One student during the interview (see supplement 3: Response on interview questions) responded: ‘I had strict teachers before. Now I try to consider more things, I try not to think about mistakes’.

‘They have all developed the art of not experiencing feelings, for a child can only experience his feelings when there is somebody there who accepts him fully, understands and supports him’

(Miller 1979, p. 10).

Alice Miller (1979) points at a similar phenomenon, mainly in connection to narcissism (also see 1.1.1: Connecting and identity).

Jessica Meyer, daughter of Ischa Meyer, mentioned in an interview (Jaeger, NRC 7 May 2013) that she suffered from bulimia, smoked, drank and used weed. She didn’t know how to deal with her father’s death, until she wrote a book about it. Before that she didn’t know how to verbalize her sadness. Ischa left the family before she was born.

In Deneer & van Zelm (2014) I tried to describe how this phenomenon could also affect the student teacher relationship from both the student and teacher position.

Bakhtin (1986, p. 111) claims explanation has no dialogical aspects.

‘It showed that freedom from the traditional bonds of medieval society, though giving the individual a new feeling of independence, at the same time made him feel alone and isolated, filled him with doubt and anxiety, and drove him into new submission and into a compulsive and irrational activity’ (Fromm 1984, p. 89).

‘The result of receiving such caregiving is that the child has the experience of existing in the heart and mind of the other as himself, and not as an extension of the caregiver’ (Fosha 2003, p. 228).

Diana Fosha describes this as ‘the capacity of the dyad to regulate the intense emotions associated with the vicissitudes of their relationship, while maintaining connection’ (2003, p. 228).

Erich Fromm (1956) pointed at the same phenomenon, when he mentioned mature love as ‘union under the condition of preserving one’s integrity, one’s individuality’ (p. 19).

The title of so-called self-help books like ‘Denk je sterk’ [Think yourself strong] (Sterk & Swaan 2000) illustrates the individual having control: ‘You don’t have control over what other people say or think, but you do have control over yourself’ (Sterk & Swaan 2000, p. 84).

‘Un élève-sujet est capable de vivre dans le monde sans occuper le centre du monde.’ [A student-subject is able to live in the world without occupying the centre of the world.] (Meirieu 2007, p. 96).

One of the interviewees from the conservatoire (see supplement 3: Response on interview questions) remarked: ‘What does connecting to yourself mean? Sometimes I don’t notice that my shoulder hurts while playing’. I went too far and got an injury. I didn’t have a choice’.

According to de Waal (2009), fairness and trust were not introduced by human beings through morality or religion, but are part of reciprocity through evolution and therefore constitute a basis for animals living in groups, as a core principal of their society (p. 175).    

It might be surprising to see that even Mahatma Ghandi was not always the person he is now known for: the one who promotes dialogue. Arun Gandhi, the grandson of Mahatma Ghandi, describes in his book -The gift of anger (Gandhi 2017) that the young Gandhi underwent an arranged marriage at age thirteen and was physically violent to his wife. Apparently because his wife remained calm, it made him think and start developing his later ideas (p. 26). To his grandson he advised: ‘No one wants to be bullied; we would all rather be understood and appreciated. Letting anger motivate us to correct wrongs has great value but only when our real goal is to seek a solution and not just prove that we are right’ (p. 33-34).

From a genotype perspective, the coping strategies children use are partly based on their mental abilities at a certain stage of development. In general children tend to see themselves as the centre of their own activity (Piaget 1951, Miller 1979, Bahler 2016) (also see 3.3.3: Art and narcissism). According to Decety (2005) our default mode in interpreting someone else’s mental state is egocentrism. Therefore children tend to think in an either-or; in a win-loose way, which explains the nature of their coping strategies being roughly based on fight-flight reactions. They have a hard time dealing with ambivalent feelings about someone or seeing things from another persons perspective, therefore they either disconnect from the other (c.f. fight mode), or disconnect from themselves (c.f. flight mode), creating a situation of one perspective left (see images 1 & 2). Allen, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 91) describe a similar process where children first go through a stage where they create their own reality, defined as equivalent mode, other perspectives cannot be accepted (c.f. fight mode). Later they can keep their own reality while pretending they accept someone else’s reality (c.f. flight mode), defined as pretend mode. 

Besides maturing, going through stages of development, children also need the experience of adults around them that are willing to help transforming their reactive strategies into dialogic strategies. This is a phenotype perspective. It is what makes the parent-child relationship asymmetrical and not completely reciprocal (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 104; Kuczynski, p. 14). In a chaotic family context, where parents easily go into reactive strategies themselves, this transition is affected in a negative way. According to Diana Fosha (2003), in this kind of context the focus children need on maintaining safety and managing fear drains energy from learning and exploration; it blocks growth and distorts personality development (p. 227). With the help of their early connections, offering some stability, children develop a way of dealing with the other that is more and more based on reciprocity and can accept the ambiguity of more than one perspective. Children are transitioning out of the egocentric ‘me’ stage, to a stage in which they have a greater understanding of the ‘me’ within the ‘us’. Good and bad are not separated anymore, like in fairy tales. Their parents don't have to be perfect anymore, like they used to be (see image 3). In this way they are able to accept other realities, conflicting feelings in their own head, one could say child-scripts change into mature adult-scripts.

They might develop an antenna for the feelings of the other in general, which gives them great social skills but also the inability to ask or receive something. Another option could be that they protect their vulnerability by creating clashes, which takes away the connection to the other (this doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected to themselves though). Also this script is one of reduced perspectives. They might refer back to it in their future connections, especially in stressful situations. Many violent people have a complicated family background (APA Task Force 1996). 

As stated before these reactive strategies could be seen as being based on fight reactions (taking away the connection to the other), or flight reactions (taking away the connection to themselves). In both options the child cannot use this situation for learning how deal with feelings by sharing them, having the experience of the other that is willing to acknowledge their feelings. 

Besides being reactive, child scripts tend also to be based on acting out behaviour because verbalizing is not yet an option for young people. ‘Instead of becoming available for reflection, their behaviour is simply enacted, automatically and reflexively’ (Wallin 2007, p. 123). Peter Fonagy (Allen, Fonagy, Bateman, 2008, p. 91) considers acting out behaviour to be a mode in child development called teleological mode, where mental conditions are expressed in actions or somatic reactions.

This means the unfairness a child had to endure in a relationship that demanded loyalty, is considered to be a right to be unfair or destructive to others (or themselves), without feeling guilty. This could be an explanation why children in a complicated family context tend to bully other children. It also offers a possible explanation for the fact that destructive patterns sometimes continue over generations and even why adults that where abused themselves abuse their own children without feeling guilty (Allan, Fonagy, Bateman 2008, p. 104). It might also explain why teachers lack empathy for their students or why people develop into extremists, taking revenge on people that are not responsible for the injustice they experienced before.

Like described before in regard to children, adults that go into child-mode tend to reduce perspectives; they loose the ability to deal with ambivalent feelings. That is why Allan, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 186) claim that ‘the whole point of psychotherapy is opening up alternative perspectives’. The tendency to simplify should be considered a protection against vulnerability, with the use of the script children use when being confronted with ambiguity (good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, etc.). Being in a power position the protection can lead to coping strategies like narcissism, arrogance, verbal aggression etc. In the weak position it might lead to isolation; stubbornness; or not accepting complements, trying to avoid the risk of allowing the other in with his reality. Having to deal with an adult in that mode means you are an object; a reduction of who you are, to what is useful to the other. You are confronted with a relation where only one reality will be accepted. Like pointed out before, there is only room for a monologue. Teachers who prefer the role of the person who explains - often leading to a monologue - use their students as an object that should confirm their reality.

Populists can take advantage of that situation. The populist - from his perspective - might use his audience to prove his one-liner (presumably based on his own life events).  

2.2.2 Scripts in a reciprocal position

When children connect with important adults around them, like parents, they benefit from the amount of reciprocity in that relation, because in that position they will be acknowledged and get prove that they matter being the person they are. This does not mean everything has to be based on reciprocity. The responsibility parents have over their children means they also have to set limits, correct their children or challenge them. However the experience of a child with adults around it - ‘someone who calls upon the unique within me‘ (Levinas 1989, p. 195) - gives it the chance to be known as a subject and not as an object. In this situation prove that the child is of significance is not based on being unique as only being good at something.

Even as an adult we still like to be in a position that we matter to someone. Although the other is internalized into our inner dialogue, which makes us less dependent on receiving direct acknowledgement only from others, we still like to be of significance to someone (Ryan & Deci 2000, p. 62). According to Verhaeghe (2014) people with depression don’t desire anymore or feel that they are not being desired by anyone. ‘I don’t desire the other, I desire the desire of the other, I am searching for his desire and expect an acknowledgement on his side’ (p. 192).

The experience of reciprocity teaches children to stand ground while keeping the relation (See image 4: Blame or request and image 6), instead of surviving by either disconnecting from themselves and/or disconnecting from the other.

The reciprocal position creates a situation that is radically open and undetermined - and hence ‘weak and risky’ (Biesta 2016, p. 26). This is impossible in a situation where someone forces his reality on the other person or refers to an objective reality. It’s the difference between blaming and having a request, where the latter is a weaker but more dialogical way of dealing with another person (also see image 4: Blame or request). Blaming actually refers to a third party that is able to supply objective information about what is normal, or what is supposed to be familiar to the other. It is creating a rule on a meta-level that both are supposed to obey, which makes having to look for a middle ground unnecessary.

Chapter 2.2

Scripts

There are several theories in psychology that developed a concept that describes what could be considered a script for how to act in a new situation based on how we acted before in similar situations. The concept of dialogical self with inner voices in our head (Hermans 1992); the concept of inner scheme or individual work model in Attachment theory (Bowlby 1988, Govaerts, 2007, p. 85); the concept of schemas in Schema therapy, referring to coping strategies children develop (Muste et al. 2009, p. 16) and metaphors as an important tool in narrative therapy (White 2007, p. 30). In Cognitive Behavioural Therapy there is the concept of beliefs like ‘I will probably fail again’, that can rule our behaviour like a script for future occasions. This is somehow related to the idea of schemas. However what sets CBT and other related approaches like RET apart is their focus on the individual having control over what his beliefs are. This brings us back to the individualistic approach and as I explained before, I would like to focus on approaches that share the idea: if the problem started with connecting, we have to change it through connection. Not the strong but the weak way.

Michielsen, van Mulligen & Hermkens (1998, pp. 94-106) presented a more detailed description of the needs of a parent creating an obligation for the child; below I present their main ideas in an overview (figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the needs of a parent creating an obligation for a child.

Within the boundaries of selective reciprocity, children stay embedded in the family context. Not until puberty they start questioning this context. They learn to appreciate their parents knowing that they are not perfect and where the relationship doesn’t feel reciprocal they learn how to stand ground while keeping the relation. However,the tendency to think in a one-perspective way - accompanied by reactive coping strategies - is still being widely usedat the age of puberty, while dealing with obligations within the family or school.This may explain the clashes they have with their parents at that age, as a first step towards standing ground. Psychoanalytic authors see theprocess of being connected to their parents while separating from them as part of the individuation process (Bowlby 1983; Blos 1979). Biesta (2017b, p. 431) describes being a grown-up as ‘trying to exist in a way that is not dominated by the logic of the ego but in a way where one tries to put one’s own desires into perspective’. If the context helps, reactive strategies change into dialogical ones. However, to consider another person’s different point of view requires effort, being able to deal with more perspectives even if they contradict. Triggered by stress, adults can refer back to child scripts and therefore act like children. According to Barr & Keysar (2005, p. 273) ‘the egocentrism observed in three year old children and in individuals with frontal brain damage is also present in normal adults’. Allen, Fonagy & Bateman (2008, p. 216) consider abusive behaviour in adults to be an extreme form of egocentrism.

Needless to add that - while scripts create a basis for dealing with other people - through internalization (also see 2.3: Inner dialogue)- they also create a basis for the quality of the inner dialogue. You can find an image of the scripts for dealing with other people in image 4: Blame or request and the scripts for inner dialogue in image 5: Inner dialogue.

This means children can speak in a coded way and need adults to decode that, they eat or don’t eat, they harm themselves or others, they close in or slam doors etc. According to Frederick (2009, p. 123) violent behaviour or angriness is nearly always a consequence of someone who is not able to endure or deal with a feeling. It is a protection against the vulnerability or complexity that feelings like sadness create. Of course this can even happen to adults.

In order to decode coping behaviour into a feeling that could be verbalized, it takes the help of an adult that is willing to be patient and manages to not get triggered too much himself. This would lead him to use coping strategies from his own script. If an adult gets triggered and displays coping behaviour, one could say that he goes into child mode himself, using reactive scripts. Allan, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 116) describe this as going back to the pre-mentalizing mode (also see 1.3: Mental health, mentalizing). The situation with his children in the present triggers his own vulnerabilities from earlier in life. This is where parents (temporary) cannot fulfil their role as persons who teach their children to verbalize. In general, if a situation dealing with others triggers us more than expected, there is a considerable chance that there is a parallel with situations in the past. It could even be that the present is dealt with in a similar way as with the past, which refers to the concept of transference (Andersen, Berk 1998), hence my choice of the word script.

Whatever the script eventually looks like, it tells us how to act in present situations that share similarities with the ones we learned to deal with earlier: the connections that gave us the script. Schema therapy (Muste et al. 2009, p. 123) shares this point of view: for adults, earlier schemas can be activated through present experiences that have a parallel with the previous experience. They add that a healthy-adult mode should keep control over other modes, based on child schemas. The healthiness or the quality ofour adult-script is based on the nature of our connections with the people around us while growing up; ‘the quality of the individual work model [script] depends on the quality of the relations that create it’ (Wallin 2007, p. 169). While developing their scripts, children have a big antenna for the needs of their parents; they tend to adopt the inner world of their parents in their own script. They feel the unspoken judgement of their parents or even their unspoken dreams of a life not lead (Govaerts 2007, p. 164). The needs of their parents tend to make them disconnect from their own feelings and needs (Miller 1979, p. 9), creating a script that is based on obligations.

2.2.1 Scripts in an object position

According to Buber our relations to other people can have the same structure as our relations to lifeless objects, plants or machines (the I-it connection). We try to analyse them so they can become predictable or controllable to us. The other is being reduced to his benefits to our needs (Verhaeghe 2014, p. 51). In this position the script of the other person might look like: ‘The reason I matter is because I’m smart, beautiful, talented, etc.’ It’s a self-image of reduced perspectives. The fact that celebrities sometimes commit suicide while having access to everything they like, could be attributed to their idea of being in an object position. Fans admire you as long as you fulfil the reduced part of yourself that creates the image, but also prevents you from growing further. 

Despite being in an object position - the other usually being a parent – a child is forced to remain in this relationship, because it depends on it for growing up. Children tend to stay in a loyal position towards their parents, even if this blocks their own development, a concept called parentification (Minuchin, 1974, p. 97; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 124). So besides the fact that young people are more likely to use reactive strategies - like stated before -, they also have to rely on coping strategies in order to stay protected enough in that relationship and/or get some prove that they matter. Parents who turn their children into an object tend to perceive their children as being part of themselves (Miller 1979, p. 12). Being in this position it tends to make the connection less trustworthy, which makes coping strategies necessary (See image 4: Blame or request). Parents may have their own reasons for avoiding reciprocity with their children. Most likely they were in an object position themselves during childhood. 

Children being an object to the needs of the adult/parent cannot use that relation to learn how to connect to their own needs and feelings. The connection to the other takes away the connection to themselves. Because they are in a position of an obligation, they miss the experience of the freedom of giving ‘from the heart’ and getting acknowledgement for that in return. Because their coping strategies are the best way of dealing with situations, while staying connected to their parents (Frederick 2009, p. 67), they also learn to ignore their own needs, desires or emotions (Fosha 2003, pp. 228-229, also see 2.2: Scripts). 

An aspect also worth mentioning in this context is the tendency of victims to become perpetrators. Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy refers to this as the revolving slate and destructive entitlement (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark 1973, p. 67).

Every culture developed its own way of dealing with reciprocity. Some cultures are more hierarchical than others. It should be obvious from the description above that hierarchy creates stress but it also gives protection. The fact that at certain points people seem to prefer logic, rationality, simplification or something to hold on to - and look for a leader that represents the inability to accept ambivalence - also reveals the way a culture deals with fear. The fear pushes people into reactive mode and makes them avoid reciprocity and freedom.

They learn to look for the middle ground, which feels fair because they get prove that their needs and feelings matter to someone but that this also includes the other person. Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner (1986, p. 83) claim that a trustworthy symmetrical (reciprocal) relationship is only possible if - from a long-term perspective - there is a balance between actions of give and take. This does not mean we are dealing with a business relationship. Compared to being in an object position, the gift in a reciprocal position feels like a free gift, there is no obligation towards the giver or towards the receiver. Family therapist Bert Hellinger (1998, p. 49) suggests that, because everyone likes to give, for a relationship to be successful one has to be prepared to share the pleasure of giving with each other. Therefore one has to also receive (take). This might explain why the perfectionist can never enter a reciprocal relationship (see: Introduction). Contrary to theories that claim that below the surface people tend to be selfish (Dawkins 1976), the taking part in a relationship appears to be more difficult to many people. Some partners in a relationship hold on to the power of being a giver (Hellinger 1998, p. 35). If you give, you have the possibility to ask something in return, which puts you in a relatively safe position. If you ask (take), you might be rejected or, by receiving you accept the other person in a position where he is allowed to give to you, a position of being of significance to you. He is allowed in but there he might also ask something in return, which could take away your freedom (connection to yourself). 

The concepts of fairness and trust are important features in theories that feature reciprocity.

If the script in a reciprocal position is based on fairness, you can trust the other person. You can be connected to the other without loosing the connection to yourself. In being connected this this way you still can be free (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 13). Dialogue is the element that guarantees that two realities can meet and maybe affect each other, without pushing or pulling on each other. Freedom of speech is not only a right for me but also for the other.

<                >

Go to Table of contents

Chapter 2.2

Scripts

There are several theories in psychology that developed a concept that describes what could be considered a script for how to act in a new situation based on how we acted before in similar situations. The concept of dialogical self with inner voices in our head (Hermans 1992); the concept of inner scheme or individual work model in Attachment theory (Bowlby 1988, Govaerts, 2007, p. 85); the concept of schemas in Schema therapy, referring to coping strategies children develop (Muste et al. 2009, p. 16) and metaphors as an important tool in narrative therapy (White 2007, p. 30). In Cognitive Behavioural Therapy there is the concept of beliefs like ‘I will probably fail again’, that can rule our behaviour like a script for future occasions. This is somehow related to the idea of schemas. However what sets CBT and other related approaches like RET apart is their focus on the individual having control over what his beliefs are. This brings us back to the individualistic approach and as I explained before, I would like to focus on approaches that share the idea: if the problem started with connecting, we have to change it through connection. Not the strong but the weak way.

From a genotype perspective, the coping strategies children use are partly based on their mental abilities at a certain stage of development. In general children tend to see themselves as the centre of their own activity (Piaget 1951, Miller 1979, Bahler 2016) (also see 3.3.3: Art and narcissism). According to Decety (2005) our default mode in interpreting someone else’s mental state is egocentrism. Therefore children tend to think in an either-or; in a win-loose way, which explains the nature of their coping strategies being roughly based on fight-flight reactions. They have a hard time dealing with ambivalent feelings about someone or seeing things from another persons perspective, therefore they either disconnect from the other (c.f. fight mode), or disconnect from themselves (c.f. flight mode), creating a situation of one perspective left (see images 1 & 2). Allen, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 91) describe a similar process where children first go through a stage where they create their own reality, defined as equivalent mode, other perspectives cannot be accepted (c.f. fight mode). Later they can keep their own reality while pretending they accept someone else’s reality (c.f. flight mode), defined as pretend mode. 

Besides maturing, going through stages of development, children also need the experience of adults around them that are willing to help transforming their reactive strategies into dialogic strategies. This is a phenotype perspective. It is what makes the parent-child relationship asymmetrical and not completely reciprocal (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 104; Kuczynski, p. 14). In a chaotic family context, where parents easily go into reactive strategies themselves, this transition is affected in a negative way. According to Diana Fosha (2003), in this kind of context the focus children need on maintaining safety and managing fear drains energy from learning and exploration; it blocks growth and distorts personality development (p. 227). With the help of their early connections, offering some stability, children develop a way of dealing with the other that is more and more based on reciprocity and can accept the ambiguity of more than one perspective. Children are transitioning out of the egocentric ‘me’ stage, to a stage in which they have a greater understanding of the ‘me’ within the ‘us’. Good and bad are not separated anymore, like in fairy tales. Their parents don't have to be perfect anymore, like they used to be (see image 3). In this way they are able to accept other realities, conflicting feelings in their own head, one could say child-scripts change into mature adult-scripts.

Whatever the script eventually looks like, it tells us how to act in present situations that share similarities with the ones we learned to deal with earlier: the connections that gave us the script. Schema therapy (Muste et al. 2009, p. 123) shares this point of view: for adults, earlier schemas can be activated through present experiences that have a parallel with the previous experience. They add that a healthy-adult mode should keep control over other modes, based on child schemas. The healthiness or the quality ofour adult-script is based on the nature of our connections with the people around us while growing up; ‘the quality of the individual work model [script] depends on the quality of the relations that create it’ (Wallin 2007, p. 169). While developing their scripts, children have a big antenna for the needs of their parents; they tend to adopt the inner world of their parents in their own script. They feel the unspoken judgement of their parents or even their unspoken dreams of a life not lead (Govaerts 2007, p. 164). The needs of their parents tend to make them disconnect from their own feelings and needs (Miller 1979, p. 9), creating a script that is based on obligations.

Michielsen, van Mulligen & Hermkens (1998, pp. 94-106) presented a more detailed description of the needs of a parent creating an obligation for the child; below I present their main ideas in an overview (figure 1).

Figure 1: Overview of the needs of a parent creating an obligation for a child.

Within the boundaries of selective reciprocity, children stay embedded in the family context. Not until puberty they start questioning this context. They learn to appreciate their parents knowing that they are not perfect and where the relationship doesn’t feel reciprocal they learn how to stand ground while keeping the relation. However,the tendency to think in a one-perspective way - accompanied by reactive coping strategies - is still being widely usedat the age of puberty, while dealing with obligations within the family or school.This may explain the clashes they have with their parents at that age, as a first step towards standing ground. Psychoanalytic authors see theprocess of being connected to their parents while separating from them as part of the individuation process (Bowlby 1983; Blos 1979). Biesta (2017b, p. 431) describes being a grown-up as ‘trying to exist in a way that is not dominated by the logic of the ego but in a way where one tries to put one’s own desires into perspective’. If the context helps, reactive strategies change into dialogical ones. However, to consider another person’s different point of view requires effort, being able to deal with more perspectives even if they contradict. Triggered by stress, adults can refer back to child scripts and therefore act like children. According to Barr & Keysar (2005, p. 273) ‘the egocentrism observed in three year old children and in individuals with frontal brain damage is also present in normal adults’. Allen, Fonagy & Bateman (2008, p. 216) consider abusive behaviour in adults to be an extreme form of egocentrism.

Needless to add that - while scripts create a basis for dealing with other people - through internalization (also see 2.3: Inner dialogue)- they also create a basis for the quality of the inner dialogue. You can find an image of the scripts for dealing with other people in image 4: Blame or request and the scripts for inner dialogue in image 5: Inner dialogue.

2.2.1 Scripts in an object position

According to Buber our relations to other people can have the same structure as our relations to lifeless objects, plants or machines (the I-it connection). We try to analyse them so they can become predictable or controllable to us. The other is being reduced to his benefits to our needs (Verhaeghe 2014, p. 51). In this position the script of the other person might look like: ‘The reason I matter is because I’m smart, beautiful, talented, etc.’ It’s a self-image of reduced perspectives. The fact that celebrities sometimes commit suicide while having access to everything they like, could be attributed to their idea of being in an object position. Fans admire you as long as you fulfil the reduced part of yourself that creates the image, but also prevents you from growing further. 

Despite being in an object position - the other usually being a parent – a child is forced to remain in this relationship, because it depends on it for growing up. Children tend to stay in a loyal position towards their parents, even if this blocks their own development, a concept called parentification (Minuchin, 1974, p. 97; Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 124). So besides the fact that young people are more likely to use reactive strategies - like stated before -, they also have to rely on coping strategies in order to stay protected enough in that relationship and/or get some prove that they matter. Parents who turn their children into an object tend to perceive their children as being part of themselves (Miller 1979, p. 12). Being in this position it tends to make the connection less trustworthy, which makes coping strategies necessary (See image 4: Blame or request). Parents may have their own reasons for avoiding reciprocity with their children. Most likely they were in an object position themselves during childhood. 

Children being an object to the needs of the adult/parent cannot use that relation to learn how to connect to their own needs and feelings. The connection to the other takes away the connection to themselves. Because they are in a position of an obligation, they miss the experience of the freedom of giving ‘from the heart’ and getting acknowledgement for that in return. Because their coping strategies are the best way of dealing with situations, while staying connected to their parents (Frederick 2009, p. 67), they also learn to ignore their own needs, desires or emotions (Fosha 2003, pp. 228-229, also see 2.2: Scripts). 

They might develop an antenna for the feelings of the other in general, which gives them great social skills but also the inability to ask or receive something. Another option could be that they protect their vulnerability by creating clashes, which takes away the connection to the other (this doesn’t necessarily mean they are connected to themselves though). Also this script is one of reduced perspectives. They might refer back to it in their future connections, especially in stressful situations. Many violent people have a complicated family background (APA Task Force 1996). 

As stated before these reactive strategies could be seen as being based on fight reactions (taking away the connection to the other), or flight reactions (taking away the connection to themselves). In both options the child cannot use this situation for learning how deal with feelings by sharing them, having the experience of the other that is willing to acknowledge their feelings. 

Besides being reactive, child scripts tend also to be based on acting out behaviour because verbalizing is not yet an option for young people. ‘Instead of becoming available for reflection, their behaviour is simply enacted, automatically and reflexively’ (Wallin 2007, p. 123). Peter Fonagy (Allen, Fonagy, Bateman, 2008, p. 91) considers acting out behaviour to be a mode in child development called teleological mode, where mental conditions are expressed in actions or somatic reactions. 

This means children can speak in a coded way and need adults to decode that, they eat or don’t eat, they harm themselves or others, they close in or slam doors etc. According to Frederick (2009, p. 123) violent behaviour or angriness is nearly always a consequence of someone who is not able to endure or deal with a feeling. It is a protection against the vulnerability or complexity that feelings like sadness create. Of course this can even happen to adults.

In order to decode coping behaviour into a feeling that could be verbalized, it takes the help of an adult that is willing to be patient and manages to not get triggered too much himself. This would lead him to use coping strategies from his own script. If an adult gets triggered and displays coping behaviour, one could say that he goes into child mode himself, using reactive scripts. Allan, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 116) describe this as going back to the pre-mentalizing mode (also see 1.3: Mental health, mentalizing). The situation with his children in the present triggers his own vulnerabilities from earlier in life. This is where parents (temporary) cannot fulfil their role as persons who teach their children to verbalize. In general, if a situation dealing with others triggers us more than expected, there is a considerable chance that there is a parallel with situations in the past. It could even be that the present is dealt with in a similar way as with the past, which refers to the concept of transference (Andersen, Berk 1998), hence my choice of the word script. 

An aspect also worth mentioning in this context is the tendency of victims to become perpetrators. Ivan Boszormenyi-Nagy refers to this as the revolving slate and destructive entitlement (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Spark 1973, p. 67).

This means the unfairness a child had to endure in a relationship that demanded loyalty, is considered to be a right to be unfair or destructive to others (or themselves), without feeling guilty. This could be an explanation why children in a complicated family context tend to bully other children. It also offers a possible explanation for the fact that destructive patterns sometimes continue over generations and even why adults that where abused themselves abuse their own children without feeling guilty (Allan, Fonagy, Bateman 2008, p. 104). It might also explain why teachers lack empathy for their students or why people develop into extremists, taking revenge on people that are not responsible for the injustice they experienced before.

Like described before in regard to children, adults that go into child-mode tend to reduce perspectives; they loose the ability to deal with ambivalent feelings. That is why Allan, Fonagy, Bateman (2008, p. 186) claim that ‘the whole point of psychotherapy is opening up alternative perspectives’. The tendency to simplify should be considered a protection against vulnerability, with the use of the script children use when being confronted with ambiguity (good vs. bad, right vs. wrong, etc.). Being in a power position the protection can lead to coping strategies like narcissism, arrogance, verbal aggression etc. In the weak position it might lead to isolation; stubbornness; or not accepting complements, trying to avoid the risk of allowing the other in with his reality. Having to deal with an adult in that mode means you are an object; a reduction of who you are, to what is useful to the other. You are confronted with a relation where only one reality will be accepted. Like pointed out before, there is only room for a monologue. Teachers who prefer the role of the person who explains - often leading to a monologue - use their students as an object that should confirm their reality. 

Every culture developed its own way of dealing with reciprocity. Some cultures are more hierarchical than others. It should be obvious from the description above that hierarchy creates stress but it also gives protection. The fact that at certain points people seem to prefer logic, rationality, simplification or something to hold on to - and look for a leader that represents the inability to accept ambivalence - also reveals the way a culture deals with fear. The fear pushes people into reactive mode and makes them avoid reciprocity and freedom. 

Populists can take advantage of that situation. The populist - from his perspective - might use his audience to prove his one-liner (presumably based on his own life events).  

2.2.2 Scripts in a reciprocal position

When children connect with important adults around them, like parents, they benefit from the amount of reciprocity in that relation, because in that position they will be acknowledged and get prove that they matter being the person they are. This does not mean everything has to be based on reciprocity. The responsibility parents have over their children means they also have to set limits, correct their children or challenge them. However the experience of a child with adults around it - ‘someone who calls upon the unique within me‘ (Levinas 1989, p. 195) - gives it the chance to be known as a subject and not as an object. In this situation prove that the child is of significance is not based on being unique as only being good at something.

Even as an adult we still like to be in a position that we matter to someone. Although the other is internalized into our inner dialogue, which makes us less dependent on receiving direct acknowledgement only from others, we still like to be of significance to someone (Ryan & Deci 2000, p. 62). According to Verhaeghe (2014) people with depression don’t desire anymore or feel that they are not being desired by anyone. ‘I don’t desire the other, I desire the desire of the other, I am searching for his desire and expect an acknowledgement on his side’ (p. 192).

The experience of reciprocity teaches children to stand ground while keeping the relation (See image 4: Blame or request and image 6), instead of surviving by either disconnecting from themselves and/or disconnecting from the other.

They learn to look for the middle ground, which feels fair because they get prove that their needs and feelings matter to someone but that this also includes the other person. Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner (1986, p. 83) claim that a trustworthy symmetrical (reciprocal) relationship is only possible if - from a long-term perspective - there is a balance between actions of give and take. This does not mean we are dealing with a business relationship. Compared to being in an object position, the gift in a reciprocal position feels like a free gift, there is no obligation towards the giver or towards the receiver. Family therapist Bert Hellinger (1998, p. 49) suggests that, because everyone likes to give, for a relationship to be successful one has to be prepared to share the pleasure of giving with each other. Therefore one has to also receive (take). This might explain why the perfectionist can never enter a reciprocal relationship (see: Introduction). Contrary to theories that claim that below the surface people tend to be selfish (Dawkins 1976), the taking part in a relationship appears to be more difficult to many people. Some partners in a relationship hold on to the power of being a giver (Hellinger 1998, p. 35). If you give, you have the possibility to ask something in return, which puts you in a relatively safe position. If you ask (take), you might be rejected or, by receiving you accept the other person in a position where he is allowed to give to you, a position of being of significance to you. He is allowed in but there he might also ask something in return, which could take away your freedom (connection to yourself). 

The concepts of fairness and trust are important features in theories that feature reciprocity. 

If the script in a reciprocal position is based on fairness, you can trust the other person. You can be connected to the other without loosing the connection to yourself. In being connected this this way you still can be free (Boszormenyi-Nagy & Krasner 1986, p. 13). Dialogue is the element that guarantees that two realities can meet and maybe affect each other, without pushing or pulling on each other. Freedom of speech is not only a right for me but also for the other.

The reciprocal position creates a situation that is radically open and undetermined - and hence ‘weak and risky’ (Biesta 2016, p. 26). This is impossible in a situation where someone forces his reality on the other person or refers to an objective reality. It’s the difference between blaming and having a request, where the latter is a weaker but more dialogical way of dealing with another person (also see image 4: Blame or request). Blaming actually refers to a third party that is able to supply objective information about what is normal, or what is supposed to be familiar to the other. It is creating a rule on a meta-level that both are supposed to obey, which makes having to look for a middle ground unnecessary. 

Image 1: Disconnect from yourself, one perspective left.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Image 3: Perfect father, one perspective.

(Click on Image to enlarge) 

Image 2: Disconnect from the other, one perspective left. 

(Click on image to enlarge)

Image 4: Child script changing from a reactive into a dialogic script depending on the type of connection. (Click on image to enlarge)

Image 6: Stand ground while keeping the relation, perspectives from within along with perspectives from outside.

(Click on image to enlarge)

Image 5: Quality of inner dialogue based on the script that is developed through the quality of actual dialogue. (Click on image to enlarge).