To reinforce Bill's finally voicing the forbidden idea, and to
prevent him from punishing himself internally, Richardmoved in
quickly with support and warmth. This is almost pure repar-
enting: giving the Child Bill the kind of approval and healthy
modeling that he needed. Bill is literally being taught how to be a
male. That the intervention is potent can be inferred from Bill's
sobs-a mixture of deep sorrow over what he never had, and the
joy of experiencing i t now. But his anger with Mother remains
unfinished. I t is time to go on.
Rebecca: Come on back, Bill.
Richard: Fate her now, Bill, as you're holding on to me.
Rebecca: Talk about being mad. (long pause) Those feelings that
have been buried.
Bill: Um ... I think I have to be mad for a while.
Rebecca: For a while?
Bill: Um-hm.
Rebecca: Tell me about that.
Bill: I think that's how she got me to give up being mad. She'd
spank me until I couldn't be mad any more.
Richard: A terrible thing to do.
Richard is still sitting behind Bill, holding him tightly, and Bill is
clutching him i n return. Again, the division of roles is clear:
Rebecca, as Mother, confronts and invites Bill to deal with his
anger and his scare, while Richard serves as supporter and
protector.
202 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Bill: Until I couldn't be me any more.

Richard: Couldn't be you any more?
Bill: (nods) Till I didn't know who I was.
Richard: Part of the way you're going to find out who you are now
is to feel this protection. Feel the strength in my arm?Justfeel that
muscle there. Feel me wrapped around you. (Richard is still sitting
behind Bill, with his arms around him) Feel this guy that's inside of
my arm?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: So your body gets to feel protection instead of hits. Gets
to feel affection instead of neglect.
The relationship continues, and Richard clearly states his inten-
tion. Bill gets the protection, and the strong male model, that he
needed; moreover, he gets it in the context of a confrontation
with his punitive mother. To reestablish this latter theme,
Rebecca intervenes:
Rebecca: (pause) Ready to tell me more about that?
Bill: Hm-um. (shakinghis head) If I'm starting to feel like a boy, I'll
get into trouble.
Rebecca: How do you solve that dilemma? Of being a boy, and
you're not supposed to be a boy?
Bill: Kept getting into trouble anyway. For a while. And then I
started being good.
Rebecca: What did "good'' mean? "Being good" mean?
Bill: Good meant going away and being by myself.
Here is another part of Bill's pattern of withdrawal. Whenever he
begins to feel comfortable, so that he might begin to loosen up
andjoin in a conversation or activity, he reminds himself that he
must not get into trouble-he must "be good." And to "be
good" means to be isolated. He works within a feedback system
in which moving out of the old behavior pattern (withdrawal and
isolation) automatically sets off a warning signal ("you aren't
being good"); the signal, in turn, arouses old feelings of fear and
rage, which can only be dealt with by returning to the withdrawn
and isolating behaviors.
Rebecca: How do you feel when you think about doing that?
Bill: (very softly) I just don't want to do it anymore.
 Replacing a Destructive lntrojed 203

Rebecca: Yeah.
Richard: Hold on to this hand.
Bill: (a little more firmly) I don't want to do it anymore.
Richard: Hold tighter, and shout it.
Bill: (breathlessly) I don't want to be by myself, anymore.
Holding, and being held by, Richard-the surrogate father-
allows Bill to gain energy and courage. He has practiced saying
what he really wants, with Richard's support. Now he will be
brought back to the original script-forming situation, still with
the physical and emotional support of a therapist.
Richard: Just shout it at her, in a nasty way.
Bill: (breathing harder again, and trembling with his held-in
intensity)
Rebecca: Let yourself feel that, Bill.
Richard: (coaching) I-Don't-Want.
Bill: I don't want to be good any more.
Richard: Tell her some more of the "don't wants."
.
Bill: Iwant to be.. Iwant to be a little boy. Idon't want to be a little
girl.
Notice how easily and naturally Bill expresses himself i n Child
language. This kind of smooth transitioning indicates that Bill is
still ready to work, and also that Richard has preparedhim well to
access his early experiences.
Rebecca: Keep going. I want,and Idon't want. Justlet them come.
Richard: (simultaneously) Igotcha, Bill. Come on! That's my guy.. .
Bill: I want you to like me as a little boy.
Richard: Atta boy! Let's go! Keep going!
Bill: (pause) I don't know. I don't feel like shouting.
Rebecca: Do it your way. "I want," or "I don't want."
By energetically encouraging Bill, Richard hopes to help him tap
into his positive emotional energy, to avoid cutting off his
feelings and dealing with this issue at a purely cognitive level.
There is always a danger, with this kind of forceful leading, that
the client may adapt: may go along with suggestions simply to
please the therapist or to avoid a fight, even though his own
sense is that he needs to do something else. Rebecca's inter-
vention here is designed to counter this possibility, to give Bill
204 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

permission (again, a permission he didn't have as a child) to know

what he needs and to act on it, even if others think he should be
doing something else.
Bill: (longpause) I'm gonna stay beinga little boy. I'm not gonna be
a little girl, and I won't go away, I won't (his voice dies off to an
unintelligible mutter).
Richard: Cause tell her what being a girl means to you. What you
have to lose inside of you, to be girlish.
Bill: I have to be a girl all the time. Sit down, and behave.
Richard: That the difference?Girls are good and behave, and boys
are bad?
Bill: No, girls have all the power, too.
Bill has clearly indicated that he's not ready to confront Mother
with energy, even with the backingof Richard. It's toodangerous,
he has too much to lose, and he's just not strong enough yet.
Richardacceptsthis and movesback into a moresupportive role.
Providing Bill with good fathering, i n terms of both feelings and
information, will give him new and positive experiences to
integrate i n the days to come; as that integration becomes firmer,
he may be ready for another step. For now, though, Bill has set
the limits of what he is willing to accept and work with.
Richard: Boy, somebody lied to you, Bill.
Bill: That's the way it was in my family.
Richard: Well, they lied to you.
Bill: They got to do whatever they wanted to do.
Richard: Girls?(Billnods) Well, then Iwould think you might get all
confused, and think sometimes you wanted to be a girl and
sometimes you wanted to be the young man that you were. Been
confused a lot about what sex you were?
Bill: Um-hm. My mother didn't really want me to be a girl, but she
didn't want me to have any power, either.
Richard: So what do you do with that little thing hanging between
your legs, if she wants you to be a girl?
Bill: Forget about it.
.
Richard: It's too enjoyable to forget about.. How did you forget
about it?
In this and the next sequence of responses, Richard continues to
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 205

draw out the little boy's experience of growing up and forminga

sense of who and what he was. The questions and comments
combine interest, support, and permission-giving with positive
male modeling: the essence of the relationship that Bill needs.
Bill: I didn't grow up. Ijust stayed a little boy.
Richard: Hm. Well, there's certainly more pleasure in a man's
organ than in a little boy's organ, isn't there?
Bill: Well, little boys can have fun too.
Rebecca: Is that what you did?
Richard: How do you have your fun?
Bill and Richard have closed Rebecca out at this point, and both
ignore her question. This is "man-talk," the kind of father-son
exclusiveness that can only happen when Dad is both open to
talk about male issues and powerful enough to keep Mom out-
exactly the kind of parenting that Bill was denied.
Bill: How did I have my fun?
Richard: Uh-huh.
Bill: (chuckling) Off by myself.
Richard: Did you play with that little wing-ding off by yourself?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: I s that how you knew you were a boy? Did you go and
masturbate?
Bill: Um-hm. I started really young.
Richard: Did you masturbate a lot?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: And she never caught you?
Bill: Yes, she did.
Richard: What did she do when she caught you?
Bill: It was already too late.
Richard: What do you mean?You'd already popped?
The casualness of this question contains acceptance of Bill's
behavior, as well as information about the naturalness of his
physical responses. Again, it is man-talk, "this is the way we guys
are."
Bill: No, I was already having too much fun.
Richard: Then what did she do when she caught you?
206 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Bill: I don't know.

This is almost certainly a defensive retreat. Bill's Child ego state
does not want to deal with Mother, with her punishment, her
disapproval, her power. Rather than recall what happened, and
risk reexperiencing that pain, he begins to withdraw again.
Richard draws him back into contact, turning to a new idea rather
than challenging the "I don't know."
.
Richard: Thank Cod for masturbation.. What do you suppose life
would be like if you hadn't found out about it?
Bill: (pause)Hm. I don't know, I wouldn't have had anybody.
Richard: You mean, playing with yourself was like having a friend?
Bill: I had myself.
Rebecca: It's still awfully lonely. Maybe feel good for a while, but
..
you're still alone. What are you feeling now, Bill?
By her tone of voice anda shift in body position, as well as by her
words, Rebecca signals that she has left the role of mother and
has returned to being simply the cotherapist in this piece of
work. She is, nevertheless, still a woman; her implicit support of
Billi masturbation, and her concern about his loneliness, may
help to counter the old ideas that women/mothers disapproveof
masculinity and want boys to be girlish/good/alone.
Bill: Much better. (laughs)
Rebecca: But still lonely.
Bill: Urn-hm.
Richard: What else do you want to tell us, Bill?
Is Bill really satisfied with support and permission around being
and acting like a boy, or does he have some other issue he wants
to raise? If there is no new piece, the work can move to a
conclusion that will cement the relationship, will provide further
cognitive and experiential raw materials that Bill can use to
enhance and expand his masculine identity. But Richard wants to
be sure that the shy, frightened Child has indeed told as much as
he wants to tell, for now.
Bill: (pause)I can't think of anything else.
Rebecca: Is there anything else you want right now?
Richard: (pause)Tell us what you don't want.
Bill: I don't want t o stop being a boy ... but I don't want to be
depressed.
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 207

Richard: Well, OK. We'll set up a program. Take you to thegarbage

dump. And maybe Vic will show you where he keeps his dirtiest
mud. Blackest mud you've ever seen. (chuckles from the group)
And it even smells dirty. And maybe you could even throw it. And
maybe you could get your clothes dirty. And then you know what
we would have to do? We'd have to put them in the washing
machine.
Rebecca: Look at Frankie!
Frankie i s the young man whom we met in Chapter 5. He i s now
grinning delightedlyat the program Richardis describingfor Bill.
Richard: Frankie may not be brave enough to do that. You see, he
was raised as a sissy too. (laughter from the group)
Issues of sexual identity usually involveshame; the boy who feels
or acts like a girl, or the girl who labels herself too masculine, is
encouraged by adults and peers alike to believe that these
experiences are wrong and bad. That Richardcan refer to being
"raisedas a sissyminsuch a matter-of-fact way defuses the shame,
makes what has been unmentionablesuddenly ordinary. Other
members of the group hadbeen touched by that sense of shame,
the conspiracy of silence that so often surrounds sexual issues
(which has already been pointed out in Robert's work, in
Chapter 6); their laughter signals release of tension.
Richard: (continuing) Do you think you two could grow up
together, with a little encouragement?
Bill: Um-hm.
Richard: What do you think Ishould do with Frankie?He was also
beaten for getting dirty. His mother also beat him. "You have to be
good!" He didn't even know what she was talking about. What do
you think I should do with Frankie, to liberate him?
Bill: Talk to him the way you talked to me.
Richard: I've been doing that, for a couple of years. Sometimes he
doesn't believe it, that it's real. Sometimes he does. Does this feel
real to you? (Bill nods) I'm glad for you. Cause you're sure holding
on to me.
Bill: I think it feels real because I,it feels good just to know what
to do.
Richard: Well, part of the way you're going to know what to do is,
I'm going to listen to you. But you know something? If I'm going to
listen, you've got to talk. You gotta tell me, "I like this, and Idon't
208 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

like this.""I want this, and Idon't want that." You gotta take the risk
of talking.
This is not only another permission for Bill, another piece of the
relationshipprocess, but it is also an explicit direction for him as a
client i n therapy. It is thus a duplex message-a message
delivered simultaneously to two ego states. The Child hears "It's
OK for you to say what you want," while the Adult hears "This is
the way you can make your therapy more effective." And both
messages are important for Bill.
Bill: When I'd try to talk with him I'd get into fights with him, and
he didn't understand.
Richard: Well, you want to get in a fight with me?
Bill: (laughing) Not right now.
.
Richard: I like to fight. . But we gotta do it on the mat. And the
winner of the fight i s the first one who gives the other one a bibble.
Bill: A what?
Richard: A bibble. You don't know what a bibble is? Well, I will
have to show you that now.
Richard has moved back from Bill as he talks, and now reaches
out and begins to wrestle with him. The "bibble" he is talking
about is the flatulent soundmade by blowing while one's mouth
is pressed against skin-in this case, the skin around the belly
button. Before Bill realizes what is happening, Richard has
pushed him down on the mat, pulledup his shirt, andgiven him a
resounding "bibble."
Richard: See, it's when two guys-get up on your knees, there.
Push against me. Two guys fight, like this, and they push, to see
who's stronger, and then suddenly, one of them takes the other
guy's shirt and pulls it out and goes like this (he demonstrates)-and
that's the bibble! (applause and catcalls from the group) So Iwon,
I'm the hero.
Rebecca: But you'll have your chance, Bill.
Richard: That's the kind of fighting that you needed. The delightful
part of that kind of fighting is that you've got to be loving, to win.
Because who wants to bibble somebody they don't love? (he dives
i n and bibbles Bill again) I'm the champ. And no sissy could ever
bibble me.
Rebecca: There's your chance, Bill.
 Replacing a Destructive lntroject 209

Richard: You gotta be manly. To get the champ.

Female group member: Sometimes it takes a bunch of kids,
together, to bibble their daddy.
This remark releases both Frankie and Vic, who leap onto the mat
and, with Bill, attempt to wrestle Richard onto his back. A free-
for-all develops, and after much struggling and thrashing about,
Frankie and Vic manage to pin Richard so that Bill can administer
a triumphant bibble. Thesession ends to the cheers of thegroup.

The debate over whether homosexuality is "aberration" or

"normal" has raged for decades among mental health specialists;
there is no reason to believe that the conflict has ended or that the
last word has been heard. In Chapter 6, we examined a therapeutic
session with a young man whose sexual identity had been clearly
formed and whose homosexuality was Adult ego-syntonic; his goal
was to rid himself of an old, introjected criticism of that identity,
which was in conflict with his Adult ego state choice of life-style.
Bill's situation is quite different; he has made an Adult ego state
choice in favor of heterosexuality, but at a Child ego state level is
still experiencing confusion about that choice. The absence of
adequate male models during his early years, together with the
influence of a harshly punitive mother, led him to form decisions
and beliefs about himself that were incompatible with a comfortably
masculine self-concept. In order for him to be able to function as a
healthy adult male, his Child ego state needs new experiences-a
chance to act out what has been inhibited and fixated. The old,
faulty reactions need to change so that he can reexamine his archaic
decisions and beliefs and replace whatever parts are interfering
with his ability to be flexible, creative, and intimate in his relation-
ships with others.
The relationship with Richard i s only the first step in Bill's
therapy. As the old, limiting Parent ego state is decommissioned,
Bill will need to do further redecision work. Both Parent and Child
ego state material will then need to be integrated into his overall
personality functioning. The first order of business, though, is to
deal with the Parent ego state; as long as that Parent continues to
intimidate him, he will not be able to summon the resources that he
needs in order to change-or even to make a free choice to remain
the same.
210 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

The relationship with the therapist provides the Child ego state
with a new parental model. And, for the therapy to be successful,
information needs to be taken in through all channels: cognitive,
emotional, behavioral, and physical. In the segment presented in
this chapter, Bill takes in information from both therapists; he is also
invited to make emotional contact with both. Behaviorally, he is
invited to confront a symbolic Mother in a new way, with new and
positive support. And the wrestling match, as well as the proposed
mud play and the trip to the dump (both of which did occur later in
the workshop), invite behavioral and physical experiences quite
alien to the actual course of his childhood development.
Because the therapists had not known Bill before this workshop,
they had not had an opportunity to assess the degree to which his
early experiences had created a damaging script pattern. They did
not know, before this piece of work, how thoroughly the combina-
tion of punitive Mother and withdrawn, disapproving Father had
succeeded i n discouraging and confusing the Child Bill. Had the
damage been less pervasive, Bill might well have been able to
follow Richard's lead in energetically confronting Mother and
moving to a new decision about himself and his masculinity. As it
became apparent that Bill felt too powerless and frightened to do
this, the goal of the session shifted: Rather than push for a
redecision, with the possibility of failure and an actual strengthening
of Bill's sense of inadequacy, the therapists focused almost exclu-
sively on the relationshp between a father and son. With this new
framework, Bill could take the risk of opening himself emotionally
to healthy parenting, could allow his Child to try previously
forbidden behaviors, and could experience "success" as a client.
All three of these outcomes pave the way for further therapeutic
growth.
Bill has much more work to do, before he will be ready to face the
world with a comfortable sense of his own neopsychic potency. But
his work is well begun. The seeds of growth have been planted; his
Child ego state has had a small but heady taste of the kind of
parenting all children need and deserve. Whether he chooses to
follow up this work with further formal therapy, or to integrate and
work through the experience on his own (or both), he leaves the
workshop i n a significantly different world from that which he knew
when he arrived.
 GLENDA
The Empty House

Integrative psychotherapy emphasizes the importance of our

fantasy activities. In our day- and night-dreams, our images, and our
creative productions, we express the varied aspects of ourselves.
Each fragment of these fantasies-each object, each person, each
house or hill or ocean beach-is also a fragment of self, expressed in
symbolic fashion. As we saw in Emily's work in Chapter 7, clients can
be led to "decode" this symbolic language. Dreams and fantasies
can be a means of discovering oneself, one's thoughts and feelings
and desires that may be tucked away out of conscious awareness:
once these aspects of self have been brought into awareness, they
are available for psychotherapeutic work.
In the session presented in this chapter, therapists and client
work not with a dream, but with a consciously created fantasy. The
fantasy is built on a memory: the recollection of the house that the
212 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

client lived in during childhood. This recollection is highly emo-

tionally charged, as the client's previous work has revealed. On the
surface, the emotional meaning of the house has to do with a
traumatic event that occurred there: The client's father,enraged at
her mother (from whom he was estranged), arranged for movers to
come in and take away all the furnishings i n the home. The client
and her mother returned from an all-day shopping expedition to
find their home stripped bare. As we shall see in the work, however,
the emotional meaning of this house goes far beyond its role as the
site of a painful memory. The house i s a metaphor for the self, and
each room and object and characteristic of the house i s a symbolic
representation of the client's personal experience.
Glenda, the client, became mute as a small child and remained
without speech for more than a year. Even now, when under stress,
she frequently experiences difficulty in speaking. Her gestures,
with hands and face and her whole body, are fluid and eloquent.
Where possible, in the work, we will describe these gestures. The
reader should be aware, however, that a significant portion of
Glenda's communication is lost in relying on the printed word.
In a previous piece of work, Glenda began exploring the image
of her house and its meanings: the impact of this work was
sufficiently intense that she very quickly began to "talk" in gestures
rather than words, and eventually closed down altogether. She sat
huddled on the mat, clearly involved i n her experience, but
unable/unwilling to communicate what was going on for her
internally. She began the present session with a request to use the
image of the house again, to take yet another step toward bringing
her old, terrifying experiences into full awarenesswhile at the same
time utilizing the contact and support of the therapists.
The work moves immediately into a guided fantasy in which
Glenda, eyes closed to facilitate the visualization process, goes
through the rooms of the house, describing each one as if she
herself were that room: "I am an empty living room, and I have
three large windows .. ." Working slowly and patiently, the
therapists help Glenda to explore each room, and the feelings
associated with each. We pick up the work as Glenda prepares to
"be" her own bedroom.

Glenda: . . .So I'm out in the foyer, and I go to my room. And I have
a crib in the bedroom.. . I am the room.. .They're taking my bed,
 The Empty House 213

and my bureau, and my chair, it's like they just tore through the
whole house. Swept it. And they didn't care, they just did it, as I'm
watching them, they didn't care, it was just their job. Just take it.
By this point i n the work, Glenda has learned to step into the role
of the room, to 'be the room," and does so with little or no
coaching. The sense of being violated, invadedby some mechan-
ical, uncaring, unfeeling force is strong here, as she deals with the
event of the movers coming in and stripping the house. The
therapists are looking further, however, for some more deeply
personal meaning in the "my room" symbol.
Rebecca: They don't know that you're a special room, do they?
Describe your specialness, room.
Glenda: That's interesting, cause that room I see as dark.
Rebecca has n o idea as to the significance of "darkness" here.
But it is significant, as shown by Glenda's own surprise at the
discovery, as well as her breaking out of role and back into
commenting from her own person. To probe further, without
suggesting or programming an interpretation, Rebecca simply
rephrases Glenda's description as a self-referent of the room.
Rebecca: I'm dark. ..
Glenda: I don't see that room as a happy room.
Rebecca: Well, tell us about that, room. How come you're not a
happy room.
Glenda: Cause I'm always in the dark there. And I have a window.
Somehow the light doesn't get in. In my room.
Rebecca: And what happens inside of you, room?
Glenda has not responded to two invitations to go back to her
'be the room" mode: Rebecca simply goes on as if she had,
addressingher each time as ''room." This time, Glenda makes the
transition.
Glenda: What happens inside me? I don't know, but I'm not a
happy room . . . There's a little girl that stays inside me.
Rebecca: Um-hm. Tell me about that little girl. The little girl in you,
room.
Glenda: I'm trying to stay connected.
It isn't clear whether Glenda is referring here to trying to stay in
214 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

role as "the room," or whether she is struggling not to shut down

and disconnect from the therapists altogether. This latter possi-
bility suggests another advantage of maintaining the frame of
reference of "the roomJ': It allows Glenda to stay partially
detached from the pain and terror that she felt as a child. Looking
at herself, from the perspective of "the room," will allow her to
explore the early experiences without being overwhelmed by
them. Rebecca, still addressing "the room" (which can look at
the little girl inside of itself), uses the idea of being connected in
terms of the little girl's hiding or disconnecting from that room-
a metaphor for Glenda's internal fragmentation and dissociation
of the various parts of herself.
Rebecca: Does she not show you much of herself?
Glenda: (longpause) I can't connect to her. She's just there. She's
there becauseshe's there. That's my sense. She's there because she
knows that's her room. Idon't know if she likes it or not; she's there.
Rebecca: What's she like when she's in you?
Glenda: Well, my thought that comes to me, I don't know if I'm
right, I see her being, you know, kind of like, I see her trying on a
dress, pink dress, that she had when she was, as an infant. And Isee
her watching her brother have a temper tantrum. I thought he was
going to hit his head for sure. And cut it. She got scared. He really
screamed and jumped. I don't remember if my mother came in or
not. I think she did later, but she didn't when he did it. I was really
scared, but Idon't, I don't know what kind of girl she is. She'squiet.
She's quiet, she's not going to do what her brother does. And sad. I
don't know why, I'm just saying that. She's sad.
Glenda's fragmentation shows even more clearly here, as she
switches roles from self-as-child to "room," and from past-tense
remembering to present-tense experiencing.
Rebecca: You know what she's sad about, room?
Glenda: Yeah. She doesn't like that her parents argue.
Richard: Is that when she was quiet?
Glenda: She doesn't remember.
Richard: I s that when she goes quiet, room? I s that when you hear
her get quiet and not talk?
The assumption i s that "the room" knows everything i t wants to
know; "Idon't rememberJJi s not accepted. By repeating the
 The Empty House 215

question, RichardencouragesGlenda to continue the process of

half-remembering, half-constructing her fantasy.
Glenda: (whispering) When do I hear her get quiet and not talk?
Richard: When her parents argue?When she goes mute?
Glenda: She was always in the middle, between them. I don't
..
know, all I know is she's quiet. She's quiet. My thought is, she
wishes she weren't there. But there she is; she's stuck in my room.
There she is. She's there. She wishes she weren't. She feels
responsible. Very responsible. She felt responsible for her brother
and the temper tantrum.
Rebecca: Is there a room that she does feel happy in?
Glenda: I n the living room. Yep, that's her happiest room.
Rebecca: Um-hm. With the golden swan.
Glenda: Um. And the bright light. It was a happy room.
Rebecca is referring to an ornament that Glenda has described
earlier, a ceramic swan that she loved to look at. Taking her back
for a moment to her "happiest roomJJgives her a brief time out, a
rest; the therapists must be careful to avoid pushing Glenda so
fast that she willagain disconnect from the process andgo mute.
She seems to be reenergizedby accessing the 'happy roomJJand
so Rebecca goes back to the exploration of the rest of the house.
Rebecca: Anything else you want to say about yourself, bedroom?
.
Glenda: (pause) Ifeel closed in.. .smothered.. Iwould want that
room to breathe. And be liked. I want my room to breathe and be
liked, and Iwould like to be in that room. I don't like that room. I
.
have to.. my room, my room.. . Iwant my room to be liked. Idon't
like the dark.
Rebecca: Let's move on and be the parents' room.
Glenda: I have one more room before we get there. That's the
spare room. And the spare room i s a bunch of clutter. And I don't
know any more than that about that room.
Rebecca: I'm a bunch of clutter.
Glenda: I'm a bunch of clutter. That's not a very bright room,
either; it's a little bit brighter, though. A little brighter than my
other room. My parents' bedroom-
Rebecca: Wait, you don't have to move so fast. How do you feel,
room with all your clutter?
216 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Having spontaneously mentioned the cluttered room, Glenda

quickly moves away from it. Given that Glenda brought i t up
herself, Rebecca assumes that it is important, and blocks Glenda's
resistance to further exploration there.
.
Glenda: I feel.. frenzied. But now I'm empty. They even took my
clutter. They took everything; they even took that. Even though it
was not even worth anything to them . . .
Rebecca: Ouch.
Glenda: Wasn't worth it. And they still took it. Doesn't make sense.
(pause) That room's a very righteous room. That room is saying,
"What are you doing?Taking my clutter?" (pause) "Where are you
.
going to put it?You don't need it."They're not listening.. They're
not listening because they're just too busy doing their job. I guess
that's the ridiculous ... Iguess my spare room sees how ridiculous
this is. Taking the furniture; taking my clutter to top it off.
Rebecca: You're an important part of this whole house.
Glenda: What is?
Rebecca: You, room. Are an important part of this whole house.
You collected the clutter.
Rebecca's comment here is based partly on the spontaneous
mention of the room, partly on the increase in Glenda's energy
during her last comments, and partly on the idea that Glenda,
experiencing her fragmentation, may be able to relate more
closely to the "c1utter"of this room than to the orderliness or the
barrenness of the others. Glenda's response validates these
hunches; it is a clear description of her script belief about herself.
Glenda: I don't know if I'm that important. I'm just, I'm a place
where people stick things that they have no other place to put.
Rebecca: That's important. What would the world be like if we
didn't have junk piles?And you're able to see the ridiculousness of
things. Cause you're both important and nonimportant at the same
time. A very, very perceptive part of this house.
Glenda: The clutter room?
Rebecca: Sure. Clutter room is always important.
Glenda: Well, I didn't feel that way. No one really stayed in my
room very long. But Iwas kinda glad anyway; rather be by myself.
Don't like to get involved.
 The Empty House 217

Glenda may be making another veiled reference here to her

becoming mute and thus isolating herself. Rebecca finds a
positive connotation for the isolation: I t helps Glenda see things
clearly, and it also provides a different perspective from which
she can experience her own reactions, both past and present.
Rebecca: Helps you to see things clearly, too. See ridiculousness.
(pause) Anything else you want to say, room?
Glenda: Um .. . Istill feel smothered, just like the other room. M y
. .
room.. that spare room, I'm.. that room is probably the bravest
room, the gets-angry room. Trying to save everyone else. (pause)
But it doesn't work, anyway. The hopelessness seeps through my
walls. (shakes her head)
. .
Richard: Do that gesture with your head.. more.. see how you
feel with that gesture. (Glenda continues to exaggerate her head
shaking) Give that gesture a voice.
Because Glenda has a tendency to stop talking, the therapists are
particularly attentive to nonverbal communications. Here
Richard makes an explicit request that she translate the gesture
into words, to assist Glenda in maintaining contact with them.
Glenda: (pause) Actually ... I think I stimulated, this movement
was just like, it'll shut me down. And it's like, if I move my body, I
can ... stimulates me to just shut down. I mean, I can phase out
with it.
The request has helped Glenda to notice and take responsibility
for her choice to close down, rather than to stay with the process
at hand. As she owns her own power, her own choosing, she is
better able to make that choice a conscious one-she can decide,
with awareness, whether to continue the therapeutic process.
Richard's next comment ties together Glenda's physical response
with her emotional experience, using the metaphoric device that
has been used throughout the work.
Richard: But that gesture of yours sort of comes through the walls.
Glenda: Yes.
Rebecca: Now feel the desire to shut down. When that hope-
lessness comes through the walls. (longpause) Are you shutting us
out now?(pause) It's when you go inside yourself, cause when you
feel that hopelessness in your house, and every room closes in,
dark, and it's getting suffocating, and it comes through the walls.
218 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

(pause) I think it's time for us to go into that parents' room. I s that
where the hopelessness stems from?
Glenda: (nods; she is physically slumping down into herself-she
looks very young and defenseless as she curls over and hangs her
head)
Rebecca: (continuing) just be the parents' bedroom now . . .
Describe yourself, room. (Glenda continues to gesture, pattingand
pressingthe space around her in small, graceful, pleading motions)
So much that can't come out. Seeps through the walls. There's so
much to say, and things you can't say.
Throughout this and the following speech, Glenda continues to
gesture mutely. Rebecca's comments are partially in response to
those gestures, and partly a leading on from the nonverbal
messages.
Rebecca: Almost like you didn't exist. Your existence wasn't as
important as what was going on in there. The existence of the
..
bedroom was not so important. I wonder if that stuff inside the
bedroom needed to come out . . . That was the furniture that
needed, I bet, to be moved out of the house. And all the other
furniture kept. Including the spare room. All the clutter needed to
be kept. (Glenda shakes her head "no") Not all? It was parents'
furniture that needed to go. (Glenda again indicates "no") Needed
to stay. And something else needed to happen.. .And it could have
happened, bedroom . . .
Glenda: (almost unintelligible) .. .
want to go there. ..
Rebecca: Want to go where?
Glenda: I don't, a bedroom . . .
Rebecca: (pause) Bedroom's off limits.
Glenda: I, I know I said that but I don't know why I said that.
Rebecca's nonjudgmental patience has signaled her willingness
to deal with Glenda at whatever language level she chooses. In
response, Glenda emerges from her short period of mutism;
Rebecca quickly takes advantage of Glenda's shift and returns to
the exploration at hand.
Rebecca: I'm a bedroom ...
.
Glenda: I'm a bedroom . . I feel more like I'm outside.
Rebecca: Tell me more about that, bedroom.
 The Empty House 219

.
Glenda: It's like I should beoutside right now.. I don't know why,
in that bedroom Ifeel outside.. .
Richard: Tell me more about you, bedroom.
Again, Glenda i s shifting between answeringas the bedroom and
answering as herself. By asking her to tell about herself, 'bed-
room," Richardattempts to solidify the role. As we shall see, the
attempt eventually succeeds, but only after several more
exchanges.
Glenda: (pause) I don't know, except I'm empty. They took all the
furniture out of that bedroom too. I don't have any feeling for that
bedroom. It has no feeling.
Rebecca: The room does have feelings.
Glenda: Hm-um. That room's empty.
Richard: Umm. Consider that a feeling. Call it a mood.
Glenda: I'm not able to feel connected to that room.
Richard: Then say the opposite of connected.
Glenda: Disconnected. I'm disconnected from the rest of the
house. I'm all disconnected.
Rebecca: How come, room? How come you're disconnected?
Glenda: Can't come together with the rest of the house.
Rebecca: What happened inside of you, room?What keeps you so
separate?
Glenda: I don't know. Ijust cannot move with the rest of the house.
I would like to but I can't. Cause the people that are inside me,
.
they're not, they're not happy. . . they fight. . wish they'd stop.
We are back with the pain that existedbetween Glenda's parents.
Somehow, i t i s related to her sense of isolation, of being
disconnected: The two themes, fighting and disconnection,
weave themselves together in an almost organic way as the work
continues.
Rebecca: So you could be more connected?
Glenda: Yeah. Their connection is, uh, the fighting. They're too
. .
young.. ThereJsanotherroom.. Guess that little girl in that other
room feels responsible. . .
Rebecca: Does the hopelessness come from you, bedroom, or
does it come from her bedroom?
220 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Glenda: (pause) I don't know.

Rebecca: The hopelessness that seeps through the walls.
Glenda: I don't know; I think it's a mixture.
Rebecca: Yet you described yourself as being a powerful room. I s
that because you are disconnected? There's power in being
disconnected.
It i s unclear where the reference to a "powerful roomJDcomes
from. It may have emerged i n a previous piece of work, or
Rebecca may simply have become confused between Glenda's
description of the parents' bedroom and her earlier statement
that the store room was 'the bravest room." If the reference i s a
mistake, it doesn't seem to have done a great deal of damage to
the process.
Glenda: Urn-hm.
Rebecca: Or in being able to take it all?
Glenda: At least there's a strength there.
Rebecca: Sounds like that's important. That there's power in being
able to take it all. And power in being disconnected.
Glenda: I'm tired of doing that.
The first breath of hope and energy for change! It's very faint,
andis almost immediatelysubmergedagainin the heaviness and
isolation that has pervaded the work so far, but it is a signal of
some kind of therapeutic yeast, working away under the surface.
Rebecca: Urn-hm. What would you like to be different, room?
..
Glenda: Iwould like. the occupants not to fight. (sighs deeply)
Rebecca: (pause) There's that pain.
Glenda: I know I must feel anger, but when I do it I can't help it. I
feel like taking it out on me.
A common way of protecting ourselves from the pain of o l d
traumas is to "go cognitive," to remove ourselves from actually
experiencing what is happening and to begin to think about, to
analyze, the experience instead. Glenda does this here: Her
response is one of thinking about her feelings, rather than
feeling them. Rebecca's response is designed to refocus her on
the feelings themselves, rather than what she thinks ought to be
there.
 The Empty House 221

Rebecca: You don't have to take it all. You don't have to stay
.
disconnected.. A room shouldn't be treated that way. . . Neither
should a child.
Glenda: I'm stuck. I can't. .. I feel very self-destructive.
Rebecca: Well, I think you gotta be willing to be angry outside.
This is an interpretation, based partly on previous work and
partly on Glenda's comment that she feels like "taking it out on
me." Children who have no permission to express (or even
experience) anger toward things and people i n their environ-
ments often turn that anger inward. Because Glenda continues to
internalize her angry feelings, keeping them inside rather than
expressingthem and moving through them, she stays stuck. This
pattern is so old, so ingrainedand well-established, that she is no
longer experientially aware of it; she knows enough at a
theoretical level to say that she 'must feel" anger, but this is an
intellectual hypothesis rather than a true knowing from
experience.
Glenda: I can't connect; it's difficult for me to see a connection.
Rebecca: Take the risk. Stand and look at that empty house.
Glenda: I don't want to do that yet. I want to be the whole house.
Rebecca: OK.
Glenda: I'm the whole house. I'm not connected at all. . . I'm like,
..
I'll lose if I think I'm connected. and if I'm not connected, I'm
stuck. I'm too involved.
Glenda's request to be the whole house seems to come from a
deep sense of needing to complete a process, needing to deal
with the symbolism of her journey through the rooms in a way
that will bring the parts together. She is trying to report on a
complex set of thoughts and feelings, and her experience is
racing faster than her words can keep up. The resulting statement
is confused and confusing, both to the therapists and to her.
Richard suggests a way to get some clarity:
Richard: Be Glenda, and talk to that house. Look at the house and
talk to it.
.
Glenda: (pause) You were a good house . . You tried to keep
.
everyone protected.. from all the elements outside. And you did
it, too. You did your job.
222 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Remember that each part of the fantasy production is an element

of the self. For the first time, Glenda i s appreciating her
self-protection.
Richard: Tell that house what's happened to it. What those movers
did to it.
Glenda: They made you empty. (pause, then whispering) It wasn't
the house's fault.
Rebecca: Tell that to the house. It wasn't your fault.
It is a reasonableassumption that any young child whose parents
quarrel or separate carries a sense of guilt or responsibility.
Children, being developmentally egocentric, experience every-
thing that happens i n their environment as connected to
themselves; ifparents don't get along, it must be the child's fault.
I n this segment of the work, Glenda is dealing symbolically with
her archaicsenseof guilt, a feeling that she has referredto before
in connection with her brother's behavior but not directly with
reference to her parents.
Glenda: It wasn't your fault.
Richard: Now say that in the first person.
..
Glenda: It . wasn't the house's fault. It wasn't; the house is a
house. It's not a person.
Richard: Say it in the first person.
Glenda: It wasn't my fault.
Richard: Say both parts to the house. It wasn't your fault, house.. .
Glenda: It wasn't your fault, house.
Richard: And the other part? (long pause) Someone just told that
little girl it's her fault.
Glenda: It was never her fault.
Rebecca: How about being that house, and talk to the little girl. Bet
the house knew that little girl in there.. .That empty house that sees
a very bewildered little girl.
The old sense of confusion and isolation is so strong for Glenda
that when she tries to deal with it directly she feels overwhelmed.
By "being" the house, she can experience a feeling of ground-
edness, of solidity, as she reexplores the old issues: She can
know, experientially, what was happening for the little girl, but
not get enmeshed in that child's feelings. Again, the technique
 The Empty House 223

provides a way to feel, yet not be overwhelmed by the feelings.

Glenda: I can empathize a little better when I'm the house.. .than
when I'm her.
Rebecca: Um-hm. Then be the house. House, you talk to that little
girl. She's very bewildered about your being so empty. She even
blames herself-she doesn't know what to feel, it's so over-
whelming.
Glenda: (whispering) She feels really bad.
Rebecca: Tell her, house. Tell her what you know about her. What
you see in her.
Glenda: (still whispering) I don't know what to say.
Richard: House, i s she very sad? To compensate for not being
angry?
Glenda: (beginning to cry) No, she's just sad.
Richard: That's even more important than the anger, huh?
The interpretation that Glenda was angry doesn't fit for her right
now; she is not ready to deal with any anger or outrage at what
was done to her and her mother. Notice how Richard responds
to her correction, without forcing the issue of anger, yet reserves
that avenue for later work.
Richard: (continuing) It's like someone took all of her insides out,
..
too . Keep talking to her, house. She listens to you.
Glenda: Seems kind of dumb for a house to talk to a little girl.
Rebecca: I think it's very smart, for a house to talk to a little girl.
Houses are big, and they hear all kinds of things, and they watch all
kinds of things.
Glenda: I think she knows that.
Glenda may be signaling her openness to accept the house as a
symbol of internal nurturing. Certainly the work moves to its
conclusion in a way that would support such a hypothesis.
Rebecca: Um-hm. And she needs something from you, house. You
know what you need to give her, what she needs from you.
Glenda: (crying) She's so confused.
Richard: Something she's waiting to hear from you, house. So she
doesn't have to be so confused. Somethingyou can tell her, to make
sense out of the whole process.
Glenda: She thinks it's her fault.
224 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

A major step from her earlier statement, "It was never her fault."
Glenda is now aware of the experience of guilt, rather than
keeping it out of conscious awareness.
Richard: Talk to her about that, house.
Glenda: It won't make any difference.
Richard: Talk to her about it anyway, just in case.
Glenda: The house isn't even here.
Rebecca: You don't have to be here, house. Just talk to her. . .
You've watched this little girl for a long time. You've seen her
loneliness. You've seen her feel the hopelessness from the walls.. .
You'veseen her listen to her silence. That silence has communicated
..
a lot. Talk to her about i t . Cause if she knows that you know too,
she won't be so confused.
Glenda: (whispering; her first words are unintelligible). . . you can
touch me with your hands; I can't touch you.
Richard: But you can touch her with your wisdom.
Glenda: I don't know if she'll believe me. (Cries)Iwant her to, but I
don't know if she believes me.
Rebecca: But she hears you, and that's what counts. She'll think
about it for a while. Is there anything else that you can tell her?
Glenda's "Idon't know if she believes me"strong1y implies that
she has already constructed the message that the "house" needs
to give the little girl. Her tears are evidence that the message has
been received, that she is, in fact, responding emotionally to
some internal self-nurturing. Rather than insist that she share this
process externally, Rebecca chooses to acknowledge what has
occurred, and move on toward closure.
Glenda: It's like something's really there.
Rebecca: Um-hm; she can feel you. She sure knows your protec-
tion.
Glenda: It was a good house.
Rebecca: I wonder if it would be good to know something about,
that other people are going to come in and fill your space, fill it with
love and laughter, with meals again, with living and sleeping, and all
kinds of feelings,and that you're going to be full once more. And so
can she.
Glenda: But the little girl won't be there.
 The Empty House 225

.
Rebecca: She can take other people in, too.. Maybe that comes
later. Anything else you want to say to her now, house?
Glenda: Yeah. I don't want to say good-bye.
Rebecca: Is there some symbolic way that you need to stay with
her? Maybe she needs to find a little house, in a picture or
something. As a way of having you for a while.
Glenda: I don't know.
Rebecca may have moved too quickly here, trying to set up a way
for Glenda to continue the nurturing process on her own.
Glenda isn't ready to let go yet; sensing this i n the quality of her
"Idon't know," Rebecca backtracks.
Rebecca: Want to go back to saying, "I don't want to say good-bye
yet"?
Glenda: I don't want to say good-bye, but Ican't hold on.. .Guess I
feel like I want to say good-bye, but I have no feelings. Just blank,
closing down.
Rebecca: That's a feeling.
Glenda: I know. It's the old feeling.
Rebecca: Then I don't think you should do it.
Glenda: Why do Ihave to say good-bye, anyway?Why do I have to
say good-bye? I don't have to say good-bye to you. Idon't want to!
Rebecca: That little girl was feeling a whole lot.
Glenda: It's hard to let go.
Rebecca: In her mind she's holding on. In her heart she's hold-
ing on.
Glenda: She can hold on hard.
Rebecca: You two are a lot alike. (pause) You need to come back
..
. Open your eyes when you're ready.
With this intervention, Rebecca puts a final bit of glue on the
growing interaction between the nurturing part of Glenda (the
"houseJ)and the confused Childpart. She then, quite matter-of-
factly, indicates that it i s time to end the piece of work.

Clients who "closedown," who carryon significant parts of their

work internally, present a kind of therapeutic dilemma. If the
therapist insists that they communicate their experience aloud,
they may shut down altogether, or may get into a struggle around
226 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

the issue of whether or not to obey or adapt to the therapist's

directions. O n the other hand, trying to follow along with that
internal processforces the therapist to guess about what the client is
thinking and feeling, and thus risk missing important piecesor even
straying far away from the client's actual work. By constructing and
staying with a metaphor or symbol, the therapists steered a middle
course in Glenda's work: They have been able to make inter-
ventions that are ambiguous, and Glenda was free to understand
whatever part of the intervention actually fit for her.
As we have pointed out, the metaphoric approach also serves as
an emotional safety valve, a way to "bleed off" affect that may be
too overwhelming to be experienced directly. Later in treatment,
when Glenda has learned to accept and use the therapists'
protection more effectively, and when her Child ego state feels less
vulnerable and defenseless, she will be ready to deal with these
painful issues head on-to confront the quarreling parents, decom-
mission any possible introjected punitive Parent ego state material,
and help her Child ego state to find a better solution than going
mute, withdrawing, and isolating herself from the contact that she
needs in order to be fully alive.
 CHARLES
A Study in Contact

The heart of psychotherapy is contact. Contact between the self and

the external world, and contact and integration within the self,
defines psychological health. Contact between therapist and client
encourages, fosters, supports, and invites other contact
experiences.
While integrative psychotherapy makes use of a broad range of
concepts, the notion of contact remains basic. As we have seen in
previous chapters, contact pervades and undergirds all of our work.
Often, the importance of the contact itself is overshadowed by the
drama of other aspects of the therapy-an important redecision, an
intervention with a Parent ego state, the reworking of a dream or
fantasy. The piece of work presented in this chapter has none of
these; it is a nearly pure example of contact.
As you read through the transcript, notice the ways in which the
therapist consistently maintains and invites contact. Every comment,
228 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

question, paraphrase, or interpretation has two primary goals:

furthering a sense of contact between therapist and client, and
enhancingthe client's awareness of internal sensations, experience,
and memory. Any other benefits are of secondary importance.
The client, Charles, brings to the work a host of defensive
behaviors. He has used these defenses for many years, and i s for the
most part quite unaware of them. They feel necessary, a part of his
basic self, the only way for him to be. Yet the defenses serve to
interrupt contact and keep him locked into hisscript: He retroflects
(that is, he talks to himself rather than interacting in a genuine way
with others); he is highly sensitive to criticism; he wants a great deal
of attention and feels resentful and disappointed when he cannot
get it. By countering each of these script behaviors, over and over
again, with a patient and consistent offer of contact, the therapist
provides Charles with a new experience of being-in-the-world, an
experience in direct contradiction to the expectations he has built
up over the years. Charles, a man in his late fifties, has a dry,
pedantic manner. As he begins his work, his expression is remote,
his gestures stilted, and his voice overprecise, as if he is telling a
well-rehearsed story. This "rehearsedness" is another aspect of his
retroflection: He often appears to be more involved in listening to
himself than in reaching out to someone else. Richard and Rebecca
have had ample opportunity to observe this behavior through the
early days of the workshop, and have decided that establishing
genuine contact with Charles will not only be therapeutic, but also a
necessary precursor to any other work that might be accomplished.
O n the previous day, Charles had wanted to work in the group
but had turned down a chance to use an open half-hour before the
luncheon break. He now moves onto the mat in the middle of the
morning session, and begins to explain why he chose to wait:

Charles: Ididn't want to work yesterday, when we had only half an

hour. I felt I'd be adding more anxiety and more distress than I
already have now. I've been wanting to work with you, Richard, and
Iwanted Rebecca to be present while Iworked.. . I've connected
with the work of Chris and Jerry, and Robert. And. . . (pause) M y
mother was, uh, I never really felt my mother was very much of a
mother to me. She was, of course, but from an emotional point of
view I never felt I had a mother.
Richard: What does that feel like for you?
 A Study in Contad 229

Charles: At the moment I don't feel anything.

Richard: I think that's a feeling.
Charles: When I remember my mother, with one or two excep-
tions, I can count them on the fingers of one hand, um, what I
remember is her needs, and me looking after her. And this was from
quite an early age. Prior to that, I could remember sleeping in my
mother's bed, as happened in the case of Chris; I never ever
remember my mother and father sleeping in the same room let
alone the same bed. I never remember that. M y mother used to
sleep in her bedroom, and my father used to sleep in the cold room
at the other end of the house. And in the early years 1 do remember
sleeping with my mother. When Ithought about it later on, I used to
think that there was a reason, or several reasons for that, and one of
the reasons was that my mother didn't want my father in her bed.
And she kept me there to protect her. I also remember wanting to
cuddle up to my mother. ..
Charles's tone has become almost singsong; it sounds like a
well-rehearsedmonologue, one so familiar to him that he hardly
needs to think about it as he tells his story. There is little feeling,
and virtually n o contact with the therapists. This pattern must be
interrupted, but in a way that will not drive Charles even further
into his defensive posture. Richard accomplishes this by framing
the interruption as a means of enhancing his understanding
(Charles isn't doing i t wrong; it's just that Richardneedshelp); he
further predicts and thus defuses Charles's irritation over being
interrupted.
Richard: Are you willing to go a little slower, so that we can make
this more than just a recounting?So that, as you tell the story of your
life, we can make it more therapeutic?To do that, I'm going to ask
you some questions along the way, that may feel slightly irritating,
and yet if you go with them, they are going to make the recounting
of this experience more therapeutic.
Charles: I've recounted-sometimes I feel-l want to do this, but
sometimes I get messages that are telling me, "But Charles, you've
said this many times in groups." Which I have.
Richard: Oh, Charles, you've probably said it time and time again.
Cause you're struggling for resolution.
Charles: That is true.
230 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: And that i s one of the reasons why I'm going to take the
time with you, to slow down the process, so you account for your
feelings at each step along the way. And as we've gone on here,
now, I've watched you start speeding up. And that tells me you're
trying to get past the feelings.
Charles: Well, it's not something that I'm aware of. Maybe it's
because I want to mention an experience with my father, which I
.
think very much influenced.. well, I made a decision as a result of
that experience which very much influenced my relationship with
my mother.
Richard: I'll patiently listen. And will provide the time; this i s going
to take a long time. You said that clearly yesterday. Now, what did
you feel when you were used as a buffer between Mom and Dad?
Charles: What did I feel then, or what do I feel now? I'm not sure
what your question is.
Richard: I want to know what you feel. And I left it ambiguous.
Cause one of the things I'm going to look for is how you switch back
and forth between now and then.
Rebecca: I think, Charles, also another thing that's important i s
that there's no "right" answer. The right answer is the one that
comes to your mind first. There's no need to figure out which one
he's looking for. It's your answer, not his question.
We have two interventions here, one from each therapist.
Richard gives information about his intentions, which helps
Charles to feel more in control of the process, less manipulated.
Rebecca's comment is also aimed at the control issue, explicitly
giving permission for Charles to decide what he wants to deal
with. Charles responds by describing both his response then, to
his parents, as well as his here-and-now (almost) feelings in the
workshop.
Charles: My answer is, I feel, Iwas going to say irritated, when Ias a
little boy am used as a pawn in the struggle between two adults.
And these are two adults who supposedly love me. And I was very
touched by what you said to Helen, that one of the responsibilities
of a parent i s to protect that child, even at the cost of their life. Iwas
very touched by that.
Richard: Will you describe that inner touching?
Charles: Becausethat's what Iwould do for my children. Iwouldn't
hesitate.
 A Study in Contad 231

Richard: You really needed that.

Charles: Yes.
Richard: You needed them to do something for your welfare.
What was that something you needed them to do?
Charles: I needed them to show me that they loved me, and cared
for me. Iwas going to add, that they were willing to protect me. M y
father would have protected me. My mother, she wouldn't, she
couldn't protect me. Because my mother was smaller than I was. At
that age. She was emotionally younger than Iwas. And all her life,
her relationship to me was more like Iwas her father and she was my
daughter.
Richard: What's that like, to have a mama who's your daughter?
Charles: I feel very sad. I feel like I didn't have a mother. And
sometimes I catch myself being irritated when I see women crying,
and I know on one level that they have needs, and I can appreciate
those needs, but at the same time I'm saying "Maybe Ishould cry, to
let you know that I also have needs." Just because I don't cry-
Richard: To let who know?
Charles: To let you know. To let you know that Ialso have needs.
But their needs always come first, because they are crying, and
because they show outwardly that they are in pain, that they have
problems.. .
Throughout the workshop, as people deal with intensely emo-
tional issues, there is a great dealof crying. By this time, late i n the
week, several people are moving spontaneously into their own
personal therapeutic process as they observe other participants
work. One of the women in the group has done this now, and is
sobbing quietly in a corner of the room. Charles's comment
about people crying is almost certainly i n response to this-he is
distracted and annoyed, and expresses it in a veiled way. More
than simple distraction, though, his annoyance is a sign of his
own internal neediness: His early experience was that others'
needs always took precedence over his, that there was not
enough nurturing to go around and he was the one to be
shortchanged. Because of this, he is hypersensitive to any threat
that some of the attention that he wants may be given to
someone else.
Richard: Is that what you learned to do?Rate her needs over yours?
232 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Charles: I think without question, her needs were always the

highest priority in our home. And she was the sick one, she was the
one that was going crazy, and she did, and many times she had
.
severe depressions, and . .
Richard: And you were supposed to fix it?
Charles: And I did. I did. With time. Because I remember one
specific instance where my mother had broken down, and we had
called the doctor, I remember his name, Dr. Vance. And he used to
come. And in thosedays he would give a tonic. And he was running
out of tonic. And he suggested that the best thing to do under the
circumstances was to commit her to the, we used to call it the insane
asylum. And my father and older sister, who was also more like a
mother to me, they were prepared to commit my mother to the
insane asylum.
Richard: And what did you feel at that time?
Charles: And I didn't want her to go.
Richard: What did you feel?
Charles: I felt that was wrong. That we could-
Richard: That'sstill a thought. What did you feel emotionally when
you thought it was wrong to commit her?
Richard insists, in this series of interventions, that Charles
interrupt the monologue and attend to his question. The tactic
will serve one of two purposes: Either Charles will, i n fact, move
out of retroflection and into contact, or he will provide further
diagnostic information about the nature and strength of his
defenses. And, as his response shows, the latter does occur. He
outwardly complies with Richard's demand that he talk about his
feelings, but within a few seconds he returns to his well-
rehearsedstory. He has defendedagainst his emergingpain (and
against the possibility of loss of control), but at the expense of the
genuine contact that he so desperately needs.
Charles: Very sad, and very scared. I was scared-I was afraid that if
she left, she probably wouldn't come back.
Richard: That must have been a very strong, strong emotional pull
in you. And quite probably right in that thought. What does it feel
like to know she won't come back?
Charles: (pause) That's scary. That's scary.
Richard: I bet that's an understatement. I bet devastatingly scary.
 A Study in Contact 233

Do you experience it as devastatingly scary?

Charles: At the moment Idon't.
Richard: Did you as a little boy?
Charles: I'm not sure. What Iwas aware of was that Iloved her very
much, and that I was willing to look after her. And I did. They
decided not to send her to the insane asylum. And they kept her
home. And, uh, Iwas in my first year of high school, so I must have
been 13.
Richard: You were almost a young man.
Charles: And I would come home, she would lie in bed, and my
father was at work, my sisters were at work, and it was winter time.
And I used to come home, and Iwould make the stove. It was cold
in the house. And I used to feed her, and Iused to comfort her. And
tell her that she would get well. And I used to stroke her hair, and
her face. (sobs briefly, then continues) And she would tell me that
she wasn't doing to get well, that she would die.
Richard: (softly) And what did that feel like? (Charles sobs once
more) Must have been so anxious every day coming home. What
did that feel like, Charles?
Charles: (pause) And yet part of me-
Richard: Charles?
Charles: Yes?
Richard: What did that feel like? I want to know what your feel-
ing is.
There is a pattern, a rhythm, developingin the work: Charles tells
his story, Richard interrupts, Charles makes momentary contact
both internally and with Richard and then reverts back to
retroflection until the next interruption. The very predictability
of this pattern makes it less threatening to Charles, and with
every repetition he seems able to stay in contact a bit longer.
Charles: I would guess-I don't feel it, but I would guess I was
terrified. I was terrified.
Richard: You just told me something very important. The signifi-
cance of internally discounting the degree of feelings. You see the
importance of what you just communicated to me?How significant
it was to you to deny your feelings, in order to cope?See, Ithink in
your case, not feeling is a feeling. And it signals to me the high
degree of your emotion. Does it signal that to you?
234 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

A new element i s added to the pattern: Richard defines the

absence of feeling as signaling its direct opposite. No feeling
means, in fact, very intense feeling. And by agreeing with the
new definition, Charles opens the door to further exploration of
that intense feeling. Now "Ifeel nothingJ' doesn't shut off
contact, but instead i s a way to talk about emotions too difficult
to discuss directly.
Charles: Yes, I'm aware that I have, that I'm very much of a feeling
person, that I have intense feelings. I'm aware of that.
Richard: And I think when you don't feel, it's a sign that the
feelings are so intense, it's like your brains want to short-circuit.
Charles: That's quite possible. I've also, in the years I've been in
therapy, as a result of the work that I've done, I also experience
feelings at times that overwhelm me. I can't control them.
Richard: And your mother telling you she was never going to get
well-is that an overwhelming sensation?If you allowed yourself to
believe it?
Charles: That could be.
Rebecca: It could be if you let yourself feel it?
Charles: Yeah, if I let myself feel it. That's right. That's right.
Richard: See, the problem with defense mechanisms is that we're
not aware of our feelings, but our body feels it anyway. And then we
pay the price many years later.
Charles: I believe that. I believe that. And that'sone of the reasons
I'm always tense, because I'm repressing my feelings. I think there
are many reasons why I'm anxious, and that's certainly one of them.
Richard: The more I understand you, the more I realize how
complex your anxiety is. Event after event after event, and you not
having the security of somebody to help you as a little boy, become
relaxed.
This reference to the "complexity" of Charles's anxiety marks a
key point in the work. I t matches, in a way that has not previously
been accomplished, Charles's experience of himself, and thus
establishes that Richard really does understand him. To be
understood, to be met on his own terms, is for Charles the
essence of contact-the door through which therapy can take
place has opened a bit further. We shall see, as the work
proceeds, how both Charles and Richardrefer back to the notion
of complexity.
 A Study in Contact 235

Charles: I wish I'd heard that many many years ago. About how
complex my anxiety is. Because a lot of people that I worked with
thought that it was something very simple, like expressing anger.
Richard: Well, I'm sure that they were right about one facet of your
anxiety.
Charles: That is true.
Richard: You're like one of those long shaped diamonds, that have
facet after facet, and every one of them gives a different sparkle, a
different glow, to that diamond.. .So go on with your story, so Ican
understand you.
Again the gentle, yet insistent request for contact. The story-
telling is not framed as a defensive maneuver, but as Charles's
attempt to be understood (which, in a very real sense, is true),
and the therapist's interruptions are, again, defined as being i n
the service of that understanding.
Charles: Iused to stroke my mother's hair, and stroke her face, and
kiss her, and put my face beside hers, and do what I think a mother
should do to a son, and keep on encouraging her and saying nice
things about how much I loved her; and then she would get well.
Richard: And what was your hope, Charles?
Charles: That she would get well. And maybe someday do that for
me. But she never did.
Richard: What's happened to your hope over the years?
Charles: (pause) Maybe at one time I, I gave up. I repressed my
.
hope. I repressed my hope of getting back from.. I was going to
say "from a woman." That was only part of it.
Richard: Well, I think we both know about repression. Although
we repress it from our awareness, it always leaks out.
Charles: That's true.
Richard: Like anything put in a pressurized container will find the
smallest little crack to work through. And how does your hope leak
out in day-to-day relationships with people?
Charles: I will use different, I would say "detectors" to indicate to
me where I can get some of that from certain women.
Richard: And it's primarily women you-
Charles: At the moment, it is women. At the moment. Cause I have
another problem with men. I know very well I want it from men,
and that-
236 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

While the questions and interruptions are important as a way to

maintain and develop contact between therapist and client,
Charles is beginning to show signs of irritation and withdrawal.
His answers are increasingly pat, intellectualized, as i f he is
analyzing someone else rather than experiencing and reporting
his own feelings. Again, there is n o direct confrontation of the
defensive behavior-this would drive Charles even further
away-but rather an indirect acknowledgment of the therapist's
"interference."
Richard: I'll back off from my questions, so you can get on with
what you wanted to say.
Charles: OK. Ithink Istill had, um, this occurred actually after I had
a certain experience with my father. When I'd given up on my
father. And it became ... it became vital for me to maintain my
relationship with my mother, regardless, because I felt, I felt I'd
really given up on my father; there was no chance of getting what I
wanted from my father. And the reason I gave up on my father, at
least the reason, I had made a decision. I was a very energetic, very
active young boy, and a leader of the boys on our block. And we
were tough boys. I needed a haircut one day, and my father told me
that he thought I needed a haircut. And this was during the
Depression, and I didn't completely trust my father. And Isaid to
him-
Richard: So already there was-
Charles: There had already been some history here. And I said to
my father, I want you to promise me that if I go to the barber with
you, that he's going to give me a haircut, and he isn't going to give
me a bald head. Because it wasn't, it wouldn't surprise me that in my
father's interest to save money during the Depression that my father
would tell the barber to shave every hair off my head.
Richard: For the summer.
Charles: And this wassummertime. And thiswould have been very
humiliating to me.
Richard: Sure. Did they call them "Baldies" in those days?
Charles: They called them "Baldies" plus some other derogatory
terms. And my father promised. He said "I promise you that that
won't happen." And I repeated my question again. I said, "I want
you to promise that I won't get a bald head." Father says, "You can
trust me. I promise you." OK, then we went off to the barber, who
 A Study in Contact 237

had his barbershop around the corner. And no sooner did I sit
down in the barber's chair then both the barber and my father
physically grabbed hold of me, and while my father held me down,
the barber proceeded to cut every hair off my head. He shaved
every hair off my head.
Richard: How old were you?
Charles: Imust have been about 10 years old. Iwould say about 10.
Rebecca: That's awful, Charles.
Richard: That's quite a humiliating experience.
Charles: Ifelt,with one incident, that I lost all mytrust in my father.
I had been humiliated.
Richard: Tell me more about what you were saying about being in
the barber chair. Held down and violated.
Requests for more information are phrased in terms of what
Charles had intended to say: Instead of suggesting that he is not
telling enough, this technique shifts the therapist's position to
one of consistently supporting and assisting Charles's own
efforts. Charles remains in control, and doesn't need to defend
against any "intrusions" of the therapist.
Charles: I fought, I struggled with every ounce of energy Ihad. But
these were, these were two grown-up men,and they were using all
their strength to keep me down.
Richard: Were they laughing too?
Charles: They weren't laughing, because I was fighting. I would
have-(clenches his fists) When I hear of people-
Charles has become more animated; he has lost some of the
monotonous, rehearsed quality and appears to be experiencing
some of the feelings of that abusedlittle boy. The self-interrupted
sentences are significant, as they are evidence of a deeper, less-
available-to-awareness layer of defense. Richard's intervention is
an attempt to take advantage of this new level of openness:
Richard: (interrupting) You would have what?
Charles: I was wriggling and struggling and fighting, I wouldn't, I
wouldn't sit quiet! Under any conditions.
Richard: Finish that sentence, though, that you blocked yourself
from.
Charles: What was I saying?
238 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Richard: "I would have.. ."and you did that with your hands. Feel
that.
Charles: I would have.. . I would have torn their balls off! I would
have hit them at their, anywhere! I would have, I would never
remain passive, I would never remain quiet, when I was being
violated. But they were, they were imposing their physical strength
on me. And 1 couldn't do anything.
Richard: What did you decide, that day in the barber chair?
Charles: I, before I answer that, I just want to deal with the hurt I
had, just for a moment. . .
Charles resists the invitation to explore the barber chair experi-
ence more deeply. He has reached the limit of his tolerance of
feelings; he needs to retreat into the relative safety of storytelling.
Richard doesn't push, but follows patiently. Other opportunities
will come; right now Charles needs to control the flow of the
work.
Richard: You take it your way; we'll come back to that question.
Charles: I remember after that experience, after having all my hair
.
cut off my head, shaved off my head.. my going off by myself, like
a little dog or cat that's been wounded. And just licking my wounds
by myself. And deciding that I'II never ever trust my father again. I'II
never ever ask him for something, I'll never ever get close to him, I'll
never ever show that I love him. Even though (sobs) I cried because I
loved him so much. And I still do.
Richard: As though he had died for you that day, emotionally.
Charles: That's right. I'm more aware of my love for my father than
I am of my love for my mother.
Richard: Well, it sounds as if he was the more contactful parent.
Until he violated you. (Charles sobs) See, emotional abuse like that
is even more hurtful than physical abuse.
Charles: I believe that, because I think I can take any kind of
physical abuse. Because you usually repair after some physical
abuse.
Richard: If he had strapped you, at least the bruises from the strap
heal. But he also rubbed salt in the wounds. Cause then you had to
face your friends. So you got a double humiliation.
Charles: And what I felt was, this is why I struggled so hard with
 A Study in Contact 239

understanding, is that Ifelt my father just didn't understand me. He

just had no idea. To him it was more important to save that 25
cents-true, it was the Depression, and money was hard to come
by-but for him the 25 cents was far far more important than how I
felt.
Richard: Why the hell didn't he put a bowl on your head and cut it
himself?
This intervention is aimed directly at the little boy-Charles's
Child ego state. The controlled, analytic, nonfeeling aspect of
ego that Charles most often uses would not find it a helpful or
even particularlyrelevant comment. But the Child, feeling alone
and betrayed by the person he trusted most, may welcome the
support. It is a way of saying to that Child, "I'm on your side." I t
also begins two important aspects of Charles's work: (a) reversing
his defensive decision to isolate himself; and (b) contacting his
denied desires for a good father-a father who would acknow-
ledge and respect the needs of the child.
Charles: He could have done that.
Richard: And saved the 25 cents and could have taken you out and
bought you an ice cream cone, huh?
Charles: In those days ice cream was two for 5 cents.
Richard: And the two of you could have walked down the street,
eating your ice cream cones after he cut your hair, and you would
have had 20 cents to spare.
Charles: My father never bought me an ice cream. (pause) Yes, I
made that decision to turn my back on my father, even though I
loved him so much.
Richard: What a hard decision.
Charles: And I still struggle with that, because I feel that is one of
the main reasons that I have difficulty in my contact with men. It's as
if I'm saying, I'm still waiting for my father to at least either
apologize to me for what he did, or at least to say that he
understood how I felt. I'm still waiting for him.
Richard: Is he still alive?
Charles: No. My father has been dead for 28 years. Cause that's the
age of my son ... I think that he was the loneliest member in our
family. He cared for me, as much as he could show that he cared.
240 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

But he couldn't show that very much. When Iwas little, he showed
that more than he did when I was older.
Rebecca: Can you feel that inside, that he cared for you?
Charles: (pause) I could remember incidents; Ithink I mentioned
that he taught me the Greek alphabet. I remember sitting on his lap,
and he taught me the Greek alphabet. I remember him telling me
stories, at that time. . .
Rebecca: (interrupting) Can you feel that he loved you? That he
cared for you?
Charles: I have trouble. I have trouble feeling that.
Richard: Because of your barber chair decision?
Charles: Possibly. Because I'm also making-l was going to say I
make myself tense, although I don't feel my body that tense right
now, although I still have no feelings. I have no feelings.
There has been a definite, though s t i l l slight, change i n Charles's
presentation. While he i s still describing himself as not feeling, he
now seems to be puzzled and bothered by this lack. Rebecca
neatly connects ' n o feelings" to "feeling empty-and relates the
two "feelings" to the lack of respectful contact from Charles's
parents when he was a boy.
Rebecca: So you had two parents who really weren't there, with
you.
Charles: That's right.
Rebecca: That's pretty empty.
Charles: That's why it became so important for me to focus on my
mother, and to maintain a relationship with my mother-
Richard: But a mother who used you for her needs.
Charles: -with my mother, because there seemed to be the
illusion of maybe getting something from my mother. M y mother
was always saying how much she loved me, and how she wanted me
close to her,and to be with her. But it was an illusion. Becausewhen
I got close to my mother, for my needs, she was using me for her
needs. But I always kept on, I had no alternative. And Iwould think
that if only I got better at what I was doing, if only I became-l felt
the fault was mine.
Richard: Keep going.
Charles: The fault was mine.
 A Study in Contact 241

Richard: If only. . . If only. . .

Charles: If only I could get better and better.. . If only I would be
perfect, then I would earn and deserve my mother's love.
Richard: What's the implication there for you?
Charles: I'm not quite clear.
Richard: Because what I hear you saying is that basically you're
unlovable as you are.
Charles: That's right. That, I'm lacking something.
Richard identifies, and Charles confirms, a fundamental script
belief, one that forms a basis for much (all?) of Charles's
defensive system. As long as he believes that there i s something
intrinsically and unchangeably wrong with him, he will continue
to behave in ways that will support that belief-and will invite
others to support it, as well. Eventually, Charles will need to deal
with this belief at an affective, nonrational level-the level at
which it was originally formed. But Charles is not yet ready for
this kind of intense emotional work-he is too frightened, too
well defended. The process must remain largely cognitive, with
Charles i n control. The script belief can still be challenged
cognitively, i n preparation for later affective work.
Richard: What's wrong with you?
Charles: And something is wrong with me. Because I was brought
up, I mentioned my older sister. In many ways she was my mother.
She was in her twenties when I was born. And I don't trust my
feelings-you're quite right about me being kind of complicated.
That Richard understood and validated his complexity i s a
touchstone, a reassurancefor Charles that he has been heardand
taken seriously. Reminding himself of this helps him to risk the
next tiny step of self-revelation.
Charles: (continuing) I don't trust my feelings because when I was
little I used to perceive things at home. And I thought I was quite
objective in my perception. And I'm sure I was. However, my sister
and I felt our house was not a house of love. Our house wasa house
of anger, and resentment, and a lot of hate between the members of
our family. But my sister used to tell me, "Our home is a home of
love. We never argue-look at the neighbors. The neighbors are
always fighting; we never fight."
242 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Richard: I bet you would have liked it if they would have fought
outright, huh?Was it a cold war?
Charles: That's right.
Richard: Good screaming match sometimes clears the air,
doesn't it?
Charles: Istartedto think that my feelings are not right. They're the
adults, they're the adults and they know what life i s all about. I'm
just a little kid. So I'm wrong, and my feelings are wrong. And my
thoughts are wrong.
Richard: You just got confused. You needed somebody to help
that little kid stay straight.
Charles: And I've been struggling; I'm on the road back.
Richard: What age are you talking about there?
Charles: I'm talking about, I would say seven or eight. Maybe even
earlier.
Richard: From the sound of the confusion, I was going to say even
four.
Charles: Maybe even earlier.
Richard: Cause I imagine, given your intellectual capacities, that at
four you were really more advanced than the other kids around.
That's probably why you were the leader of the gang. And I bet your
perceptions of things were much sharper than anybody ever gave
you credit for. And that you had to deny your perceptions. And
that's crazy-making.
Charles: I think that's very true. And today, I keep on, any time I
want to deal with something, I have to struggle real hard. I have
messages in my head telling me not to do it, regardless of what I
want to do or say. Not to do it! And for many different reasons.
Sometimes I just have to clear-(he pauses, shakes his head) I just
have to try and set aside what's going on in my head.
As Charles begins to allow himself to feel, his gestures and body
language begin to convey what he is experiencing. Calling his
attention to these nonverbal cues may help him to increase his
level of awareness, and asking him to talk about them may lead to
a greater sense of contact between him and the therapists.
Richard: Now tell me what just happened inside, so I can know.
That head shake.
 A Study in Contact 243

Charles: Sometimes it's a real job to just clear out what's going on
in my head.
Richard: Describe that fog.
Charles: It's not a fog. Ijust have these, messages. Telling me not to
do it, and many times.. .I'd like t o back up a bit. Not that long ago,
before I started back in therapy, those messages used to be so
intense it was like a hurricane in my head. I couldn't think.
Richard: Now I see why you said not like a fog.
Charles: It's not like a fog at all.
Richard: Much worse.
Charles: It's like a storm. It's a storm that's raging all the time. And
I've got to struggle; Ifind sometimes when I hear people's names,
when people are introduced to me, Ihave these messages going on
like I won't remember their name, don't try to remember their
name, you're trying to remember the name because you want to
use their name so they'll, you'll get, you want to get them to like
you. And I have this with a high degree, with a high level of
intensity.
Richard: Is it like your older sister's voice saying you won't
remember their name?
Determining the source of the introjected messages, as well as
their content, will help i n planning future treatment strategies.
Later in therapy, '%rentm interviews with sister, father, or
mother may be needed in order to counteract the effects of that
early scripting process.
Charles: M y older sister's voice. Plus my father's voice. I hear both.
Richard: And do you have a remembrance of his ever saying that to
you? Or of her ever saying that to you?
Charles: No, they never said that to me. No, I've used that myself. I
have made that up myself. I was, like you said, I was a little kid who
didn't have, Icouldn't check things out with anyone. And Ifelt Iwas
bad; I felt I was wrong.
Richard: Trying to make sense out of all that confusion, that storm
raging in your head.. .
Charles: The other part of it, Richard, is that I took out of my
relationship with my mother that she didn't want me to leave her. I
think that's part of it. I also wanted something from her. I wanted
244 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

her love, and to be close to her. But I felt that she didn't want me to
leave her. And when I get close to women (pause) I still feel that.
That if Iwere to really get women to love me, that my mother would
become very angry at me. That she would be left alone. I wouldn't
be there for her. Or certainly not there to the degree that she
wanted me.
Richard: And then what happens, if she doesn't get what she wants
from you? What happens to the little boy?
Charles: Then there's no chance of me getting what I want from
her.
Richard: And feel that sense of pain, Charles. That you defend
against, by being the caretaker. What you're telling me is a story of
neglect. How neglected little Charles is. Oh,what a painful, painful
experience, that you probably have to defend against, because it's
so painful. Now you're talking about what must be real pain-no
longer anxiety.
Charles: I don't feel anything.
As Richard leads him slightly beyond the level of awareness that
he allows himself, Charles slides back into total denial of feelings.
But this time his report of feeling nothing can be translated: It has
been established that ''no feeling" really means "intense feel-
ing." Richard reiterates this assumption, suggests a historical
basis for it, and then invites him to risk another step forward,
another 'peek into" what lies below the defensive numbness. As
will be evident from his next response, Charles is still not ready to
take this further step-but each invitation, given gently and
supportively, with no hint of criticism, takes him just a bit closer
to opening up.
Richard: Sure. Can you see the importance of what we've already
established?That for you, the "I don't feel any pain" i s a feeling. It is
a statement to us, us being you and me both, of the degree to which
the feelings are so intense. (pause) Probably just like your mother's
tremendous degree of intense pain also, that was defended against
and showed up as her craziness. Except fortunately you're a little
brighter-maybe a lot brighter-and have found other ways to
sublimate it. Through work, through activities, through creativity.
But as you get older, it still eats away inside. Can you tell me about,
can you peek into that pain in you, so both you and I will know a
little bit more about it? Will you let yourself know?
 A Study in Contad 245

Charles: I want to tell you about another incident ... probably

before my mother had her breakdown, I remember my mother in
the kitchen one day. She was serving us lunch. And, um . . .we were
all seated around the table, and she was serving us lunch, in the
process of serving lunch, and she turned and asked-we had a gas
oven. And she turned the gas jet on, and she said she was going to
kill herself. And when Isaw that my sister got up and turned the gas
jet off. But again I think I made a decision then, to always look after
my mother. And to-
Richard: How frightening-
Charles: And to make sure that I would do everything to keep her
alive.
Richard: How frightening ... no chance to relax, in your own
kitchen. No chance to just be afraid; you always had to be vigilant,
with a decision like that.
Charles: And 1 think that's one of the reasons-one of the
reasons-that I'm anxious today. Because I've taken on my mother's
anxiety. M y mother was that little girl, anytime there was a little
breeze, to her it was like a hurricane. To her.
Richard: What's it like to constantly be vigilant for her safety?
Charles: I had to change my personality. I had to change from
being a very energetic, active, energetic boy, spontaneous, acting
on any stimulus, to being, to becoming very controlled. And very
cautious. And to check things out. Any time I was going to do
something, check out what could be the possible effect on my
mother.
Richard: Yuck.
Charles: And any time Iwanted to use my energies, and be myself, I
had to restrain myself because I had too much energy for my
mother.
Richard: Are you telling me then that you had to develop a false
personality?
Here Richardreiterates andspecifies what Charles has saidabout
changing his personality. Richard's question serves to underline
the importance of what Charles has just revealed. I f Charles
accepts this designation, i t can become another pointer for
future work: Richard can help him begin to differentiate
between thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that are a function of
246 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

the "false personalityJJand those that belong to his "true" self.

And i t is through the "trueJ' self, of course, that real, healing
contact can occur.
Charles: I had to change my personality.
Richard: And what does that mean to you, inside?
Charles: I had to put a straitjacket on myself.
Richard: But what happened to the real self?
Charles: I could not show that.
Richard: What happened to it?
Charles: It's still within. I had to repress it.
Richard: (at the same time) Did you destroy it?
Charles: No, I never destroyed that.
Richard: Did you put it in a vault?
Charles: I had to repress it. I had to constrain it, restrict it.
Richard: Do you ever let the real self out?
Charles: My wife says I'm spontaneous sometimes in bed.
Richard: Well, good! I can't think of a better place to let it out!
But-is that enough?
Charles: No. No, it's not.
Richard: What do you mean; or what does your wife mean, when
she says that you let your real self out in bed?
Charles: What she means is that I am spontaneous, I will, I will be
playful, I will be loving, and I just act the way I feel.
Richard: And other times, when you're not in bed,do you have the
capacity to be spontaneous? Or playful? Or loving?
Charles: Do I have the capacity?
Richard: Or is that buried?
Charles: I sure have the capacity, but I don't use it.
Richard: OK. (pause) Go ahead; you were starting to tell me about
your true self. That got locked up.
Charles has accepted the distinction, and the labels "false self"
and "true self." Now he can be helped to begin to experience
and act out of the "trueJ' rather than from the artificial defenses
of the "false"self. The false self is a kind of defensive secondskin,
which covers andconstrains all of Charles'sspontaneous, contact-
seeking self, and defends his soft inner being.
 A Study in Contact 247

Charles: I used to act with a lot of feeling, intense feelings; I had

feelings about things. Either good or bad; Iwas happy or angry. And
I used to act quickly; and I didn't stop to think what the
consequences would be. I was really spontaneous.
Richard: That means that there's some health there that we can
build on. See, that's the hopeful part; you said earlier you were
despairing. Because that's there, we can really build on that. That's
the part that gives me hope, that your anxiety is curable.
Charles: Icertainly know that it's improvable. Whether it'scurable;
I've always hoped that it was. Because I've been improving it over
the years, step by step. I would hope that there would be some
faster ways. I'veexperienced one way that Ithought was, was fast. In
fact, my first big change, and I've mentioned it to you more than
once, when I expressed anger. What Iconsidered to be for the first
time, in a group. Then my anxiety really dropped. I think of it as a
quantum drop.
Richard is moving toward closure; time is getting short, and i t i s
also important to stop on a positive note. Too abrupt a breaking
off, however, couldpush Charles back into his oldscript system:
"I've been abandoned and rejected, there really i s something
.
wrong with me, even this therapist can't help . ." To avoid this,
Richard moves to build an explicit bridge from the present work
out into the other activities of the workshop, so that Charles can
experience his therapy as continuing beyond the point at which
the formal work has ended.
Richard: Hey, Charles-thin k you could go to bed with all of us?
Charles: I sure could!
Richard: (chuckling) What would we see? ... I'm speaking
metaphorically, of course. If you bedded down with all of us;
decided to use these next couple of days with us, the same way you
do with your wife in bed-who is going to emerge?What would we
see?What would we hear?What would we experience?
Charles: A person who isn't afraid. Who doesn't have anxiety. Who
feels safe. A person who would want to play-a man who'd want to
play, and have fun.
Richard: And what would be different on the volleyball court?
The volleyball games, built into each day's schedule during the
workshop, provide an excellent opportunity for participants
248 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

both to observe themselves literally playing out their scripts and

to experiment with new, out-of-script behaviors. Becauseplaying
volleyball i s not a part of the daily routine of most people,
behaviors there are not so locked in by habit and practice.
Participantscan see their old patterns more clearly, and may also
be more willing to risk changing those patterns in the context of
an activity that is itself new and unfamiliar.
Charles: I know I could be different on the volleyball court. Very
different.
Richard: Will you describe that, so I can know it? If you were your
true self out there, how would you be?
Charles: If I were my true self and really wanted to, I would play
with every ounce of energy I had. I would play to win. 1 would play
to win, so that my team won. Our team won. And I would support
everyone. I would be in Ruth's territory, backing her up. I would
let her play her part, but I'd be there to support her when she
needed it.
Richard: And what's the excuse you use to stop yourself? From
being that true self?
Charles: Well, I say, "Don't hog it. Don't try to get too much
attention. People aren't going to like you if you stand out." (pause)
George was saying yesterday that I was not expressing my anger,
that he was hearing my words, and Iwas using a lot of verbiage, and
he thought there was anger underneath that that I was not
expressing directly. And he's right. And other people have given
me similar feedback. And they were right. But what I hear in that,
and I want to change that part of me, and I'm very grateful for that
feedback; but I hear something else in it.
Richard: Hm. What's that?
Charles: I've been thinking about that. 1 hear a threat. I hear a
threat that if I don't improve, if I don't express my anger, directly,
that he's going to reject me.
Richard: Now that's script.
Charles: Yeah. Plus-OK, let me repeat my statement now. What I
hear in that is that, regardless of all the qualities I have, and I think
I'm a good person, that because of one shortcoming, that George is
willing to reject me. If I don't change that shortcoming. And
regardless of all the improvements I've made over the years, he's
still willing to reject me because of that one shortcoming.
 A Study in Contact 249

Charles's bid to introduce new material, in order to prolong the

work, was predictable for at least two reasons: He has been
starved for contact andattention, and wants this to continue; and
his old script system demands that he somehow "prove" that
there is something wrong with him-how better to do this than
to force his therapist to reject him? Richard avoids the trap by
pointing out, again, the script connection.
Richard: Now, Charles. That's the lie. That's the lie that the little
boy used to make sense out of his confusion. There's the script
belief, that "something's wrong with me." And you'll use George as
evidence, to maintain that belief, "Something's wrong with me,"
which is a defense against your feelings of Mother not being there
for you. You decided as a little boy, "Something's wrong with me."
Charles: I believe that.
Richard: You decided it defensively. You know why? Cause you
got power with that decision. Pseudopower, but at least something
you experienced as power. Cause as long as there was something
wrong with you, you could get fixed. You could change you; you
could use your intellect to figure out how to improve you; you
could even go to therapy and have your head shrunk. There's a
pseudosense of power in a kid who says "There's something wrong
with me." Cause then you don't have to feel your helplessness with
an emotionally disturbed mother.
Charles: That sounds possible.
Rebecca: That sounds to me like a good place to stop.
Richard: (very long pause) How does it seem to you, Charles?
Charles does not want to end this piece of work; his body
language makes that clear. Richard asks him to express this want
openly and directly-again, to make a specific, observable
change from his oldpattern of hiding the reactionsof his true self
behind an adaptive, false self mask.
Charles: How does what seem to me?
Richard: What Rebecca just said. She said it seemed to her like a
good place to stop. How is it for you?
Charles: No.
Richard: Tell Rebecca that. Be true with Rebecca. Tell her your true
self right now.
Charles: I would like to resolve my problem.
250 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Tell her! Charles, look at her!

Charles: (to Rebecca) I would like to resolve my problem.
Richard: Be truthful with her right now. Keep going. Tell her what
you feel when she says stop.
.
Charles: I feel very irritated; I feel very . .
Richard: (whispering) Go on-tell her!
Charles: I feel angry at you. And I hear myself softening my voice
when I say that to you-
We have pointed out earlier that retroflection-carrying on an
internal dialogue rather than being contactful with others-is
another facet of Charles's script pattern. Richard continues to
urge him to experiment with change: instead of observing
himself, to be authentic with Rebecca.
Richard: Be authentic with her now.
Charles: Because I like you a lot.
Richard: Because you like her you can go ahead and be real with
her, Charles. You're right on the edge, right now,of that little boy's
decision. The social self, or the real self.
Charles: I'd feel very angry at you, Rebecca, if we were to stop now.
Because I was hoping to, I was hoping to reach a point where I
would experience a change in myself, as far as my anxiety's
concerned.
Richard: What, in your mind, would that change-what would it
be like?
Charles: Well, I was hoping that the resolution would, would lead
to me having a drop of anxiety. Feeling freer to be myself.
Richard: Then it's almost a desire, then, that it be a dramatic drop?
Like it was when you first got angry in group.
Charles: M y desire would be-that's right. Even then, I think I've
already mentioned it, in that Idid not immediately experience it. As
a dramatic drop. It was only a day later that Idid. In the group that I
was in, what I did experience was that I had done something I'd
never done before.
Charles has condensed the memory of his previous group work,
and out of that condensation comes an impossible criterion for
feeling good about stopping: a "dramatic drop in anxiety" that
may not be felt until the next day. I f he can't feel the change now,
 A Study in Contad 251

he will be disappointed about his work. Rather than confront this

self-sabotage (andinvite Charles to feel even more disappointed
and criticized, with no time left to deal with those feelings),
Richard will return to the idea of extending the therapy out onto
the volleyball court.
Richard: Um-hm.
Charles: And there was a sense of satisfaction that Ihad done it. But
to me this was just a, in the group it was just an exercise. And I did
not see a direct relationship between that exercise and me feeling
less anxious. It was only when I got myself into a situation that
previously produced anxiety for me, where I saw that I was no
longer anxious.
Richard: Are you willing to do an experiment?
Charles: Yes.
Richard: How about letting your true self play volleyball tonight?
Like the 10-year-old would have done, perhaps, with his buddies.
Were you still free with them, or were you already adapted with
them?
Charles: Iwas relatively free at 10.
Richard: What if you got out there and played with all the
competition of a 10-year-old? With all the verbal freedom of a
10-year-old? With all the abandonment of a 10-year-old? With
buddies that you knew really liked him and wouldn't humiliate
him?
Charles: And wouldn't reject me.
Richard: Yeah. So that emotionally you go back before the haircut.
And you take the risk, out there.
Charles: I feel like I'd be over half that court.

Ideally, this is the point at which Charles' work should have

ended: He is experiencing, in fantasy, the excitement of being his
"true self" on the volleyball court and has thus accepted the
bridging between the formal work and other workshop activities.
We end the transcript here to illustrate this ideal-but we would be
less than honest if we implied that Charles allowed this to happen.
In fact, he continued to request more time and to express his
disappointment that he experienced no dramatic shift in his
emotional state, finally forcing the therapists to end the work and
252 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

thus reliving once more his old pattern of rejection and

abandonment.
It would be easy to become discouraged here and to discount the
gains actually made in the work with Charles. Indeed, this is what
often happens in working with clients who exhibit these sorts of
contact disruptions: The therapist gives up, labels the client as
"untreatable" or "nonmotivated," and the therapy either ends
prematurely or drags on and on with neither client nor therapist
experiencing contact or excitement.
But disappointments are an important part of therapywith clients
like Charles: Healing occurs when the disappointments can be
dealt with in the context of a contactful relationship. In order to
continue this process, the therapists here recommended that
Charlesfind a therapist in his hometown,who would be available to
him on an ongoing basis.
Although Charles was uncomfortable at the end of this work, he
did carry some new behaviors into the activities of the workshop.
He was more playful in the volleyball games, and began to initiate
more conversations during meals and social times. The acceptance
and understanding of the two therapists gave him a taste of what
real contact can be like-and the experience of contact cannot be
undone, however short-lived it may be. Charles will need much
more of the same kind of slow, patient work in order to build a
foundation of trust that will eventually allow him to let down his
defensive barriers. Only when this level of trust is established will he
begin to address directly the script beliefs and feelings that have so
crippled his ability to relate spontaneously and joyfully with the
world around him.
 JON
Putting It All Together

We have come a long way and have met a lot of people in this book.
We have introduced a variety of theoretical concepts, borrowed
and adapted from the work of many of our predecessors in the
gentle art of psychotherapy. We have described, discussed, and
dissected many techniques and have shown how they can be used
and what they can be expected to accomplish. And all of this has
been a rather freewheeling consideration of ideas as they arise in
the rich and varied context of ongoing psychotherapeutic
encounters.
We have chosen Jon's work as the basis for this last chapter
because it gives us an opportunity to wrap many of these ideas
together: to show how one concept complements another, how
254 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

one type of intervention grows out of a particular theoretical idea,

and how a hypothesis about a client is often the product of (or
refuted by) a particular series of interventions.
Jon's transcript, then, will illustrate many of the major theoretical
underpinnings of integrative psychotherapy. We shall see examples
of interruptions to internal and external contact, of Child ego state
fixations, of the introjection of a segment of a significant other's
personality, of the intrapsychic influence of a Parent ego state and
the resulting defenses, and of childhood script decisions in which
the entire script system maintains itself through a circular, self-
reinforcing process. We shall also see many of the therapeutic
techniques that have been discussed in previous chapters: the
Parent Interview, the process of heightening awarenessof defenses
and enhancing contact, the attention to each of the major domains
of therapeutic change.
In this piece of work, we can also follow with particular clarity the
progression or flow of therapy. The work begins with a conversation
between the therapist and Jon in which the goals of therapy are
established and some background information is gathered. There is
a rather rapid shift to Parent ego state therapy, with the final phase
composed of a Gestalt therapy technique-"chair workw-which
establishes in fantasy the contact that was missing between Jon's
father (Parent ego state) and Jon himself. The fantasized contact
concludes a major piece of unfinished business-a fixed gestalt that
has blocked Jon from spontaneous and comfortable interaction
with others. The "chair work," in turn, forms a bridge into a short
(but intense) archaeopsychic regression and an invitation to Jonto
make a redecision-a redecision that is now possible because of the
decommissioning of the Parent ego state accomplished earlier in
the work. And, finally, the piece terminates with a return to Adult
ego state and a suggestion that Joncontinue the redecision process
on his own.
Jon is a heavyset, awkward young man, a psychiatric nurse who
describes himself as ill at ease in social situations. He came to the
workshop on the recommendation of his psychotherapy supervisor,
a woman who trained with Richard and Rebecca and who suggested
that working in the context of this intensively involved group might
help him to resolve some of the countertransference that was
affecting his practice of psychotherapy. Jon has been rather quiet
 Putting It All Together 255

for the first few days of the workshop, though intently interested in
the other participants' work. Now he asks for time for himself:

Jon: I guess I'm wanting, Idon't really know.. . I know Ineed to get
some things taken care of, and I guess I don't really know how to
do it.
Richard: Well, that's our job.
Jon: OK. I'll leave it up to you, then. Um ... sitting back and
listening to everyone else, I've gotten some major threads. And, uh,
I guess I've felt basically, some of this I've hashed over before with
my therapist, so some of this i s going to be repetitive. (sigh) But
basically I guess the feeling of being rejected has gone back ever
since I can remember. I honestly believe I was the reason that my
folks got married.
As often happens, )on wants direction from the therapists. He
doesn't know how to go about getting what he wants from his
work, or even where to start. Once he is reassured that the
therapists will, indeed, supply this direction, he is able to take the
plunge himself, going directly to the issue that troubles him the
most. "Direction," for Jon, is really a kind of respect for his own
knowing, his ability to be aware of his process. We have spoken
before of following the client's lead, of allowing the client to be
in charge of the work. Richard and Rebecca waste no time in
demonstrating that they will do just this: They will attend to
whatever it is that )on wants to talk about.
Rebecca: Were they pregnant with you before they were married?
Jon: Yeah. And I found that out back this summer.
Richard: Was that comfortable or uncomfortable?For you to know
that?
Jon: Well, it's uncomfortable for me to know that, because it's.. .
for 30 years, as I've been trying to piece things together, I can
remember Dad making statements like, "Well, I promised your
mother that Iwould stay with her until you were 21." And, uh, Ican
remember earlier years of Dad not really, not really wanting me. Or
acting like he didn't want me. Uh, my dad is an alcoholic, or was an
alcoholic, rather. And Mom invested a lot of her time in his illness.
She really loved him.
256 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Interesting that you call it an illness, rather than an

alcoholic decision.
Jon: I guess Idon't necessarily buy that theory. Iview it as an illness.
Richard: It certainly becomes an illness. Because the liver mal-
functions, and is unable to process food substances. Would it make
a difference in how you saw your dad, though, if you thought of it as
an alcoholic decision?
Jon: I would say I'd probably hate him more then. It's easier to
accept the fact that he has an illness.
Richard: Have you considered that calling it an illness may be
partly denial on your part?
Here is the first confrontation-light, respectful, clearly directed
toward )on's competent, problem-solving Adult ego state. Its
purpose is more to discover howlon will respond to this sort of
challenge than to produce any therapeutic effect. Will he
acquiesce, comply, go along in order to please the therapists?
Will he resist the suggestion?Will he withdraw, or signal a need
for support, or move against the therapists in some way? The
answer to these questions will be useful in doing ongoing
treatment planning as the work unfolds.
Jon: Oh, no, I know. I know how his drinking has affected my life.
Jon neither withdraws, attacks, nor collapses. Richard pushes a
bit harder: Again, )on's response will be diagnostically useful.
Richard: But do you suppose your calling it an illness has a
cushioning effect? As opposed to calling it a decision, which puts
much more responsibility, at least in the initial stages of his
drinking, back on him.
Jon: Well, Dad didn't have a fair chance, really, from the very
beginning. His dad was a moonshiner, and they had, talked about
having five-gallon crocks in every room that the kids, anybody that
wanted to could just come by and dip. Part of the trouble that Ihave
in even entering therapy is reconciling the fact of the conflicting
feelings about that relationship with him.
Now we have our answer. )on doesn't back down, but is able to
marshal facts that support his position. He also shows a bit of
uneasiness-Richard is threatening to take over direction of the
work, andlon has not yet had a chance to tell his story. Richard
quickly responds to this, putting Jon back in charge.
 Putting It All Together 257

Richard: Go ahead, tell us more. I was probing to understand the

importance for you in calling it an illness.
Jon: Uh, Mom worked basically three jobs. She was a full-time
nurse, usually worked nights. And she worked, we had a jewelry
store, she worked in there full time. And she tried to take care of the
house until shequit. So I consider that three full-time jobs. Not a lot
of time for me. Urn . ..
Richard: What did you feel right at that moment, Jon?When you
said "Not a lot of time for me," and tightened your jaw?
Nonverbal events-the physiological aspect of communi-
cation-are quite often more important than the actual verbal
content. They are important not only as a major domain of
therapeutic work (along with thoughts, feelings, and overt
behaviors), but as indications that important processes are
occurring in the other domains. This is the second time, early in
the work, that Richardhas structuredhis intervention in response
to such a cue. We will see him do it often throughout the piece,
just as we have in previous chapters.
Jon: Lot of hurt and anger. Mom said as a baby I never cried a lot.
Only when I needed to be changed, and maybe a little bit when I
was teething.
Richard: Does that mean you were contented?
Jon: I don't know. Didn't think of that.
Richard: Ihave one child, also, who never cried a lot, and 1 think it
was primarily because she was contented.
Jon: I don't know if I'm contented.
Richard: Certainly not today. But do you think you were contented
that first year of life?And therefore there was not much need to cry
a lot?Except when you had to voice out some complaint.. The way.
you said it, you implied that there was a problem that you didn't cry
a lot. How do you understand that?
Jon: I understand that I was scared to cry. That I was scared.
Richard: Infants who are punished stop crying.
Jon: I don't know if Iwas punished. Idon't have any clear memory
of any physical abuse.
Richard: But you seemed to underscore that, as if that was a
problem that you did not cry a lot as an infant. Is that accurate?
258 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Still early in the work, the therapy i s still exploratory. A number of

things are being establishedin this segment. Richardis cementing
the therapeutic alliance, the basic cooperative stance between
therapist and client. Respectful even in his gentle confrontation,
he conveys both his interest and his intent to look at all the
possible meanings of each idea that )on volunteers. He is
gathering historical and process information that will help i n
diagnosis and (as we noted earlier) i n ongoing treatment
planning. And he i s conveying information toJon, both overtly-
facts that will help Jon sort through his own memories and
beliefs-and covertly-that things are not always what they
seem, that there can be more than one way to understand or
remember a particular fact.
Jon: Yeah. Mom and Dad thought it was a blessing.
Rebecca: Um-hm. Most parents do.
Jon: And, so anyway, as a kid I have never really been an achiever.
I've always had a lot of difficulty in school. Basically a loner. I don't
know how many diets the folks have had me on. And you see the
result of it today; except maybe if I wouldn't have been on a diet I
would have been twice the size I am. And, um .. .
Richard: Do you have a sense of what the excessive eating is about?
Jon: At times I do and at times I don't. Ithink in some ways now it's
maybe the only way Ican identify with my parents. Both of them are
very, are big people.
Richard: Now why do you want to identify with them today, in the
1980s?
In common with many clients who have been in treatment for
some time, )on has some tendency toward psychological glib-
ness: offering a pat theory as i f i t were in fact an explanation of
himself. This sort of psychobabble may not only be misleading,
but it can stand as a barrier to the search for valid, experience-
based connections. Richard's response has challenged the final-
ity, the patness, of the exp1anation)on offers for his overeating.
And ]on responds with a much more authentic, personal
statement-a statement of a major script belief, which will recur
again and again in his work.
Jon: That's what I'm trying to, that's what I'm trying to reason out.
And, like Isaid the other day, life has been a struggle. Life isalwaysa
 Putting It All Together 259

struggle. I've pretty much gotten over the fact of not wanting to
exist. But that is still a prominent feeling. Anyhow, that's kind of the
background.
Richard: You told us that your dad died-how long ago?
Jon: About seven weeks ago.
Richard: How did you feel about his dying?
.
Jon: I felt, uh . . really mixed. Really, really mixed.
Richard: Can you describe the mix?
Jon: Yeah, I was really relieved. I was relieved that he was gone.
Because I, I felt that an honest part of my hatred was buried with
him.
Rebecca: What was the relief that he was gone?What are you now
free of?
Jon: I'm free of him.
Rebecca: What does all that entail?
Jon: Dad and I had a very strange relationship, from about,
intermixed, from about the age of zero to 10, and then Iwould say
from about 8 to about I4 or 15 we were pretty happy together. Mom
was the tyrant, Mom was the one who was the door-slammer, the
kettle-banger. There was always a lot of tension between Mom and
Dad, a lot of underlying tension.
Like a snapshot pulled from a Polaroid camera, the work i s
beginning to come into focus. The haze, the fuzziness, is
beginning to clear; the major issue, )on's relationship with his
father, i s moving into the foreground. It is not a matter of the
therapists zeroing in on a theme, or even of)on himself deciding
what he wants to work on. Rather, it is like an intricate dance,
with each participant contributing to weaving a pattern-a
pattern that becomes more and more visible as the dance
continues.
Richard: Precipitated by his drinking?
Jon: Yeah. Always a lot of financial stress, due to his-
Richard: (interrupting) Did it also precipitate the drinking?
Jon: (sigh) Ithink earlier that Dad drank moreor less to get at Mom.
At some point in time.
Richard: (he has misunderstood )onJs statement) What do you
mean, drank to get a Mom?
260 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Jon: Well, Dad was very-

Richard: (interrupting) To get at Mom, or to get a mom?
Jon: OK, both. Mom was a nurse, she was a very nurturing person.
She was very, uh, take away the hurt of the world . ..
Richard: I just need to know something. Did I do a slip of the ear?
Jon: Well, no, both things that you said are true.
Richard: Yes, but what was your original statement?
Jon: To get at Mom.
Richard: OK. It's my slip of the ear, then. I thought I heard you say
"drank to get a mom."
Richard's coined phrase, "slip of the ear," suggests that mis-
hearings, like misstatements, are not mere random errors. Slips
of the tongue, dreams, and humor can all be understood as
reflections of our unconscious process-our out-of-awareness
wisdom that puts together myriad tiny cues, memories, and
feelings and presents the resultingproduct in a disguisedway. So
i t i s with a "slip of the ear." Experiencedas an honest mistake in
hearing, it may really reflect an important insight into the
unconscious knowing or believing of the client, or may be a
statement about the therapist. By staying with this fragment,
Richard brings into awareness what was only dimly understood
before: that Jon's father drank not only to punish Mom, but also
i n order to be nurtured by her.)onls next question indicates that
he does not yet understand the significance of this bit of
information, andRicharddoes not pursue it. The work turns back
to the original format: building contact, gathering information,
planning the treatment strategy.
Jon: Uh, yeah. Well, he wanted a mother, that's why he married
Mom. Mom was very mothering towards him. Is this going
anyplace?
Richard: Oh, yeah.
Jon: Oh, OK.
Richard: It's going right between us-gives us a chance to under-
stand you.
Rebecca: And we can speculate what he might have felt if he
married your mother to have a mom, but had to compete with a
newborn baby.
 Putting It All Together 261

Jon: I don't really think Dad wanted to get married. And I don't
think he really wanted me.. .And, uh, Dad was very dependent on
her, and he was very angry about it.
Rebecca's "interpretation," as is so common in integrative
psychotherapy, is framed as an invitation to "speculate," to
consider or think about something. I t gives the client plenty of
room to deny the connection i f he or she is not yet ready to deal
with it, or i f it is not accurate. )on, although he still does not
understand where this line of thought is going, is quite willing to
stay with it. Indeed, his eagerness to discuss his father suggests
that the father-son relationship will be an excellent place to focus
the work. What is )on's unfinished business with Dad?Does the
"unfinished" relate to the grieving process (given that Dad's
death was relatively recent) or to earlier script decisions?
Richard: Have you, in your personal therapy, had any conversations
with Dad since his death?
Jon: Right after he died.
Richard: Think it's time to have another? (long pause) OK, your
hesitancy is my answer. (pause) I'm going to assume, not yet.
)on has been highly responsive to therapeutic suggestion up to
this point. It seems clear that he wants to please the therapists
(and the group), to "do it right" in therapy. His silence here,
then, is eloquent-it says, more loudly than words, that the
"conversation with Dad" is not what he wants from this piece of
work. Gently, so as not to push him into adapting to the therapists
rather than attending to his own needs, Richard and Rebecca
explore this reluctance.
Jon: Not yet.
Rebecca: What are you feeling right now, Jon?
Jon: Relieved. I don't-
Richard: Tell us about that relief.
Jon: Well, I have been, I have been having some dreams about
Dad. Lately. About the last, oh, well off and on, I've had three
dreams about him since Icame here. Two or three dreams. In which
I'm just basically saying good-bye to him.
Richard: In the dream.
Jon: In the dream, yeah.
262 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Dreams duringa workshop of this sort are often highly significant,

as we saw with Emily's work (Chapter 7). The therapists file this
information away; they may choose to come back and work with
one or more of )on's dreams. First, though, they will need to
finish with )on's reaction to the suggestion about a therapeutic
conversation with Dad.
Rebecca: Has it been helpful?
Jon: Yeah.
Richard: And yet here there's a hesitancy when I suggest the
possibility that you have a conversation with him.
Jon: I don't think I need to talk to him about his death.
Richard: You need to talk to him about the way he lived. But not
yet. Your reluctance is saying something important, and I want to
respect that. Because if you're ready, it's going to be very spon-
taneous.
Jon: I'll know, in a couple of days, by how I feel? About that?
Richard: If it's an issue that needs to be worked with, it will get
worked with.
Respecting and strengthening resistance, rather than breaking
through it, is a basic tenet of integrative psychotherapy. The
covert message to Jon is that he will be taken seriously, and that
he himself knows what he needs.
There is another concern, however, at this point. )on has been
working for some time, and is beginning to show signs of
impatience and discomfort at what he experiences as lack of
direction. He needs some guidance, some help in accessing the
problem that he wants help with, as he said in his opening
statement. Knowing that )on's emotional intensity has to do with
Dad, and that Ion is resisting dealing directly with Dad himself,
Richard hypothesizes that it is the introjected Dad-the Parent
ego state-that must be decommissioned in order to free)on to
make changes in his overall script system. Once the internal
influence of the Parent ego state is relaxed, )on may be less
resistant to expressing his feelings. Richard moves to set up a
Parent Interview, but will be ready to back off if )on signals a
resistance to this plan. Alternatively, the therapists might help
)on to explore the dreams about Dad; this would be a second
choice becauselon has indicated that he has been helped by the
 Putting It All Together 263

dreams and has begun to say good-bye to Dad (albeit prema-

turely). Richard speculates that it might be beneficial if )on first
says a real "hello" to Dad-makes full contact-before attempt-
ing to finish his ''good-bye."
Richard: (continuing) How would your dad be sitting, if he were in
this room right now?Would he be sitting on the mat like this, if he
and I were going to talk to each other?
Jon: (pause) Dad would probably be sitting back on his, like this,
and be going "Come and get me, sucker." ()on has assumed a
suspicious, haughty expression)
Richard: Is that his posture?
Jon: Well, more or less.
Richard: Just close your eyes a minute, see if you can move right
into his muscular posture. See if you can re-create, in your body,
what it would be like to be in his body.
Jon: Yeah. This is basically it.
Richard: Now, just close your eyes again. See if you can create the
look he had on his face most of the time. Particularly if Iwere going
to talk to him.
The induction procedure, which prepares )on for the Parent
Interview, invites him first to model the physical appearance of
Dad as he remembers it, and then to take on his emotional and
cognitive characteristics. As )on moves into his father's physical
posture and expression, his own kinesthetic cues will help him
access the essence of "Dad" that he has introjected into his
Parent ego state. As usual, the actual interview with Dad will
begin slowly, gently, in a respectful yet concerned way. When an
initial rapport has been established, the interview will develop
into actual therapy with that Parent ego state.
Jon: This'd be it. (his face settles into an artificial grimace)
Richard: Plastic smile?
Jon: Yeah.
Rebecca: Also, you look angry.
Jon: Oh, yeah. Come and get me. Just you dare come and get me.
Rebecca: What's your name?
Jon: Herbert.
Richard: Will you close your eyes, though? See if you can get into
264 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

that mood, of "Come and get me.'' (pause) And I want to talk to
you, Herbert. But you as Jon keep your eyes closed. Cause I think
that way you stay in the mood of Herbert better.. .Where you from,
Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): (he now speaks with a decidedly different accent)
White Hill, Kansas.
Closing his eyes serves to block out the visual stimuli that would
keep)on anchored in the present time and place, and free him to
move into the fantasy of being his father. The accent, so unlike
his normal mode of speech, is evidence that he has accomplished
the switch; he is not so much imitating his father as he is actually
experiencing himself as Herbert.
Richard: Say that slower, that first word?
Jon(as Herbert): White Hill, Kansas.
Richard: White Hill. Why in the world do they call it White Hill? Is
the ground white?
Jon (as Herbert): Yeah.
Richard: I've never seen that. Is it like a sand?
Jon (as Herbert): No. There's a lot of birds around.
Richard: Uh-huh. What grows there?
Jon(as Herbert): Oh, there's mainly trees and bushes. We, we have
a farm.
Richard: In White Hill?
Jon(as Herbert): Yeah. Around White Hill.
Richard: Flat land there?
Jon(as Herbert): No, very hilly.
Richard: Hilly.
Jon(as Herbert): Yeah.
Richard: D'you like growing up near White Hill, Herbert?
Notice again the leisurely pace of these first questions and
answers. It's chitchat, two people who have just met standing
around the tractor or talking on the porch. It fleshes out the
scene, paces the work, and gets Herbert/)on more deeply in
touch with his experience. Only with his last question does
Richard depart from what might actually have been said by folks
just introduced back i n White Hill; and even this departure is
 Putting It All Together 265

very slight and nonthreatening. Herbert, though, as we shall see,

is not going to be easy to reach.
Jon(as Herbert): Yeah, it was OK.
Richard: You ever live anywhere else, or did you spend your whole
life around that area?
Jon(as Herbert): I lived there until I was about 21 years old, and
then I went to the service.
Richard: So you finally got a chance to get out of Kansas, huh?How
was that for you, going in the service?
Jon(as Herbert): I wish I would have stayed.
Richard: Chance to see the world. And what did you get to see?
Jon(as Herbert): Japan. And a lot of the southern USA.
Richard: That must have been quite a treat, for a boy who's grown
..
up on a farm in Kansas. What kind of family did you come from,
Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): It was OK.
Herbert's answers have been terse, suspicious, truculent. This last
one borders on rudeness; its whole tone does, indeed, convey
the "come and get me" attitude that )on described. I t is an
indication of how complete ]on's change to Parent ego state is.
Richard decides to confront the resistance head on; earlier, he
went with the resistanceso as to communicate his respect for the
strugglelon was having with his father and to support Ion's own
internal sense of what he needed. At this time, confrontation of
the introjected Parent is appropriate: First, thesignificance of the
relationship between Herbert and Richard will have to be
established in order to set a constructive tone for what may
follow; and, second, Herbert is denying his family situation. The
defense must at least be brought to Herbert's awareness i f any
therapy i s going to occur. Even i n his confrontation, however,
Richard maintains a respectful attitude:
Richard: Now, how come you're so reluctant to give me infor-
mation, just give me a general feeling? When I asked the question,
Herbert, I wanted to know, you know, the number of people in
your family, and what you thought about it, rather than just a
brush-off answer like "it's OK." Is there a reason you don't want to
give me any details?
266 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Jon (as Herbert): Why do you want to know?

Richard: So I can get to know you.
Jon (as Herbert): Why?
Richard: Because your son has come to me for some help with a
very significant problem he's struggling with.
Herbert's suspicions need to be dealt with; he needs a convincing
reason why he should talk to this inquisitive stranger. His very
reluctance is another sign that )on has indeed moved into
'being" his father: )on, so concerned with being approved of
and getting things right, would never have answered Richard's
questions this way. The reason that Richard gives is not only
plausible, but true. It fits for both the Parent and the Adult ego
states i n Jon. And there is an extra, unanticipated bonus in
Herbert's response:
Jon (as Herbert): And I suppose he's saying it's me, huh?
Richard: He hasn't said that. And that's what I'm trying to deter-
mine. In fact, when I probed to see if it might be you, he said several
defensive things in your behalf.
Jon(as Herbert): (laughs derisively)
Richard: What did that laugh mean, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): That's a switch.
Rebecca: You expect him to be mad at you, huh?
This is the first clear example of the contact distortion between
)on and Herbert. Herbert does not accept the idea that )on would
defend him. We cannot know, yet, the exact form of the
distortion-whether Herbert is retroflecting, deflecting, pro-
jecting his own anger, or using some other defense. But,
whatever it may be, i f it is a pervasive element i n Herbert's way of
dealing with the world, we can expect him to do the same thing
as he relates to the therapists.
Richard: He actually said you had quite a disease.
Jon(as Herbert): Yeah, he always thought I had a disease.
Richard: What do you think, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): I drank a little.
Richard: Did it kill you?
Jon (as Herbert): I died of a heart attack.
Richard: Hm. So the drinking wasn't a problem for you, you think.
 Putting It All Together 267

Jon (as Herbert): Not really.

Richard: What kind of family did you come from?
Jon(as Herbert): Why do you want to know?
Again the resistance-and again it surfaces most abruptly when
Richard asks about Herbert's family. There is something here,
something Herbert really doesn't want to talk or think about.
Rather than confrontingagain, andquite possibly cementing the
resistance even more strongly, Richard chooses to take Herbert's
question at face value.
Richard: Same reason I told you three minutes ago. So I can get to
know you.
Rebecca: Does that surprise you Herbert, that someone would
want to get to know you?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't know why he would want to get to know
me.
Richard: Cause I've never met anybody from White Hill Kansas
before. And I suspect growing up there, in a moonshiner's family,
has got to give you a unique perspective on this world. That growing
up on the south side of Chicago, I never got. Now, I can tell you
some things about growing up in the slums, that probably you'd
really find intriguing.
With this response, Richard moves the focus from Jon's needs to
Herbert's own appeal and interest. He also issues a subtle
challenge: Was your boyhood as interesting and intriguing as
mine?
Jon(as Herbert): Well, it was hard times, that I can tell you. I, I have
my mother and my stepfather, that I found out was my stepfather
after Iwas 10 years old. M y parents divorced when Iwas about three
months old. And Ifound out when I was 10.1 have two brothers.. .
Richard: (interrupting) What do you feel about that? You sure
swallowed hard there.
Even at the risk of getting into resistance again, this material must
be explored. The nonverbal cue (swallowing hard), plus the
repetition of information, indicate how important this business
of the real father versus the stepfather is to Herbert. To ignore the
cues, andallow him to continue his story, wouldnot buildtrust; i t
would suggest that these therapists either don't care about his
feelings or can't tell what is really important to him. And, even
268 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

though the subject is painful, we can hear i n Herbert's responses

an ambivalence, a pull to talk about it even as he also resists.
Jon(as Herbert): Well, I always thought that old Ike was my dad.
Richard: Was that a good thought?
Jon(as Herbert): In some ways yes, in some ways no.
Richard: Were you disappointed when you found out the truth?
Jon(as Herbert): Yeah.
Richard: OK, now I understand why you swallowed hard there.
Course, I don't imagine you're a man with a whole lot of feelings,
are you?
Again, the tiniest hint of a challenge. Herbert responded well to
the last challenge, so Richard offers him another chance to
compete. And the intervention is successful:
Jon(as Herbert): Oh, I have a lot of feelings.
Richard: Hm. Somehow I got the impression from your son that
that wasn't the case. That you had just learned to tough it out in life.
Jon (as Herbert): M y son doesn't always know what goes on in-
side me.
Richard: I'd like to know, Herbert. That sure sounds like a painful
statement. "My son doesn't always know what goes on inside me."
Jon(as Herbert): No one knows.
We can see here the depth of the contact disruption that Herbert
experiences. Not only his son is out of touch with Herbert's real
feelings; nobody i n the world really knows how he feels. As was
the case with Charles, in Chapter 77, the experience of contact
with the therapist will be healing i n and of itself for Herbert-for
perhaps the first time in his memory, he will find himself being
known, understood, cared about. And that experience will
almost certainly serve to disconfirm and disprove the script
belief, "nobody knows me," developed by a lonely boy on that
Kansas farm.
Richard: Have you ever had a conversation like this with anybody
who could understand your deep inner process, like I'm trying
to do?
Jon(as Herbert): No.
Richard: Well, to answer your question of a few minutes ago, then
maybe that's one of the reasons we should talk. That finally
 Putting It All Together 269

somebody's going to take time to understand your process. And

what it's like.
Jon(as Herbert): I still don't know what it has to do with my son.
Richard: How about if I make a deal with you? Before we stop this
interview, when the time is up, I'll detail how it affects your son.
And then you can decide if you want to come back again for a
second session. (pause) But, we really did get off the track. You were
telling me something very important about you.
Richard offers a contract: Let me run things for now, trust me that
Iknow what I'm doing, and 11' 1 explain it later. When there is no
dissent, Richard takes the silence as agreement. And the contract
holds; Herbert does not again demand justification or explana-
tion of the therapists' interest in him.
Jon(as Herbert): Well, I grew up in the '30's.. .
Richard: Yeah, you told me about old Ike. What is it like to discover
that the man who you thought was your dad, really wasn't?
Jon(as Herbert): I found out about him after Ihad grown up, and I
met him much later. He never had any contact with me.
Richard: What's that mean to you?The man who raised you is not
your real dad, and your biological dad didn't put any energy into
having contact with you?
Jon(as Herbert): It makes me wonder what was wrong with me.
This i s a clear statement of a script belief: "Because my father was
not there for me, there must be something wrong with me." We
shallsee severalsuch beliefs i n this work, but this one, the second
to emerge, is central to Herbert's (andJon's) way of experiencing
himself in the world.
Richard: That's quite a wondering, isn't it?
Jon (as Herbert): Yeah.
Rebecca: Did you decide that your father had left you?
Jon (as Herbert): Yeah. I don't really know what happened. We
didn't talk much about those kinds of things.
Richard: Yeah. That's one of the reasons it's good for you to talk t o
me now. Because I'll help you straighten out some of that
confusion.
Richard makes explicit what has been growing implicitly: The
interview, originally begun for Jon's benefit, has become therapy
for Herbert. The session is following the same sort of pattern as
270 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Ben's work (Chapter 4), although the contract with Ben's father,
Max, was not made this explicitly. Herbert, i n his response,
accepts the therapeutic purpose even as he questions the
strategy. Straighteningout the confusion may be painful; he may
not want to do it. The therapists shift quickly to attend to this
concern, and at the same time (a few responses later) neatly
connect Herbert's therapy to )on's ongoing welfare.
Jon(as Herbert): What if I don't want to know?
Richard: Well, then I guess I'll have to stop.
Rebecca: Are you saying you don't want to know, Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): It's in the past. What difference does it make now?
Rebecca: I think it still hurts.
Jon(as Herbert): And if it does?
Rebecca: It doesn't need to.
Jon(as Herbert): Idon't know if there's anything that's ever going
to take away the pain.
Richard: Well, you might be right, Herbert. But you know, at least
you don't have to pass that pain on to the next generation. Do you
want your son to carry your pain?
Jon (as Herbert): No.
.
Richard: That, we can help.. Ithink Iunderstand now, something
important. Can I come back and check it out with you?
Jon (as Herbert): Sure.
What a difference from the hostile suspiciousness of Herbert's
first interactions! With that "sure,"Herbert takes a decisive step;
he begins to trust these therapists. Herbert is i n therapynow, and
the work continues.
Richard: You said, "I don't know what's wrong with me, that my
real father didn't make contact with me.'' Will you tell me more
about what you feel with that?
Jon(as Herbert): (pause) Angry with him.
Richard: Um-hm.
Jon (as Herbert): He wanted to give me his name, but he wasn't
there for me.
Richard: Did you use his name, or did you use old Ike's name?
Jon(as Herbert): Iused Ike's name. That's the name that my mother
chose; it was good enough for me. When I was born, he had me
 Putting It All Together 271

registered as William Walter Schmidt. And my name has always

been Herbert Runkle.
Richard: Now what is the difference to you in having a Schmidt
name or a Runkle name?
Jon(as Herbert): He lied to my mother. (pause)M y mother did not
know how to speak or write English; he did. And on the birth
certificate he told her that it was going to be Herbert Schmidt. And
now it was William Walter Schmidt. It was just another one of the
tricks and lies he played on my mother. (his voice is angry; his pain
shows on his face)
)on/Herbert is no longerjust talking about what happened; he is
feeling it. The deception about the name, and the later abandon-
ment, sent that young boy an implied message: "Who you are
doesn't count with me; Idon't care whether you exist or not."
After acknowledging the feelings, Richard risks an inter-
pretation:
Richard: You sound bitter about that, Herbert.
Jon(as Herbert): Yes.
Richard: Would you assume, then, that he really didn't want you to
exist?
Jon (as Herbert): I n later years, before he died, the only thing he
wanted from me is money. And that's the only thing that my
supposed stepbrothers, or half brothers, ever wanted from me also,
is just money.
Richard: What about your existence, Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't know.
Richard: I think you do. I think you feel that pain, behind those
tight jaws. Behind all that anger. What's it mean, that your father lies
to your mother about the identityof your existence-what's it mean
that you have no contact with him, not even the knowledge that he
is your dad, until you're lo?
To not know what one feels and thinks requires denial; to deny
requires holding in; emotional and cognitive holding in are
always accompanied by some sort of muscular holding in-
retroflection. And the reverseis true as well: Muscular holdingin
signals some sort of repression, something that must not be
known or recognized. Richard calls this process to Herbert's
attention and repeats the question. (It is called to Jon's attention
272 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

as well, given that )on occupies the same body as Herbert in this
piece of work; earlier i n the work, we also saw )on tighten his
jaws to avoid feeling hurt and anger.)
Jon(as Herbert): (pause) Don't know.
Richard: Um-hm. Boy, if I were in your place, Herbert, I think I'd
really question whether I was even supposed to be alive in this
world. Do you ever question that?
Jon(as Herbert): Oh, yeah.
Richard: Will you tell us about that questioning?
Jon (as Herbert): (long pause) You wonder, sometimes, what
you're even around for.
The pause here is not one of resistance; it i s a time to try to finda
way to express what has not been said i n words before. When it
does emerge, it confirms Richard's hypothesis-but it does so
tangentially, with you taking the place of the I that would have
firmly identified the question as his own. Herbert needs to
experience an "1,"not a "you,"in order to feel fully the emotions
associated with his wondering. The use of you instead of I is a
defense, a deflection, a way to avoid the intensity of what he is
saying.
Richard: You mean you, as Herbert, wonder? Or are you speaking
to me as Richard, I wonder?
Jon(as Herbert): I, as Herbert, wonder.
Richard: Yeah, tell me more about that, Herbert. That's what Iwant
to know about. (pause) You say you wonder whether you should
even be around.
Jon (as Herbert): People ask a lot of things of me, and I really do
make an effort to try and accommodatethem, but people just never
do understand.
Another script belief. I f "there's something wrong with me,"and
"I'm not supposed to be alive," then it certainly would follow
that other people (who have nothing wrong with them, and are
supposed to exist) would not understand him.
Richard: Understand how it is to be rejected as a little boy. Or to
have a father who doesn't consider you important enough to put
time and energy into a commitment to you.
Jon (as Herbert): Ike was my father.
 Putting It All Together 273

Richard: Did you love him?

Jon(as Herbert): Ike was a good man.
Richard: Did you love him?
Jon(as Herbert): He said, "Herbert, you know the one thing I really
like about you is you never tell me what to do."
Richard: Did you love him?
Jon(as Herbert): I cried when he died.
Richard: (softly) Did you love him?
Richard has now asked this same question four times. Each time,
Herbert answers tangentially-that is, his ''answer" is a non-
answer. Repeating the question serves to confront the non-
answering, but also underscores the therapist's interest and
concern: The question, and its answer, are too important toslide
past. With his last repetition, Richard's voice softens; with his
voice quality, he i s responding to Herbert's pain. It i s as i f he has
said, "1 understand how hard it is for you to answer this question,
and Iwillsupport you as you wrestle with it." Herbert's response
shows that he has heard this underlying message. He looks
uncomfortable, his eyes grow moist, he swallows. Finally, he
expresses his discomfort:
Jon(as Herbert): You know, I don't really know what you're trying
to do with me. I really don't.
Richard: I'm trying to know if it was Ike you had the bonding with,
or your biological father, Herbert.
With this matter-of-fact, respectful answer, Richardagain estab-
lishes his trustworthiness. He will not put Herbert on thespot just
to see him squirm; he will not encourage an emotional display
simply for its own sake. He does have a rationale for his
questions, one that he is willing to share, and one that will make
sense both to Herbert and to the observinglon.
Jon(as Herbert): Ike was my father. He is the man that raised me.. .
Richard: Then how come you hurt so much over the fact that your
biological father wasn't there for you?
Jon (as Herbert): Because he lied to my mother.
Richard: And how come you hurt about a lie that occurred when
you were too young to know even the language?
274 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Understanding the flow of script from generation to generation

is a fascinating aspect of integrative psychotherapy. In Herbert's
system, as reenacted by )on, we are now seeing hints of the
thoughts, feelings, and behaviors that he introjected from both
of his "fathers," the one who was present and the one who was
absent. One might also explore Herbert's mother's beliefs about
her husband's defection (and his deception), and the ways in
which Herbert may have internalized-and reacted to-those
beliefs. Grandparent Interviews are not uncommon i n our work,
and it may be that, as Herbert's system unfolds, his Parent ego
state will need to be dealt with. For now, though, the therapists
will stay with Herbert, providing a contactful relationship within
which he (andlon) can bring into awareness that which, flowing
underground between father and son, has poisoned and dis-
torted the life experiences of both Herbert and Jon.
Jon (as Herbert): Because Mom, she never, I never treated her
right.
Richard: What do you mean, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): After I left the service, after I left the farm, I left
her. And went for my own life. She wound up in a nursing home and
I only saw her a couple of times a year.
Richard: You feeling bad about that, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): Oh, I feel very bad about that.
Richard: So you sort of treated her the way your dad had treated
you at the beginning of your life, huh?
Jon (as Herbert): (pause) If you want to call it that, you can call it
that.
Richard: Do you disagree with me?
Jon(as Herbert): Like I said, if you want to call it that, you can call it
that.
Richard: And do you disagree with me?
Rebecca: Are you feeling angry right now, Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): Damn right.
Here it is: The anger that we saw projected onto )on, early in the
Parent interview, now reemerges. Herbert, as predicted, does
get angry at the therapists. And, also predictably, he will not
acknowledge this openly; instead, he deflects his anger onto a
vague, intangible "process."
 Putting It All Together 275

Richard: You angry at me?

Jon(as Herbert): I'm angry at this whole process.
Richard: Want to stop?
Rebecca: What are you angry at, Herbert? That he's making you
feel things?
Rebecca, concerned that Richard's challenge may have come
too soon-before the therapeuticalliance with Herbert was firm
enough to hold him i n spite of his anger-chooses to intervene
here. Softly and sympathetically, she pinpoints the source of his
distress. Herbert doesn't answer her directly, but i n his evasion
provides an opening for Richardagainto address the process that
is occurring between them. Again, stressing the contact is a way
to invite Herbert into a new (for him) kind of healingexperience.
Jon (as Herbert): It's all in the past. I got a wife that doesn't
understand me. She doesn't.. .
Richard: Herbert, I'm willing to understand you.
Jon (as Herbert): I've got a son who doesn't come around to
see me.
Richard: I'm willing to be here and listen to you.
Jon(as Herbert): I don't know if I'm willing to be here.
I s this a response to Richard's challenge of a few moments ago, a
warning that Herbert will, i n fact, quit if he is pushed too hard?
The threat that "Iwill walk out i f I don't like thismrnakesit difficult
to do good therapy; the client needs to stay and deal with
whatever emerges in the work. Richard, sensing the need for
some sort of boundary here, offers a minicontract.
Richard: How about another 30 minutes?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't know if you're going to be here with me
.
when I'm.. how long you're going to be here with me ever again.
Richard: I'm only going to be here about another 30 minutes. But
I'm going to be fully here, with every attempt to fully understand
you, for that whole time.
No phony promises here, no guarantee that Richard will stay as
long as Herbert wants or that Herbert can come back again. Such
a promise or suggestion would be disrespectful, and Herbert
would experience it as a put-down. Instead, Richard is again
open and believable about what he intends, and what he i s
276 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

willing to offer. After a pause, during which Herbert might have

argued but (significantly) did not, Richard continues, using the
silence as a tacit acceptance of the contract.
Richard: (continuing) When you started getting angry is when I
started asking you about that sense of rejection from your dad. That
sense that in some way he implied that your existence was
unimportant.
Jon (as Herbert): Well, he sure as hell said it, didn't he?
Richard: Yes, he did. And what's it like growing up, in essence
being told by your father, "Don't exist"?
Jon(as Herbert): It's hell! It's the plain shits!
Richard: Tell me about that shit.
Jon (as Herbert): You think you've got a sense of belonging and
then someone comes and pulls the carpet right out from under-
neath you. Then when you're 62 years old you find out that your
given name was not your real name at all. It's given to you by a man
that's not even there, to be around for you. Who doesn't even have
any contact with you for 20 or 30 years.
I n our discussion of the script system, in Chapter 7, we detailed
the three major components: script beliefs, script display, and
reinforcing experiences. Herbert, here, describes two memories.
First, someone "pulls the carpet right out," referring to the
abandonment by his biological father as a young child; later-
much later-he learns that he has been deceivedabout his name.
The experience of each of these events, mulled over in pain and
anger hundreds of times, serves to reinforce his beliefs. We will
hear these beliefs emerge again in a few minutes: "Life is the
shits" and the implied "People can't be trusted."
Richard: And what does that mean about living?
Jon(as Herbert): That means living is the plain shits.
Richard: So how come you didn't kill yourself?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't got the guts.
Richard: You mean it takes guts to kill yourself?
Jon(as Herbert): Yes.
Richard: Why?
Jon(as Herbert): Because.
Richard: Would you like to have done it?
 Putting It All Together 277

)on had said earlier in the workshop that he was very suicidal at
one time; at the beginning of this piece of work, he also referred
to his suicidal feelings. With this as background, it becomes
especially important to explore the suicide issue with Herbert.
Did Herbert pass on to)on, along with his other script beliefs, a
belief that life is not worth living? Did he, in any way, withhold
fromlon the same permission that was withheld from him-the
permission, from father to son, to exist in this world? Under-
standing how Herbert has dealt with the question of suicide will
help the therapists to understand and assess how much )on may
be at risk.
Jon(as Herbert): Yes.
Richard: Tell me about that.
Jon (as Herbert): It's a pain that goes right through the middle
of me.
Richard: Where at?
Jon(as Herbert): Right here (indicating his chest).
Richard: Um-hm. Like right around your heart?
Jon(as Herbert): Yes.
Richard: That was my thought.
Jon(as Herbert): To feel so down and so out and then know that no
one cares, or gives a damn whether you're here today or gone
tomorrow. The only thing they want is their goddamn watches fixed
or their radios repaired.
Richard: God, you're pissed!
Jon(as Herbert): I'm not.
Richard: You're not?
Jon(as Herbert): That's just the way things are. That's the way life is.
Richard: How come you're not more pissed?
Jon(as Herbert): What in the hell good would it do?
Richard: Hm. So what you're saying is "There's no use."
Herbert obviously feels anger, it exudes from his verypores. And
he has reason to be angryl Expressinghis anger openly, directing
it at an appropriate target, would be healthy for him; it would
combat his depression and provide a way for him to resolve his
suicidal impulses. Instead, true to his pattern, he denies the
anger, turning it inward so that it contributes to rather than
278 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

counters the depression. His "that's just the way things are" is a
good example of the way cognitive defenses are used to repress
the emotions that were present at the time of script decisionsand
threaten to emerge later in life. "Why be angry; what i n the hell
good would i t do" is also just another way of saying "What's the
use," as Richard notes-and "What's the use," as a core script
belief, is nearly always associatedwith strong suicidaltendencies.
Jon(as Herbert): You're damn right. People, they're all out to use
you. That's all they ever want from you. Is to see what they can get
from you.
Richard: Um-hm. It was a pretty good thing for you to get away
from Kansas, huh?
Jon (as Herbert): (pause) I went back.
Richard: Yeah, why?
Jon(as Herbert): Because it's a sense of home. I left the state seven
times, and each time I've always come back to it.
Richard: D'you have that same sense when you traveled in the
South?
Jon (as Herbert): People are the same no matter where you go.
Richard: So you really believe that people are out to use you.
Jon(as Herbert): You're damn right.
Richard: And what's the use.
Jon (as Herbert): And what is the use.
Richard: What else do you believe?
Jon(as Herbert): About what?
Richard: About life.
Jon (as Herbert): (pause) That no matter where you go, you're
never going to escape it.
Richard: What's the "it"?
Jon (as Herbert): Life. You're never going to escape life.
Richard: Um-hm. What's that mean?
Jon(as Herbert): That means that it follows you wherever you go.
The misery, the hard work, the being misunderstood. That hurts.
Herbert's script belief structure is clear and explicit: Life i s hard
and painful, i t can't be escaped, so what's the use of trying. His is a
particularly tenacious system. Herbert truly believes that all
 Putting It All Together 279

people are out to use him-it isn't just a feeling, a response, but is
for him a fact, supported by hard data. It's true now, always has
been, always will be. There is nothing to argue about. And yet,
even as he expresses this fatalistic position, something new
emerges: It hurts. The feeling part of him is responding to the
therapists' uncritical interest, to the sense of contact and related-
ness that he has been experiencing. Those last two words are the
expression of Herbert's long-buried, but not quite smothered,
need to be touched and known at a deeper level, to share a
tenderer, more vulnerable part of himself. It is the most hopeful
sign he has shown thus far in his work.
Richard: Yeah.
Jon(as Herbert): It makes a man wonder what's, what is the purpose
of being around. You're just going to die.
Richard: And what's your conclusion on that?
Jon (as Herbert): Well, then I'm going to live it to the fullest. I'm
going to do what I damn well want to do. I'm going t o do what
makes me happy.
Richard: Which is what, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): I'm going to eat and drink. I'm going to buy
whatever I want.
The child (or adult) who believes he cannot get what he wants
will make a second choice-because I can't have what I really
want, what will I try for instead? Often, this second choice is
made outside of awareness; the need or want itself is blocked
from consciousness,and the person experiences onlythesecond-
aryprocess. The derived 'heed" is satisfied by thesecond choice
behavior, but the original need remains unmet; thus thesatisfac-
tion is only illusory. This is the essence of the "fixed gestalt"
pattern: Meeting the secondary need appears to close the
gestalt, "fixes" it in a cycle of apparent satisfaction followed by a
reemerging sense of deprivation, which is met by more second-
ary need-satisfying behavior. Herbert's description fits this pat-
tern exactly. Wanting to make full contact with good, caring
people, and to experience life as worth living-he has decided
that these are impossible. His second choice is a kind of
hedonistic bravado, which provides short-term relief but leaves
the underlying loneliness and despair untouched.
280 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: What about your wife and kid?

Jon(as Herbert): You had to bring them up, didn't you?
Richard: All right. Want me to leave them out?
Jon (as Herbert): I know there are probably some things that I
haven't done that they needed me to do.
Herbert's voice sounds truculent again. He is back i n his old
projective defense, experiencing his self-criticism as i f it came
from outside-in this case, from Richard.
Richard: Herbert, stop. I'm not making an accusation.
Jon (as Herbert): Well, you're the first one that hasn't. (laughs
sarcastically)
Richard: All I asked is, what about your wife and kid?
Jon(as Herbert): What do you want to know about them?
Richard: Well, let me back up with that question for a minute. You
assumed I was making an accusation. (Herbert laughs again)
Herbert's laughter is so harsh, and so inappropriate to the
content of his speech, that i t must have some important symbolic
meaning to him. The risk in asking him about it is, of course, that
he again may project criticism into the question. Yet to ignore it
would mean overlooking a significant part of what he is, at some
level, trying to communicate. Richard decides to solve this
dilemma by using Herbert's own defense: He projects a criticism
of himself onto Herbert. This provides a subtle frame for joining
Herbert (we are both people who are accused); it also allows
Herbert freedom to talk about the laughter or not, as he chooses.
And i f he chooses not (which, in fact, he does), Richard can
always come back later as the "accused one" and pick up this
thread.
Jon (as Herbert): You're the only one who hasn't made an
accusation.
Richard: I don't know enough yet.
Jon(as Herbert): Oh. You will, then. I was right. (laughs)
Richard: I might.
Jon(as Herbert): OK.
Richard: But tell me, what do you think the accusation was that I
was making?
Jon(as Herbert): That I don't do enough for them.
Richard: Hm. Do you think that's true?
 Putting It All Tqether 281

Jon(as Herbert): I give them a house over their head.

Richard: Do you think it's true, that you don't do enough for them?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't do all that I'd like for them.
Richard: Do you do enough?
The pattern recurs: Herbert does not answer Richard's question,
and Richard patiently repeats it. It is confrontational without
directly confronting the evasion. And this time Herbert does,
finally, answer directly.
Jon(as Herbert): I think I do, yeah. According to them I don't.
Richard: I bet you give them more than you ever got.
Jon(as Herbert): When the only thing you get for Christmas for the
whole family is a pound of butter, and that was one Christmas .. .
When you talk about eating, scraping the lard out of the frying pan
to put on your bread-yeah, I give them more.
Richard: I bet you in some ways thought you were real generous,
even with your emotions, compared to what you got as a kid.
Jon(as Herbert): I never heard the word "love."
Richard: Would you like to hear it?
Jon(as Herbert): (long pause, then very softly) Ya.
Here, at last, is real contact with his innermost desire. Herbert has
allowed himself to feel, and to share his experience. Even though
he answers with a single word, all of his nonverbal behaviors
signal that this is an emotional moment for him, and that Richard
i s very much a part of his emotional field. Richard is quick to
capitalize on this, inviting Herbert even deeper into experiencing
his previously blocked feelings and need to be loved.
Richard: Who most would you like to have heard say the words, "I
love you, Herbert"? If you could have only heard it from one
person, one time in your whole life, whose voice would you like to
have heard those words come from?
Jon(as Herbert): (long pause) Phil. My father.
.
Richard: Your biological father. . Oh, Herbert, that would have
.
made all the difference in some ways.. What would have been the
difference, Herbert, if Phil could have said to you, ('1 love you, my
boy"?
Jon(as Herbert): Then it would have made, made me want, then it
could have helped me under-. .. then I wouldn't have felt like
such an outcast.
282 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

With the reexperiencing of the forbidden feeling comes a new

facet of Herbert's script beliefs: "I am an outcast." I t fits,
underlies, and helps to explain his other beliefs-"life is hard,"
"What's the use?" and "People are out to use me." Naturally,
these things would be true for an outcast, someone who doesn't
belong anywhere.
Richard: That's one of the things you believe, isn't it? "I'm an
outcast." In some ways you really were, from him, weren't you?And
then you perpetuated it the rest of your life. Were you even an
outcast when you were in the service?
Jon(as Herbert): No, I was somebody in the service. I wish I would
have stayed there.
Richard: But you came back. Seven times you left the state, and
seven times you came back.
Jon(as Herbert): I've always wanted to belong somewhere, to have
a sense of belonging.
Richard: Particularly to have that father say, "I love you, my son."
Jon(as Herbert): To have anyone say that, I guess.
Richard: How about your wife?
Jon(as Herbert): Huh? ... Oh, she's a pretty good woman.
Richard: Did she ever say, "I love you, my husband"?
Jon(as Herbert): Oh, yeah, that's her, that's what she's supposed to
say. Idon't really know, Idon't really think, though, that shewants, 1
don't really think that she loves me. I think that she loves having a
husband.
Evidence that might challenge or disprove a script belief is either
filtered out of awareness or redefined to be consistent with the
beliefs. "I'm an outcast" or "No one loves me" is experienced as
reality, like sunrise i n the east or cold weather in winter.
Herbert's script beliefs serve as a cognitive defense against the
awareness of both the need to be lovedand the emotions related
to that need not being met.
Richard: You mean any man would do?
Jon(as Herbert): Ya.
Richard: So you're really an outcast in your own family.
Jon (as Herbert): Ya.
Richard: What about your son?Did he ever say, "Dad, I love you"?
 Putting It All Together 283

Having uncovered a core script belief, "'No one loves me,"

Richard now begins the slow and careful process of tying all this
back to /on, to how things were and might have been between
/on and his father, and to what is now needed to heal that
damaged relationship so that Jon can get on with his life.
Jon (as Herbert): Oh, when he was about 21 or 22.
Richard: How'd you feel with that?
Jon(as Herbert): It really felt good.
Richard: D'you ever want to hear it when he was a little boy?
Jon (as Herbert): Ya.
Richard: And what actually occurred, when he was a little boy?
Jon(as Herbert): (pause)I had so many hopes and dreams for him
.. . But he wasn't, he wasn't exactly what I had planned at the time.
Herbert's pauses and nonanswers are becoming almost as
revealing as what he actually says. Again, he signals that the
question has hit home, and that the feelings it stirs up are painful.
This nonanswer, though, is different from many of the others in
that Herbert is now talking freely about his feelings: his broken
dreams, his lonely longing. It is as if he now feels so close to the
therapists that he doesn't need to evade or to answer directly.
The answer, given inside his head, is taken for granted, and his
verbal response simply picks up and elaborates on the thought.
Richard's response supports that sense of shared understanding,
and asks Herbert to go farther yet.
Richard: What do you mean by that, Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): He was a commitment. He was a commitment out
of honor. I married his mother.
Richard: Well, that's to be respected.
Jon (as Herbert): Yes. To give the child a name. That's the most
important thing there is, isn't it?
Richard: Certainly important when you were born, wasn't it?
Jon(as Herbert): Ya.
.
Richard: The name. . So you did what your father abandoned.
Outcasts neither have nor need names; they don't belong, and
nobody cares what their name may be. Herbert, by marrying
/on's mother and giving )on a name, rescued him from that
outcast status. He broke the script curse, the belief about self that
284 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

passes from generation to generation. As he becomesaware, and

proud, of this choice, he may be open to other beliefs and
feelings that he would now choose not to hand on to his son.
Jon(as Herbert): Ya.
Richard: How did that feel, to know that you were not going to
repeat the mistake that your dad had made?
Jon(as Herbert): I thought that I was doing the best for him that I
could.
Richard: Well, I think that in some ways you ought to be honored
for that. Cause that took a lot of guts. (Herbert laughs) Just plain
.
guts, Herbert.. So you stuck it out. And you gave him something
you never had.
Jon(as Herbert): Oh, those early years, they were hell.
Richard: What do you mean?
Jon (as Herbert): Well, I wasn't really sure whether or not I was
ready to settle down yet. And my wife, she must have felt that,
because she wasalways checking up on me. She knew the miles out
to work that I would go, and every night she knew how long it
would take me to get from work to home. And she used to check.
And oh, the hell Sue used to raise, when I wasn't home within that
certain amount of time.
It's hard to imagine what it must be like for Herbert-so
accustomed to criticism, so ready to agree with it himself, so
certain that he is an outcast doomed to a lonely and painful
life-to experience the understanding and respect that he is
getting here. From a shiftless drunk, he has been transformed
into a man who had the courage to give his son that which he
himself most wanted and never got. This is so alien to his whole
self-concept (and yet rings so true in a deeper part of himself)
that he becomes acutely uncomfortable. Predictably, to deal
with the discomfort, he retreats into script: He begins to tell a
story that will again show him i n a bad light and will invite
criticism. Note how Richard avoids delivering the criticism,
without in any way denying the truth of Herbert's recounting.
Richard: What would you do, stop off for a beer?
Jon(as Herbert): Ya. I'd stop and talk with the boys. And every now
and then I'd give a girlfriend a call.
Richard: Just a call?
 Puttins It All Together 285

Jon(as Herbert): Ya, just a call.

Richard: You were looking for something, weren't you?
Jon (as Herbert): I wasn't ready to settle down. I never went any
further than that, but my wife, she didn't believe it.
Richard: That must make that commitment to your son's name
mighty important to you then, if you weren't ready to settle down. If
you wanted to be in the service and see the world. Makes it even
more of a sacrifice. (pause) Also adds to your belief that life i s a
struggle. And that you can't get what you want. Right?That's what I
hear coming through this all the time, "I can't get what I want."
Going back again to those core beliefs, Richard is preparing the
ground to decommission the introjected Parent system and to
free I o n from Herbert's crippling view of the world.
Jon(as Herbert): (long pause) I've done good for myself, though.
Richard: Did you just expect me to criticize you, Herbert?
Jon(as Herbert): I don't know.
Richard: I was sure feeling empathetic with what sadness perme-
ates your life. Underneath that well-polished anger. Real sense of
sadness.
Jon(as Herbert): Well ...
if you haven't criticized me yet, ya, well
I'm waiting for it.
He is not only waiting for it, but will manufacture it i f it isn't there.
With this admission, we can see the central importance of the
therapists' refusal to criticize. To say anything that sounds like
disapproval of Herbert would only serve to reinforce his beliefs
about himself, would provide one more memory to shore up his
role as an outcast who will never get what he most wants in life.
Richard: Herbert, how am I going to criticize that deep sadness
that permeatesyour life?The sadness that goes with that belief, "I'm
an outcast." The sadness underlying the belief, "I'm misunder-
stood." That sadness underlying the belief, "People are out to use
me." The real depression that goes along with "What's the use?"
That "life is a struggle."
Jon(as Herbert): Life is life. What are you going to do about it but
carry on?
Richard: Well, I think what you did is, you drank, not to feel that
hurt.
286 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Jon(as Herbert): I like to drink.

Richard: And what happens when you get the booze in you? What
happens to that hurt?
Jon (as Herbert): I start feeling like I'm somebody. Like I'm
somebody important.
Again, we can see here the repeatingpattern of the script system.
The person who is not given permission to exist, to meet his
innate need to be recognized and attended to, finds an artificial
solution. The unclosedgestalt is closed, temporarily, by drinking.
For a short time, the emptiness is filled. But, as with any fixed
gestalt, Herbert's solution becomes itself a new problem. Al-
though he feels like ''somebody important" when he drinks, his
drunken behavior invites others to treat him like an unimportant
nobody. He needs a new way to solve the problem, a way to meet
the original need directly.
Richard: Well, Herbert, you've been somebody for me. And you
haven't been drinking while we've been talking (Herbert laughs)
What's your laugh mean?
Jon(as Herbert): You've got a way with words, don't you? (laughs
again)
Richard: Well, more than that, I've got an understanding with
people. I can understand you.
"Ican understand you" is not only another move to underscore
and intensify the sense of contact between therapist and client,
but also speaks directly to Herbert's need to be somebody. "You
are a person who is worth understanding-you are important to
me." Herbert is being introduced to the experience of meeting
his primary need in a primary, rather than a secondary, way.
Jon(as Herbert): If you do, you're the first one.
Richard: I'm sorry that's true. And yes, I guess it's got to start
.
sometime.. Ithink your son struggled to understand you. And you
know what he did?
Jon(as Herbert): It's hard telling what he's done.
Richard: I can tell you. It's not hard.
Jon(as Herbert): I'm listening.
Richard: In order to get the same thing that you've always wanted
from your dad, real support and encouragement for existing; in
order to hear "I love youn-but more than to hear it, Herbert, i n
 Putting It All Together 287

order really to feel that he belongs, rather than being an outcast in

his own relationship with you-he's carried your sadness. He's
carried your belief that "I can't get what I want out of life." That
"Life's the shits," and "What's the use." But mostly he's carried your
pain. In the hopes that if he carried your pain, and stayed depressed
for you, you'd be relieved enough that you could be there for him.
Your son is very loyal.
I n this interpretation, Richardspeaksboth to the activated Parent
ego state (Herbert) and to )on's observing Adult and Child ego
states. )on, as well as Herbert, will experience being understood,
being important enough to be worth understanding. Moreover,
there is a relabeling of )on's symptomatic behavior, as his
depression is defined as loyalty. Will Herbert go along with his
son's being depressed in order loyally to support Dad?Or will he
now giveJon permission to change, to have a better life?And will
)on, with this new frame of reference, decide that there are
better ways to express and experience his relationship to his
father?
.
Jon(as Herbert): It's.. it's hard to believe. He, uh . .. Itried to talk
to him many times.
Richard: Oh, he's also pissed off at you.
Jon(as Herbert): And it seems like, ya, I used to be able to talk to
him, but in recent years I've not been able to. It's as though he's
pushing me away, and I don't like that.
Richard: He is, externally. But you know, during those formative
years, he took on your pain. And he bears it for you. Except, he's
forgotten it's yours. Because it's almost identical to his own ...
Herbert, you hurt. You've hurt all your life. You even hurt about
your relationship with Jon. You hurt about life, and your existence.
Jon (as Herbert): That's life, isn't it?
Richard: No, it's not. But it is your life. Will you do something? Just
imagine Jonin front of you right now. And tell him about your pain,
and the burden he's carried for you ... Just talk to Jon right now.
This is your chance to be understood by him.
With this abrupt shift to a fantasy dialogue between Parent and
Child ego states, Richard invites )on/Herbert to neutralize the
poisonous effect of that withdrawn, withholding Parent ego
state. Although it is too late for Herbert to change his own life, he
can stil1give)on permission not to live in the same way. Speaking
288 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

directly to )on will deepen the emotional intensity of this

permission, so that it will feel to)on like a real event, rather than a
wished-for dream.
Jon(as Herbert): (pause) What am I going to tell him?
Richard: Start with the hurt. Particularly how you've denied it.
Don't hide it, Herbert. Justbegin by using his name. And the words
will flow. And if you don't say it right, you can always say it again.
Jon(as Herbert): It is hard.
Richard: Yeah, say that again, to Jon.
The statement to the therapist, about the difficulty ofJon's Parent
ego state (Herbert) attempting to talk to )on, might have
sidetracked the work into a blur of discussion about whether or
not he can carry out the task. But the statement may also refer to
Herbert's script position: 'Life is hard." Richard responds to this
deeper meaning, and simply redirects the comment from himself
to the fantasy )on, to whom Herbert must talk.
Jon(as Herbert): Jonny, it's hard to tell you these things.
Richard: Just let yourself feel it, Herbert. Just repeat that sentence
over, and elaborate.
Jon(as Herbert): It's hard to tell you these things. ..
Richard: Keep going.
Jon (as Herbert): Since I want to tell you these things, my body is
just shaking, all inside.
A good sign: The physiological reaction indicates that he is,
indeed, experiencing this interaction as real. He is respondingas
i f he (in both ego states, Herbert and )on) were really there,
talking to each other i n a way that both desperately wanted yet
could never achieve. The shaking feeling results from the
opening of long-closed emotional energy channels in the body,
channels that can now be usedfor healthy emotional expression
and release. The retroflections are relaxing.
Richard: Yeah. That's the part of you that's been raised that it's not
manly to talk about deep feelings. You know, I really believe it i s
manly, Herbert. Your son needs to know your deep feelings so that
he can be a man that doesn't get stuck between being a boy and a
.
man, in that midzone.. Tell him about how it is for you to feel so
deeply, Herbert.
Jon (as Herbert): It's hard to tell you how I feel, because the
 Putting It All Together 289

feelings are so deep. And they're so hard to express. (he reaches out
in a curious half-gesture, and then pulls back)
Richard: Yeah, but your arms and shoulders and hands are
expressing them. Do that little gesture again, Herbert.
Herbert, a man of few words, says with his body what he cannot
yet say with his voice. Although his verbalshuttingdown is not as
intense as that of Glenda (Chapter 70), the therapist's attention to
and use of Herbert's gestural communications i s often similar to
the work with her. Asking Herbert to repeat and intensify his
gesture will heighten his awareness of what he is trying to
express.
Jon(as Herbert): Sometimes I just wonder what is even the use of
telling you.
As the system opens up, script clues come often. Herbert, in
talking to Jon about his feelings, i s about to break the rules by
which he has lived his life. And the old core belief, "What's the
use," emerges again as a barrier to change, an illusory safeguard
that protects him from the risk of exploring new and unknown
territory. The protest i s a weak one, though; the process of
change i s gathering momentum and needs only gentle encour-
agement to continue.
Richard: There is a use, so keep going.
Jon(as Herbert): I've tried reaching out to you in so many ways, but
my ways are limited. I have tried talking to you,and you have always
been a good listener, and I like, I love, 1... I love you, Jonny.
Richard: Louder, Herbert.
Jon(as Herbert): (crying) I love you, Jonny.
Richard: Do it again, Herbert. Do what you never heard.
Once or twice is not enough. Herbert needs to repeat himself, to
feel it all. Repetition, along with raising his voice, helps him to
break the cognitive restraints, to feel intensely what has been
held i n for so many years. To the extent that this process is fully
involving, both Herbert and)on (Parent and Childego states) will
be cleansed and freed to experience themselves in a different
way.
Jon: (sobbing) I love you, Jonny!
Richard: And tell him what it's like to have never heard it. ()on/
Herbert is sobbing so hard that he cannot speak) Tell him what it's
like to finally say to your son what your father never said.
290 INTEGRATIVEPSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Jon(as Herbert): (speakingthrough his sobs) Those words seem so

strange to me. To say them to you. I never heard them as a kid.
Richard: (supporting)onDsdiaphragm) Now let that come right out
of here, Herbert.
Richard's touch, just below the heart, serves a number of
purposes here. It ca11s)on's attention to how he is still physically
holding back, and invites him to break through in this area.
Richard's touch is gentle, yet firm; as he pushes against )on's
diaphragm, he encourages the deep release that )on needs. Also,
his touch provides contact and emotional support; it is an
unmistakablereminder that he is with ]on, and that ]on/Herbert
does not have to do this alone, that he-they-are important
enough to be helped and encouraged and cared for.
Jon(as Herbert): I never heard that as a kid.
Richard: Say that word "that." Say what it means. The whole
sentence.
Jon(as Herbert): I never heard them say that. That they loved me.
And Idon't believe it. I never believed it could be possible.
Richard: Tell him what you believe about Jonny.
Jon(as Herbert): (sobbing again) I do believe you love me.
Richard: Yeah, let that come, Herbert. He's been very loyal and
loving to you, by carrying your burden about life, to make life easier
for you. The only problem is that it didn't work. Even though he
carried your pain, you still had your own pain.
Jon(as Herbert): I don't want to make your life miserable.
Richard: Tell him more, Herbert.
Jon(as Herbert): (reachingout with his hands) Ijust want someone
to be there for me.
Richard: Yeah, do that again with those hands. "I want someone
there for me."
Jon(as Herbert): I want somebody there for me!
Richard: Louder, Herbert.
Demanding, with his voice and his gestures, what he wants,
rather than giving up because "what's the use," is a behavioral
change. I n order to do this, with genuine feeling, Herbert must
give up his belief that everything is hopeless: The feeling can
only emerge from a sense of hope, of possibility, of opening to
 Putting It All T-ether 291

contact with others. And, having opened here i n therapy,

)on/Herbert can carry that potential for openness out into the
real world.
Jon (as Herbert): I want somebody there for me. (sobs) It's so
lonely, knowing that no one's there; knowing that no one cares!
Richard: Tell him what it was like when Jonny was Mama's little
boy.
Jon(as Herbert): (still sobbing) She had to spend time with you,
..
and she couldn't be there for me. I hated you. But I loved you.
You were mine.
Richard: Tell him both parts again.
Jon(as Herbert): I hated you, but I loved you!
Richard: Tell him, elaborate on each one.
Herbert i s clarifying the split in himself, a split that confused and
damaged his relationship with his son. Herbert's Child ego state
was jealous of theattention given tolon, andhatedlon for taking
what Herbert wanted; Herbert's Adult ego state was proudof his
son and wanted good things for him. Feeling the split, talking
about it, intensifying it, clears the way for integration, bringing
the two parts back together into a new and healthy whole.
Jon(as Herbert): (still sobbing) I loved you because . .. you were
the only thing I ever really made, and you were good. And I had so
many dreams for you. Iwanted you to have the things Inever had.. .
Richard: Tell him . .. about hating him.
Jon(as Herbert): And I hated you, becauseyou took from me what
I did have.
Richard: Tell him more about that.
Jon(as Herbert): I wanted someone to take care of me . (each ..
phrase is punctuated by sobs) And who'd be there for me ...
and
only for me.. . But that changed when you came.. .
Richard: Let it come right out of your heart, so it doesn't have to fail
you.
Jon (as Herbert): I wanted you to be close to me. And I was so
scared of being close to you.
Richard: Yeah, say that confession again.
Jon(as Herbert): I wanted to be close to you, but Iwas so afraid of
getting close to you.
292 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Richard: Cause you tell him what you believed would happen if
you got real close.
.
Jon(as Herbert): You'd leave me if 1 got too close. . (still crying) I
needed to keep you weak. And I needed to keep you down.. So .
that you would depend on me. So that you would stick around me. I
was always so threatened whenever you would bring people home
with you ... or be friendly with someone, because that took you
away from me.
Again, another split. Herbert needed a parent to be there for him
when he was young. He fantasized )on as potentially meeting
these early childhood needs. Alternately, he anticipated rejec-
tion from )on. )on thus becomes the fantasized and then
projected ''good" and "bad" parent.
Remember that one of )onJs initial concerns was his social
awkwardness and isolation. Another signal that the work is on
course is the way i n which i t i s beginning to circle around and
pick up bits and pieces introduced earlier. Herbert is not only
making redecisions for himself-as this happens, )onJs old,
caustic Parent ego state is being decommissioned and the
destructive intrapsychic influence is subsiding.
Richard: So what I did to you was. ..
Jon(as Herbert): I put you down.
Richard: In order. ..
Jon(as Herbert): To keep you weak.
Richard: In order. . .
Jon(as Herbert): To keep you, for me. (sobs) I had so many hopes
and dreams for you, and I wanted you to be a repairman like me.
And Iwas so disappointed when you had bad eyes. Iwanted you to
take over the business. And it hurt to see you stray from that.
Richard: Cause if you and I were in business together, jonny ...
Herbert shows some signs of wandering from the immediacy of
his encounter withlon, into a more detached storytelling mode.
Richard brings him back, by focusing on the relationship
meaning of his story, and further fuels the emotional intensity by
using Herbert's pet name for his son.
Jon (as Herbert): Then I could have had you for me. (sobs)
Richard: Let it come, Herbert. Just like with you and your dad,
isn't it?
 Putting It All Together 293

Jon (as Herbert): I was so threatened whenever you would get

something for you, because it would take you from me . (still ..
sobbing) If only you could understand the struggle for you, that I
had! The pain that Ifelt whenever you left me. And the pain that I
felt not being able to tell you.
Richard: just like the pain when your daddy left you. The fact that
your dad never told you anything about you and him. Yeah, let that
come n o w . . . Just let yourself shake . .. Yeah, let it come even
.
louder.. Cry it out, right out of your broken heart.
Throughout this speech, Herbert/)on's crying has become more
and more childlike; by now he is doubled up on the mat, crying
and shaking with grief. Herbert has regressed to an archaeo-
psychic ego state, the Child ego stage within the Parent: I t is
Herbert, not ]on, who is reexperiencing his childhood depriva-
tion. Yet ]on will benefit, because it is his introjection of Herbert
who is doing this therapeutic work.
Richard: (continuing to support Jon's diaphragm) Just let that
..
sobbing come, from way down there. And say the words that go
with that deep crying.
Jon(as Herbert): I don't have any ...
Richard: Try these: "Love me, jonny."
Jon (as Herbert): Love me, Jonny. (sobs)
Richard: Shout it at him.
Jon (as Herbert): Love me, Jonny! (the words are gulped out,
through the tears)
Richard: Now try, "Love me, Daddy."
Jon(as Herbert): Love me, Daddy (sobbing even harder)
Richard: Say it again; right out of your guts.
Jon(as Herbert): Love me, Daddy!
Richard: If you don't love me, Daddy. ..
Jon (as Herbert): Then I can't be any good. (sobbing, but more
quietly)
Here it is at last, a decision upon which many of Herbert's other
beliefs rest. Without Daddy's love, I am no good. So life is hard,
what's the use, and all the rest. just saying it out loud seems to
give some measure of relief, as i f the hiding and the defending, at
least, can be relaxed. Herbert, the flesh and blood father, cannot
294 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

change his life, for he is dead. But therapy with the Parent ego
state can free )on to do it differently; )on need n o longer carry
this belief as part of himself.
..
Richard: Listen to that decision, Herbert . Listen to that little
boy's decision. "If you don't love me, Daddy, Ican't be any good."
Is that how you want to live your life, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): (through his sobs) It's true, isn't it?
Richard: No. It isn't true, Herbert. I think you made a decision,
around 10 years of age, that "my daddy doesn't love me, therefore
I'm no good. If my daddy doesn't love me, something's wrong with
me.'' And you know something, Herbert? By living out that
decision, you actually are programming your son t o do the same.
Because he's been carrying your legacy for you. You know the word
"legacy"? Means like he's wearing your old hat. You know how
little kids will put on dad's old hat?He's living your life-style. I s that
the decision you want Jonny to carry? That he's no good, and
something's wrong with him? You want him carrying that life
burden?
Jon(as Herbert): I want him to have the things I never had.
Richard: Tell him that.
Jon(as Herbert): Jonny, I want you to have the things that I never
had. I want you to have a name that you can be proud of. And Iwant
..
you to be happy. I want you . to be.. .
Richard: Just put the period there. "I want you."
Jon (as Herbert): I want you. (he cries softly)
The shift in the quality of Herbert's affect indicates that some-
thing has indeed changed. He i s no longer gasping out his sobs,
but weeps softly, almost with relief. I t is as i f something tight and
strangling has been released, allowing him to breathe and relax.
Herbert can now express his wants for )on in a caring and
contactful way-which he does.
Richard: Now go on. I want you ...
.
Jon(as Herbert): I want you to be happy.. and Iwant you to have
.
the things that I never had.. I want you to besuccessful in life.. I .
want you to be trusting.
Richard: He's heading there, Dad. Most of all, he's been carrying
your beliefs. That something's wrong with him, and that life is not
worth living.. . And you want him to go through life carrying your
old decisions?
 Putting It All Together 295

Jon(as Herbert): No.

Richard: Then tell him about that.
Jon (as Herbert): Jonny, I want you, I want you to find out for
yourself that life is worth living. And I want you to find out for you
that you're OK.
Something doesn't ring quite true in these last sentences.
Herbert sounds stilted, forced. Is ]on/Herbert adapting, saying
the 'right" things i n order to please the therapist?
Richard: Do you believe that, Herbert?
Jon (as Herbert): Not really.
Richard: Do you believe it's possible for your son, who has a father
who will say "I love you"? Who has a father that will make a
commitment to be there, even if you don't know how to do it well?
Jon(as Herbert): Perhaps.
Herbert/)on has run head on into the Parent ego state's inability
to go back and make changes in the real parent's life. Whether
because of this dawning realization, or fatigue from the length of
the piece of work, or something else, )on's cathexis of Herbert is
beginning to slip, as is that Parent ego state's contact with the
therapists. Herbert is beginning to sound more defensive, as he
did at the beginning of the work, and, in so doing, his whole
presence i s taking on an "acting" quality, rather than the
genuineness of the last several minutes. It is time to close off this
Parent session, before i t begins to unravel and lose its
impactfulness.
Richard: (pause) Well, Herbert, anything else you want to say to
me, before we stop?
Jon(as Herbert): You sure know how to get a guy talking, that's for
sure.
Richard: Thank you. That's quite a compliment. You know, it'ssort
of like having a broken mainspring. You gotta find out where the
break is, put it in and wind it up.
Jon(as Herbert): I usually just throw them away.
Richard: Well, unfortunately now, your mainspring i s finally
broken, irreplaceably. But you know, Jon's got a lot of time to tick
away yet. The one thing that concerns me, though, i s that he may
love you so much that he'll follow in your same footsteps. And he
may have a heart attack. So I'm concerned about his health. But I
think that's another chapter, when we focus on his eating appropri-
296 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

ately, so that he can live much longer than you, and have a full,
complete, happy life. Would you like that for him?
Jon (as Herbert): Yes, I would.
Richard: So that curse of your life is over now. Your son doesn't
have to carry it. If that's OK with you.
Jon(as Herbert): Can Jonny still love me?
Richard: Ask him.
Herbert/)on has provided the opening for a way to move out of
the Parent ego state therapy, back to )on's own response to his
father. Asking for information about )on's feelings is a signal that
he i s ready to cathect either Adult or Child ego state, to speak for
himself rather than for his father. Richard will underline the
therapeutic relevance of both sides of this question and answer:
Herbert's need to ask the question that he could not ask before,
andJon's need to answer the question that had not been asked.
Jon(as Herbert): (long pause) Ya, I think he can.
Richard: Ask him. So that you hear the question that you never got
to ask your own daddy.
Jon(as Herbert): Jonny,will you still love me even if you don't have
to bear my pain?
Coaching Herbert to ask the question directly of )on allows
Richard to direct a switch out of Parent ego state. It is important
to end the Parent ego state therapy by moving the client back to
Child and finally Adult ego state, in order to facilitate the full
integration of the work. In )on's case, the ensuing conversation
also allows for symbolic contact, contact that )on never experi-
enced in reality. Richard directs the shift, emphasizing i t by
askinglon physically to move to a different spot on the mat, and
talk toward the place where he, as Herbert, had been sitting.
Richard: Now switch. Put your dad there, and talk to him.
Jon: (moving across the mat) Yes, Dad. I'll still love you.
Richard: Tell him what you love about him.
Jon: In so many ways. You're such a kind and compassionate
person. And you've got a neat sense of humor.
Richard: Just let yourself see his face now, Jon. Justas though he's
right here. Tell him about that humor. That kindness.
Jon: (beginning to cry) In the midst of all your crossness, and
harshness, you could still have time for a funny story, or a joke. And
we could laugh a lot together. (sobs loudly)
 Putting It All Together 297

)on i s experiencing the loss of the father he knew as a child, the

dad who joked and laughed when he wasn't abusing his body
with alcohol. The reality of a dad often drunk, dour, and
withdrawn has been pushed back-the laughing dad did exist
some of the time, and this is the dad to whom that young child
was bonded and for whom the child grieves. just as Herbert had
no chance to express his feelings to a father who was gone, solon
couldn't express his feelings to a withdrawn and drunken dad.
Expressing them now can break the spell, the script legacy that
goes from father to son.
Richard: Tell him what you appreciate about laughing with him.
Jon: (sobbing) We'd laugh a lot. You had a smile that was so neat
. . . When you laughed, all of you laughed.
Richard: Tell him what it did inside of you.
Jon: Made me feel good inside. Iwasn't scared when you laughed.
(sobs) You could appreciate the beauty of a flower, or a nice poem.
For an eighth-grade education, you were a very smart man. It was
.
fun talking to you about neat things,. . and I miss you! (he breaks
.
into loud sobs) I've missed you for so long! . . Instead of always
being mad at you, I always wanted to love you! (still sobbing)
Richard: (pause) Tell him what else you appreciate.
Jon: (pause, then quietly) You are my dad.
Richard: Yeah, say that louder.
Jon: You are my dad.
Richard: Now shout it, Jon.
Jon: You are my dad!
Richard: All the way to Kansas!
Jon: YOU ARE MY DAD!
Richard: Tell him what that means.
Jon: I love you . . . I have your name.
Richard: And tell him what you also resent about him.
)on has experiencedand expressed his deep caring for his father,
and he i s ready to deal with the resentments. Thosedeep feelings
have established the bond, the commitment; he can now talk
about the negatives without fear of destroying the relationship.
And the negative things need to come out, lest they fester and
poison the new decision that )on is making about himself.
298 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Jon: (crying again) That you never, that you gave me very little
chance to get close to you in a fun way.
Richard: Yeah, and tell him what else you resent.
Jon: And I always had to be your caretaker, and I always had to
listen to you, and you wouldn't listen, you took very little time to
listen to me. You never had time for me. Only it was always, I had to
meet you on your terms. You were very critical of me, Dad.
Richard: Say it again, and tell him how much you resent that.
Jon: You were very critical of me.
Richard: Tell him what goes on inside. . .
Again andagain, when a client begins to move the focus outside,
to attend too much to the other person in the relationship and
not enough to him- or herself, one of the therapists will gently
bring the client back home, to his or her own inner process. This
intervention, "Tell him what goes on inside you,"is typical of that
redirection process. It doesn't criticize, but rather guides the
client back to what needs to be looked at and expressed.
Jon: I tried so hard to be a good little boy, and I was never good
enough for you. (crying) I'm still a good little boy!
I n this case, the redirection succeeds in helping )on to a new
awareness: that, in continuing to try to please his father, he i s
keeping himself small. While Richard suggested this earlier, in
the work with Herbert,)on's comment at this point has a quality
of fresh discovery. I n looking "'inside," he has found the pattern
in himself, i n his own thoughts and feelings and behaviors.
..
Richard: Unfortunately. Tell him how long you're going t o stay a
little boy, just to get him to attend to you.
Jon: I wanted to stay a good little boy until you came to me. But
.
that's not, there's not a chance (sobs). . I resent the way you've
always treated Mom ...
Richard: Tell him how long you're going to stay a good little boy.
How many more years.
Rather than go back to the resentments, Richard chooses to stay
with )on's script decision to stay little for Dad. By askinglon how
long he intends to stay young, Richard invites him to look into
the future, and to begin to experience his own ability to choose
either to continue or to take another route-to redecide.
Jon: I don't know.
 Putting It All Together 299

Richard: Sounds like you're not ready to give that up.

Jon: That's me. (crying) That's me. I'm a good little boy.
Richard: That's choice.
Jon: What's wrong with being a good little boy?
Rebecca: Nothing wrong with being a good person. You hold
yourself back if you stay a good little boy.
Richard: You have to go incompetent.
Jon: I never felt competent with you, Dad.
Richard's earlierstatement is accurate; ]on is not yet ready to give
up this decision. He first expresses his sense that the decision has
become a part of himself (and, implicitly, his fear of what will
happen-who will he be?-if he gives it up); then he defends
against the further confrontation from both Richardand Rebecca
by moving to blame his father. Further pushing at this point
would be more preaching than therapy, and would either drive
him further into his defensive position or invite an adaptive,
please-the-therapist pseudoredecision. As he did with Chris
(Chapter 3), who also was not yet ready to make a firm redecision,
Richard chooses to end the work by giving ]on some summary
information, inviting him to cathect his Adult ego state in order
to think about his decision, and then assigning "homework"that
will carry the therapeutic process on outside the one-on-one
work setting.
Richard: Listen to the decision, and you'll know why. "I'II always be
your good little boy, Dad." Is that the decision you want to reaffirm?
Or is that a decision you want to change?I'm going to stop here,and
let you think about it a while. I know you were going to say
something just now, and my concern is that you not say the result
that you think we're looking for. But that you deal, inside of you,
with what your choice means, for the next 50 years. What it's going
to like 5 years, 10 years, 25 years from now. As you get older, while
being a good little boy. Or what life would be like, if you make some
.
alternative decision.. You willing to stop at this point?Thinkabout
it. And imagine what the ramifications are, of whatever choice you
might make?Whether it's a reaffirmation of the old decision-it'sa
promise, to Dad: "I'II always be your good little boy." Or, now that
he's dead, are you released from that promise, and can choose
something else. You come back and tell us about your thoughts
later?
300 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Jon: OK.
Rebecca: I'd like to hear them.
Richard: I'd like to know what you think.

Jon's work is particularly useful for a "wrap-up" chapter because

it illustrates so clearly the two major aspects of integrative psycho-
therapy: an understanding of client dynamics, and the way in which
those dynamics shape and structure the therapeutic intervention.
Let us consider each of these aspects in turn.
The primary "maps" of client dynamics used in integrative
psychotherapy are the notions of ego states and life script. The
major defenses, including decisions and introjects, form the basis
for the fixation or archaeopsychic and exteropsychic ego stages.
The presence of archaic defenses and nonintegrated ego states i s
confirmed by the script beliefs. While there area number of ways in
which life script can be conceptualized, we have found the notion
of the script system generally most useful. Regardless of where the
script beliefs come from, introject or decision, they are the warp
and woof of the client's experiences in the world: They color
interactions with others, problem-solving strategies, understand-
ings of him- or herself. As a result of these script beliefs, and
repressed needs and feelings, the client behaves in certain ways-
the behavior is based on what the client believes has happened, is
happening, will happen, and how he or she feels about those
happenings. I n turn, those behaviors lead to responses from others,
responses that invariably are selectively remembered in such a way
as to reinforce-to "prove"-the script beliefs and maintain the
repressions. It i s a closed, self-sustaining system, and will continue
to operate as such indefinitely, unless a major shift can be induced
by some external event. Integrative psychotherapy is intended to
create such a shift.
In Jon's case, thescript beliefs became clear early in the work. Jon
introjected from Herbert a set of beliefs, including "People are out
to use me," "I'm an outcast," "What's the use,'' and "Life is hard."
Herbert's behaviors-his alcoholism, his withdrawal from contact,
and his denial-make sense in the context of those beliefs. And he
certainly collected many memories, memories of Father not being
therefor him,of people using him, of deprivation and loneliness, to
support his beliefs. His script is a repetition of his early life, and a
 Putting It All Together 301

repressionof awareness of his unmet needs and resultingemotions.

His treatment of Jon, his son, not only provided the conflict
between father and son, which Jon introjected, but also set the
stage for Jonto make the same decisions for himself. For a son with
an alcoholic father, a father who refused contact, who refused to
respond to his son's need for attention and affection, life was hard,
and it would be easy for the son to conclude that it was his own
defects that caused Dad to reject him. The little boy's solution was
to try even harder to please Daddy, to be a very, very good little boy.
Out of this decision, and the related constellation of beliefs and
repressed needdfeelings, emergelon's script behaviors and fanta-
sies, his social awkwardness and inappropriateness, his overeating,
his isolation and despair. And Jon, in turn, behaving consistently
with these beliefs, invites others to treat him in ways that make his
expectations come true.
Within the context of the script system, intervention may be
made so as to change the script beliefs themselves, to change the
script behaviors, or to change the reinforcing memories. Often, in
the course of a piece of work, all three components of the system
may be challenged. Additionally, defenses are relaxed and
repressed needs are brought to awareness through the expression
of the previously unexpressed emotions.
Challenging the script beliefs may occur through work with the
introjections; this is the strategy of Parent ego state therapy, which
constituted the greater part of Jon's work. Here the beliefs of the
parent himself are challenged; when the client cathects-becomes,
psychologically-that Parent part of himself, he opens the Parent
ego state to the possibility of change. As the Parent ego state shifts
i t s position, the introjected material loses its potency and no longer
intrapsychicallyinfluences the Child ego state. Herbert (the Herbert
in Jon's head) found his own script beliefs confronted. As we have
seen, he was also confronted at the level of behaviors and
memories. The other major challenge addressed Jon's Child ego
state solution to the problem, his decision to be a good little boy.
Because his script beliefs are that decision, changing the decision
will again shift the beliefs and feelings.
Work in the area of script beliefs and repressed feelings, then,
requires that the client cathect either Parent ego state (in order to
deal with introjected beliefs) or Child ego state (in order to deal
with early decisions). Working with the script behaviors, in contrast,
 I -
SCRIPT DISPLATS RXIIIFORCIIG ICXPLRIEHCICS

Self: O b r e r r a b l e Bohmriorr: Current Events:

I o a n ' t got w h n t 1 want "Como and get mo" No contact w i t h pooplo
Sornothing's w r o n g w i t h m e "What in t h o hell good would Wife does not u n d o r s t a n d m o
it do" (to f e d my feelings) Son does not oome a r o u n d to
I 'm misundorstood rer m e
W i t h d r a w a l f r o m people
I'm an outoast Family wants money
Dcnial as d o f m r e m e c h a n i s m
I'm no good
Vaguo srntonoos
I'm not supposod to bo alivo
Ridos anger
Avoids quostions Old Xrnotionol M e m o r i e s :
Alooholio Father abandoned m o
Dthers:
Reported I n t e r n a l Expericnoe I n w e r treatod m o t h o r r i i h t
N o on. lovos (OQTOS about) m o My n a m o is not my n a m o
Proplr o a n ' t bo t r u s t e d Pain in ohost Father deoeivod m o
Pooplr aro out to u s e m o Tight jaws Memorios of boing usod by
many pooplo
Qualityof Lifo: Tantasies

Lifo is (hard) the shits

"No one k n o w s " (mc)
My s o n t h i n k s I ' m t h e Mcmory of the lantasy
What's t h o u u
Cause of his problems as R e a l :

...+ R X p p m m HZXDS ............... Not k n o w n

L I-INQS Son blames
To br: Lovod a n d bolong People o h e a t
Wan- a n d aoooptod
Undorstood a n d rospeotod
H u r t and angry

Figure 12.1 Jon/Herbert's Script System

 Putting It All Together 303

i s most usefully done when the client i s operating out of a clear

Adult ego state. This is best illustrated at the very end of Jon's work.
Here Richard challenges Jonto do something different. The subtle
and unstated implication, of course, is that Jon is, in fact, able to
choose to behave differently, and that these different behaviors will
lead to very different life experiences from those he has known up
to now.
Challenges to the reinforcing experiences of both Herbert and
Jonoccur throughout the work. "Did your not crying mean that you
were contented?" "Were you an outcast when you were in the
service?" "Your son defended you." "You've been somebody for
me, and you haven't been drinking." "Tell your Dad what you love
about him." More important, though, the whole process of the
work, experiencing the contactfulness, the respect, the attention of
the therapists, questions Jon's (and Herbert's) collection of mem-
ories in that it runs exactly counter to what has been harbored up to
now. It is a new interaction that doesn't fit the old expectations; if
the script beliefsare true, this processsimply cannot be happening.
Through full contact, Jon gained the support that makes change
possible.
Going back to the notion of domains of work, which we
introduced in the first chapter of this book, we can again see each of
the domains illustrated in Jon's work. The cognitive domain was
involved in (a) the initial contact, setting up a goal for the work; (b)
the challenge to Herbert and Jon's reinforcing experiences and
beliefs; and (c) the ending, when Jonwas challenged to think about
his choices. Affective work was intense during the latter part of the
Parent ego state therapy, and in the short conversation that Jon had
with Herbert. Work at the behavioral level typically is prescribed or
assigned to be done outside of the actual session, as was the case
with Jon. And, finally, there were numerous instances of the
therapists picking up on physiological cues and using body
responses to enhance the impact of the work.
Throughout the work presented in this and the preceding
chapters, there has been a consistent commitment to two principles
of integrative psychotherapy: first, the affirmation of the integrity
of the client through the therapist's expression of respect, kindness,
and contactfulness; and, second, the expressions of the possibility
of positive life change-no matter what has occurred in life, we
each can learn and grow from the experience.
304 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

There is much more that could be said here: There are many
loose ends, many questions that could be asked, or could be
answered more fully. There isn't any good stopping place-perhaps
that's why therapy, and writing about therapy, are like real life. In
therapy, as in life, we continue to learn, to grow, to change. So it is
that this description of integrative psychotherapy cannot be com-
plete. Our understandings change, grow, shift; in the very process
of writing about our approach, we continue to refine it. Each
answer suggests new questions, just as each question demands
many answers.
So, our solution to the dilemma of how to end is-to stop. Stop,
with our thanks to you, the reader, for your interest in our work,
and our hope that this book has been as useful to you in the reading
as it has been to us in the writing. May we all-clients and therapists
alike-continue to question and answer, to learn and grow, and to
enjoy our journeying together.
 Index

Abandonment, 77,164,182,247,271 Contact, 9,17,29,30,41,43,48-49,117,

Abuse, 176, 192; physical, 1%; sexual, 199,227-252,263,279,286; distortions
154-155,174,in, la4 of, 18,19,30,168,266,268
Adaptation, 61,86,197,203,261,295 Contact need, 17
Adler, Alfred, 14,29 Contamination, 25-26,95,164
Adult ego state, 20,23,43,47-48,72,84; Contract, 43,269,275
observing, 46,107,137,273 Contradiction, internal, 170
Adult life crises, 48 Control, 90,230,237
Affective work,44,55,56,169;and script
change, 113,126 Decathexis, 104,106
Aggression, 9 Decisions, script: see Script decisions
Ambivalence, 169,174,179,268 Decornmissioning,of parent, 47,98,190-
Anchor, 60,72,91,193,264 191,209,262,285
Anger, 58-59,198,274,277; as defense, Defense mechanism, l4,18,23-25,48,49,
98 103,132,228; cognitive, 56,220,258,
Archaic experiences, 44 278,282
Assumptions, 7 Defensiveness, 100
Awareness, 101,107,138,140,143,149 Deflection, 19,49,272,274
Denial,99, 105,109,116,118,244,271,277
Beajeau, Sid, 10 Depression, 97,277,287
Behaviorism, 14,40 Developmental stage, 41, 109,113,122;
early oral, 9;and ego state identifica-
Child ego state, 20,23,40,45-46,154,239; tion, 27
within parent, 293 Diagnosis, 79,157,168,232,256,258
Client-centered therapy, 15 Discounting, 170
Closing a piece of work, 106, 121,165, Dissociation, 176,180,192,199,214
188,206,247,249-252,295-300 Domains, of therapy, 43-44,303
Closing of perceptions, 16 Double bind, 63
Cognitive domain, 43-44,55, 173, 178, Dreams, 145-146,261-262
303 Duplex transaction, 205,287
Collapse,lll,l60,163,176,196,197,199,
212,225-226 Ego, 9,18
Conflict, internal, 25-26,105, 125, 191; Ego state, 19-29,41,103; active, 23, 24;
highlighting of, 139 identification of, 26-29; influencing,
Confluence, 19,49,182,184 24, 191; see also Adult ego state,
Confrontation, 92,95,131,133,140,156, Child ego state, Parent ego state
162,202,210,256,265,273 Ego state focus, in therapy, 45-48
Confusion, 74 Eisen, Herman, 10
306 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Energy shift, 136 Impasse, 120,142

Escalation, 177 Induction, 72-73,94,127-128,263
Experience, internal, 18 Injunction, 30,36,61
Eye contact, 199 Instinct, 14
Intellectualization, 125,126,132,236
Families, dysfunctional, 38 Intensity, emotional, 139,175, 203, 234,
Fantasy parent, 21-23,32,69-86,109-122 262,272,288,292
Fantasy: positive, 197; script, 35,38,57; Intent, 55,56,68
use of in therapy, 211-226 Interlocking scripts, 36-39
Federn, Paul, 20 Internal dialogue, 19,24,165
Feedback, 36 Internalization, 115,190,221
Fixation, 26,30 InternationalTransactionalAnalysis Asso-
Fixed gestalt, 17,20,41,114,254,279,286 ciation, 8
Foreground, 130 Interposition, 191
Forgetting, active: see Repression Interpretation, 95,103,221,223,261,271,
Freud, Anna, 24 287
Freud, Sigmund, 9,13,14,29,40,146 Interruption, self, 237
Introjection, 18, 19, 21, 23, 49, 80, 120,
Gendlin, Eugene, 10 190-191;and affective work, 44; and
Gestalt: primary, 16; secondary, 16, 17; script formation, 30,88,165; source
see also Fixed gestalt of, 243
Gestalt therapy, 9,15;and dreams, 146 Isolation, 138,219
Grandiosity, child's, 175
Grandparent interview, 274 Jamtgaard, Dale, 10
Great Psychological Debate, 15 Joining, 77,92,258
Grief, 116,117,122,261,297 lung, Carl, 14
Grounding, 149-150,199,222
Group process: see Therapy-through- Kupfer, David, 10
the-group
Guilt, 222,224 Language, in regression work, 119,122,
155,203
Hastie, Claudette, 10 Laughter, 280
Heath, Roy, 10 Life script: see Script
Homework, 44,299 Life-style, 29
Homophobia, 131,134
Hope, 290 Maslow, Abraham, 14,15
Horney, Karen, 14 Mediation, cognitive, 31
Humanistic psychology, 14,15,41 Memory, emotional, 171
Hyperventilation, 199 Metaphor, 97, 212,214,226
Hypnosis, 44 Mowrer, Hobart, 10,14
Hypothesis testing, 76,168,177,182 Mutism, 158,212,217
Hypothesis, therapeutic, 188, 223, 254;
confirmation of, 171, 272; disconfir- Neopsyche: see Adult ego state
mation of, 173 Neville, Robert, 10
Nonverbal communication,72,158,169-
Id, 18 172, 185-186,189, 193, 212, 217-218,
Identification, 190 242,257,267,281,298
Imago, 21 Normalizing, 105
 Index 307

OK-ness, 96,125 Redirection, 298

Omnipotence, child's sense of, 75 Reenactment: see Psychodrama
Open-ended sentence, 63 Regression, 25,44,45-46,55,59,115,118,
Options, alternative, 38,46,163,173 196; induction of, 72-73,154; main-
Ormiston, Carol, 10 taining the, 122
Overlay, script, 188 Reich, Wilhelm, 14,44
Reinforcement, 31; of script belief, 82
Panzer, Mari, 10 Reinforcing experiences, 35-36,57,276,
Parent ego state, 21, 23, 24,40,46,161, 285
262 Relaxation, 46; exercise, 109
Parent interview: see Parent ego state, Reparenting, 201,203
therapy with Repetition, 63, 147, 156, 194, 215, 281,
Pause-repeat pattern, 66 289; as confrontation, 273
Pavlov, Ivan, 14 Repetition compulsion, 29
Perls, Frederick, 8,16,29,41 Rephrasing, 213
Perls, Laura, 9,10,15,30,41 Repression, 18,278
Permission, 98, 186-187, 194, 204, 208, Resentment, 104,105
221.287 Resistance, 43, 58,85-86,89-90,171-172,
phobias, 161,165 204, 262, 267; healthy, 9, 159; of
Physical domain, of psychotherapy, 44- parent ego state, 265
45, 110, 118, 139, 157, 175-180, 200- Resource, 194
201,290 Responsibility, for oneself, 170
Physical symptoms, 35 Retroflection, 19,45,49,83,185,228,232,
Physiology, 66 250,271,288
Piaget, Jean, 20 Rogers, Carl, 10,14,15,41
Pitcher, Georgia, 10 Rubber band, disconnecting the, 85
Prediction, 32-33
Primary need, 17 Sabotage, 251
Principles, underlying, of integrative psy- San FranciscoSocial PsychiatrySeminar,8
chotherapy, 42-43 Script, 29-40, 41, 54; challenge, 56, 57;
Process, of integrative psychotherapy, change, 42-43,54-55,62,69,186-188,
40-42 220,224,289; cultural, 123-124; curse,
Projection, 19,25,49,72,280; i n dreams, 283, 297; definition of, 30; mainte-
147 nance of, 32-33; message, 98,136,191
Protection, 202; self, 222 Script belief, 31,36,60,82,100,216,241,
Psychoanalysis, 13 258,269,272,278-279,282
Psychobabble, 258 Script decisions, 31-32,46,57-58,81,112,
Psychodrama, 44,198 114,154,183,188,200,293,301
Script display, 33-35,36
Quest Fellowship, 10 Script system, 33-40, 202, 249, 276, 286,
Question into statement, 112 300-303; in families, 37-38
Self, 18; -concept, 209, 216; -nurturing,
Racket System, 51 224-225; false, 246; fragmentation of,
Ragsdale, Norma, 10 147,214,216
Rank, Otto, 14 Self-actualization, 15
Rapport: see Joining Self-concept, 157
Redecision, 55, 64,67-68,142, 292,298; Self-generated parent: see Fantasy
failure in, 210,299 parent
308 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY IN ACTION

Setting, of material presented, 50-51 Therapy-through-the-group, 50-51

Shame, 207 Time out, 215
Shutting down: see Collapse Timing, 77
Skinner, B. F., 14 Transactions, analysis of, 28-29
Slip of the ear, 260 Transference, 25,28,169,194-195
Slip of the tongue, 93 Trauma, and behavioral fixation, 27-28
Stress, 40 Trautman, Rebecca, l l , 5 0
Stroking, 79,105 Treatment planning,79,80,166-168,191,
Sullivan, Harry Stack, 14 243,258
Superego, l8,21 Trust, 79,80,166-168,191,243,25874
Support, 85,117, 139,156, 157,186,197,
199-200, 204, 237, 290; request for, Unconscious, 14,18
112; self, 113,141-142
Switch, position, 139,2% Values, 125
Symbol, 146-147,173,198,212,221,226; Volleyball, 247,251
for cultural parent, 127
Withdrawal, 49,164,174,202,236
Therapeutic alliance, 258,275
Therapy-in-the-group, 50, 55, 197, 207, Zaloman, Marilyn, 51
209,231; benefits of, 50
 About the Authors

Richard G. Erskine received his Ph.D. in Emotional and Cognitive

Development from Purdue University and i s a licensed psychologist
specializing in psychotherapy. He i s the author of numerous articles
on psychotherapy theory and clinical practice with individuals and
families. He is a former professor at the University of Illinois, where
he taught child and family therapy. He has also taught at Purdue
University and Chicago City College and has served as consultant
and staff trainer to mental health agencies throughout the United
States and in several other countries. He began his professional life
on the southside of Chicago as an elementary school special
education teacher, working with emotionally disturbed and socially
maladjusted children. From his experience and training in educa-
tion, child development, and clinical psychology, and 20 years of
practice as a psychotherapist, he has synthesized diverse concepts
of theory and clinical practice to present an integrative perspective.
He currently serves as the training director of the Institute for
Integrative Psychotherapy in New York City where he conducts a
postgraduate psychotherapy training program and continuing
education courses for professionals in the mental health field. His
current theoretical interest and research are with ego function in
narcissism and multiple personalities. He is certified to practice
clinically and teach Transactional Analysis by the International
Transactional Analysis Association, which in 1982 conferred upon
him and Marilyn Zalcman the Eric Berne Scientific Award for
advances in the theory of transactional analysis. He is a faculty
member of the New York Institute for Gestalt Therapy and an
institute instructor and full member of the American Group
310 INTEGRATIVE PSYCHOTHERAPY I N ACTION

Psychotherapy Association. He is the father of three children and an

avid gardener.

Janet P. Moursund is an Associate Professor at the University of

Oregon, where she currently serves as Director of the DeBusk
Counseling Center. She also is a licensed clinical psychologist and
maintains a part-time private practice at the Eugene, Oregon,
Center for Integrative Therapy. She has been teaching at the
University of Oregon for some 20 years, first in the School of
Community Service and Public Affairs and more recently in the
Division of Counseling and Educational Psychology. She also
founded and served for five years as Director of Aslan House, a
low-cost community counseling center. She was born and raised in
rural Illinois, and graduated from Knox College with a B.A. in
psychology in 1958. She entered graduate school at the University
of Wisconsin and became affiliated with Dr. Carl Rogers's research
program on psychotherapy with schizophrenics, where she was
responsible for the psychometric evaluation of all clients involved
in that project. Working with Rogers, Charles Truax, and Eugene
Gendlin provided confirmation that psychotherapy was indeed the
profession for her. It was to be several years, however, before that
intention became a reality: after receiving her doctorate from the
University of Wisconsin came a move to East Lansing, Michigan, and
a position at the Human Learning Research Institute of Michigan
State University. Only after joining the faculty of the University of
Oregon, in 1967, was she able to return to counseling and
psychotherapyas a primary career orientation. As a mother of four,
she has divided her time between homemaking and her profes-
sional activities. She has authored five previous books: Us People
(Brooks/Cole, 1971); Evaluation (Brooks/Cole, 1973); Learning and
the Learner (Brooks/Cole, 1977); Approaches to Personality (with
JamesGeiwitz) (Brooks/Cole, 1979); and The Process of Counseling
and Therapy (Prentice-Hall, 1985). In addition, she is an active
member of the Episcopal Church, a builder of doll houses and
miniature furniture, and (she announces proudly) is learning to ski.

Rebecca L. Trautmann, cotherapist in much of the psychotherapy

presented in this book, is a psychiatric nurse who also received a
 About the Authors 311

Master of Social Work degree from Washington University in St.

Louis. She divides her time between a clinical practice and teaching
in the postgraduatetraining program at the Institute for Integrative
Psychotherapy in New York City. With her background of living in
India for 18years,she is interested in the integration of Oriental and
Occidental approaches to "wholeness" and their combined effec-
tiveness in psychotherapy. She i s certified to practice clinically and
teach Transactional Analysis by the International Transactional
Analysis Association, is a practicing Gestalt therapist, and a full
member of the American Group Psychotherapy Association. She
travels extensively conducting continuing education seminars for
practitioners in the mental health professions.
NOTES