Thank God for Friday

Abstract

This paper offers a response to the presentations of Farhad Dalal (2016) and Andrew Samuels (2016) at the 2015 International Transactional Analysis Conference in Sydney and published in this issue of the Transactional Analysis Journal. After introducing Dalal and Samuels as other in the transactional analysis community, the paper reflects on the core of their contributions: the “we” makes the “I” and/or the “I” makes the “we,” both of which represent a political position. Two notions are taken from their presentations: The first is about the political position of transactional analysis, which seems to be overadapting to market demands; the second is about the validity of transactional analysis concepts. These notions are linked with each other through reflections on the neoliberal context in which transactional analysis seeks to survive and the fundamental transformation or metanoia (Jung, 1970, p. 719) that is needed within transactional analysis to research the validity of transactional analysis concepts.

Naked society: Global selves in the age of pandemics

“…I definitely recognize together with several authors – particularly Cornell (2016, 2018), Heathcote (2016), van Beekum (2016), Tudor (2016) – that both individually as transactional analysts and as an international community of people, we still have to properly come to accept that the transactional analysis theory we draw on still lacks a coherent political insight and more comprehensive reflections about the influence of society and politics in shaping and altering the psychological life of individuals, groups, communities, nations.…”

Transactional analysis and politics: A critical review

“…From what has been presented and discussed in this article, it is clear that TA as a whole has been ambivalent about politics. van Beekum (2016) described the ‘hate’ side of this ambivalence well when he talked and wrote about ‘the universe of TA with its current lack of political focus’, giving the following example:

This was painfully enacted during the delivery of Samuels's [2016] paper when in a little experiment, almost the whole audience expressed disgust and anger toward politics. Individually, we may be politically involved, however, as a collective, we treat politics as something to stay away from (p. 130).

…”

“…Commenting on the ITAA awards, van Beekum (2016) observed that ‘The ITAA honours outspoken (socially) active members of the community with three awards: the Muriel James Living Principles Award (established in 1994), the Hedges Capers Humanitarian Award (established in 1988), and the Robert and Mary Goulding Social Justice Award (established in 2004)’ (p. 130). He went on to comment:

The Muriel James Award is the most nonpolitical of these, whereas the Hedges Capers Award has a political undertone in that it honours ‘an enduring contribution to humanity’ (International Transactional Analysis Association, 2015).

…”

“…Moreover, as trainees need 300 training hours and 75 supervision hours with a TSTA (or a Provisional TSTA) in order to fulfil the training and supervision requirements for certification as TSTAs, TA is open to accusations of pyramid‐selling. These and other issues of access to training and supervision remain the source of some concern and criticism: Tudor (2014) has been critical of the infantilisation of adult learners; van Beekum (2016) has commented on the overadaptation of TA to market demands; and Cornell (personal communication, 19 th June, 2020) on certification programs that are ‘rife with power and money‐making—in contrast to meaning‐making’.…”

“…Examples of specific programs that reflect this interplay are the Asklepieion psychiatric program in the United States correctional services (Groder, 1972; Windes, 1977), Drego's (1994) family systems work in India, and Salters' (2005) work in bridging racial divides in South Africa (all of which van Beekum, 2016, links back to Berne's social psychiatry and Steiner's radical psychiatry, and to which I would add Cornell's (2018) community work.…”