The author describes her own experience with vulnerability in the clinical setting, elaborating on three of its constitutive sources: specific aspects of the clinical work, the practitioner’s idiosyncratic characteristics, and significant historical events. She focuses on psychotherapeutic work with clients who present a marked difficulty in maintaining a sense of internal aliveness. Aspects of the practitioner’s vulnerability are discussed in relation to the challenges that arise in the presence of such persistent lack of vitality. The final part of the article emphasizes the ethical necessity of the practitioner both bearing the vulnerability inherent in this work and developing resilience. A case example illustrates the author’s understanding of such complex work.
Our intent in collating this issue on psychological games and enactments was to reinvigorate game theory with discussions about how these ideas are currently being used by transactional analysts. We wondered if practitioners still use the theory with so few articles published in the Transactional Analysis Journal on games over the last 2 decades. We also wanted to invite comment and critique about how Berne's game theory compares with the contemporary idea of enactment. As coeditors, we shared a commitment to creating a space for difference and multiple perspectives on the topic. This ethos was clearly shared by many of the contributors as, unusually, we have three cowritten articles in this issue. We wonder, does it takes more than one mind to think about games? With multiple authors and two coeditors, the writing and editing process has involved some robust dialogue between authors, between authors and editors, and between us as coeditors, at times creating a noisy chorus of differing voices. Our hope is that the articles will together create an alternative experience for the reader to that of being in a game, where there is an implicit state of holding on to rightness and perceiving the other as wrong. For me, Diana, this is my first editorial. I was tempted to read other editorial introductions before writing my own because I was initially looking for the right way to do it, a well-delineated pattern to follow. However, after some internal debate I chose to go with one way to introduce myself, and this letter became yet another occasion to switch gears from right or wrong thinking to considering multiple perspectives and articulating my own. I am a Certified Transactional Analyst working as a psychotherapist in Bucharest, Romania, and my work for the Journal started as a reviewer in 2010. For me, Jo, it has been a delight to work with Diana, who brings fresh energy and a sharp mind to the editorial team. We think this issue represents the first major attempt in the last 25 years to revise methods of working with games in transactional analysis. The last time the Transactional Analysis Journal hosted a section on games was in January 1990 when Marilyn Zalcman's (1990) and Jenni Hine's (1990) papers appeared, marking key developments in the theory. We are excited to see some significant new ideas, approaches, and theory emerging now in this new theme issue. Bill Cornell's article ''Play at Your Own Risk: Games, Play, and Intimacy'' opens this issue and sets the tone for the innovative papers that follow with a serious discussion of the concept of play. Cornell presents play as a creative alternative to game analysis and demonstrates the use of wit, intelligence, and humor to derail a game in two lively vignettes. He proposes that in Berne's theory of time structuring play can be situated between games and intimacy, and he depicts play as a
This article discusses some of the issues raised by Richard Erskine’s (2013) article “Relational Group Process: Developments in a Transactional Analysis Model of Group Psychotherapy.” The author’s perspective stems from her clinical experience in the Romanian social and cultural context and emphasizes the role of moments of discomfort and unconscious communication when working with groups.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.