In working with teenagers on comes across the Rebellious Child transaction.
Not uncommonly the teenager will make a RC transaction to the parents and is in one way looking for a Parent ego state response. Some parents do respond from the CP and get locked into this type of battle with the teenager. It is not uncommon for parents to bring their teenager to counselling with this type of transaction occurring. This type of transaction between parent and teenager can go on for long periods of time
However, how the parent actually responds is a matter of choice and they have a whole variety of possible responses. They can respond with:
Critical Parent (CP-)
Controlling Parent (CP+)
Nurturing Parent
Adult
Conforming Child
Rebellious Child
Free Child
At this juncture I will only discuss the Critical Parent ego state (CP-) response and not go into the pros and cons of the six other types of transactions, their possible uses and so forth.
If the parent-teenager dyad gets locked into Rebellious Child - Critical Parent repetitive transacting then one is confronted with a relationship that has conflict as its basis. As a therapist it is germane to keep in mind some of the features of relationships that are based on conflict. More precisely what are some of the psychological features of conflict. What I am describing here refers mainly to interpersonal conflict between two or three people. However as social psychology shows us there are many similar features in conflicts between groups of people (ie nations).
Features of conflict
Conflict and escalation - It is easier to escalate that de-escalate conflict. One can use the metaphor of a canyon. It is easier to climb down into the conflict canyon than it is to climb out of it. Some of the reasons for this are listed below.
Zero sum thinking - One side’s gain is the other side’s loss. These people have a belief in a win-loss outcome to conflict. When this happens the parents and teenager can forget to look for win-win solutions and usually both sides end up loosing in the end. Also with zero sum thinking both sides will tend to automatically see the other sides motive as aggressive. This can involve projection. If the teenager is thinking of beating his parents then he will tend to automatically assume they are thinking the same way.
Quick fix solution - As conflict progresses and escalates both sides will tend to focus on a single solution to the problem. A parent may say, “If he would just speak to me nicely then things would be much better”. Or the teenager may think, “If they let me stay out with my friends it would be better”. Both parties start to think in terms of a simplistic solution and it often becomes the battleground. The teenager and the parent argue about him staying out with his friends.
From a therapy point of view one can easily draw the transactions for the parents and teenager showing the relationship dynamics behind the conflict. Hopefully they will take some of it in.
Partisan perceptions - In conflict both sides are often ego centric in their perceptions. They view their behaviour as more benevolent and legitimate. Each side often assumes that the other sees its behaviour in the same favourable light.
Mirror image - this results from “worst case scenario” thinking which can result in a self fulfilling prophecy. If I think of the worst case scenario that can lead me to expect that the other side will act unfavourably and seek the worst outcome for me.
Group think - Parents can support each others thinking about the conflict and play the game of ‘Ain’t they awful’. The parents can express similar thoughts and feelings about the teenager which lead them to believe that their views and actions are right because some one else agrees with them. (ie the ‘group’ thinks similar things). Of course teenagers also do this when they get together and tell each other how awful parents are.
Conflict spirals - Each side sees the other as having ‘started it’ and they are merely reacting to the aggression of the other. This can also be used to justify escalating the aggression of the response as one sees self as the innocent victimised party.
Punishment and suppression - In conflict there can be the belief that if you punish the other side for its aggression this will then suppress future aggressive behaviour by the other side. This rarely happens as the other side is usually thinking the same thing.
Entrapment - Further involvement in the conflict is justified on the basis of past investment and loss. The teenager may think, “I have stood up to my parent for 2 days, so I can’t stop now or it would have all been for nothing”.
As one looks at these aspects of conflict one is drawn to notice the whole ego centricity of it all. What you would expect of a couple of 6 year olds in a play ground having a fight. There is very little interest or investment in seeing it from the others point of view and having the belief that I may be wrong in part. Our nations leaders are a prime example.
From a counselling point of view this is a key factor in the resolution of conflict between two people, in this instance the parent and the teenager. We all have a 6 year old Child ego state in us so we will all think and behave in the ways I have just described. We all have an eye for an eye thinking in us:
“You hurt me, so I hurt you back” (Child ego state)
If this can be changed to
“You hurt me, so how did I contribute to you wanting to do that” (Parent and Adult ego state)
Obviously much easier said than done but if achieved the conflict will be brief and tend to not escalate.
Most teenagers will do Rebellious Child transacting around parents and authority figures like teachers and therapists. This is inevitable and psychologically a good thing. In working with them in therapy if one can communicate some of these features of conflict that can then assist to reduce the intensity and duration of the conflict. Thus raising the awareness of the various aspects of thinking in a conflictual relationship.
Graffiti
0 comments:
Post a Comment