Bill Petkanas

A TRANSACTIONAL APPROACH TO HARVEY FIERSTEIN'S

"WIDOWS AND CHILDREN FIRST"

The Transactional Approach

To examine a communication event and understand its significance to the participants, the transactional approach serves to make clear the effects of the environment, context, and especially the effects of one person's utterances and behavior on the other. This model gives us much more insight than an "action" model might; human communication is not so clear cut. We can, at any given moment during the communication process, arbitrarily assign roles of "sender" and "receiver" and examine the

"message." But this does not provide us with a great deal of insight into meaning. We are never just senders or receivers in normal human communication, that is, when we are speaking to another person.

With the exception of mediated communication such as sending or receiving a etxt or email, we act simultaneously as sender and receiver, speaker and listener, manipulator and manipulated. Human interpersonal communication is best thought of as simultaneous responses.1

A corollary to this idea is that in conversation there are no easily identifiable sequences of events.

That is, since we are simultaneously senders and receivers, we cannot say just when we are sending and when we are receiving. The idea of "question and answer" or utterance and response is limited to classrooms, churches and music. When we engage in conversation there are no clear demarcations to tell us who is sending, who is responding, and to what. Dennis Smith and L. Keith Williamson suggest that

"Communication itself is a process, an ongoing activity occurring in time; it has no beginning and no end, and is not reversible.2

In order to break up the flow of behaviors which we call communication we decide, generally without conscious effort, to add "punctuation" to our transactions. Punctuation is a way of indicating what it is to which we are responding and the meaning of messages will depend on how we punctuate a transaction. This may take the form of "sequencing" or imposing brackets that indicate the beginning and A Transactional Approach 2 end of a transaction. People mark these events, usually quite clearly, but the way in which they are marked will affect the meaning of messages. There is an obvious difference of meaning in "I'll see you later" and "Get out!" They are both intended as markers to indicate the end of a conversation but their messages are quite different. Punctuation also takes the form of labeling the context of the situation.

When two people engage in a transaction, each one must decide on what the context of this transaction is supposed to be. Most often we agree on context. Sometimes we do not. If I say to a colleague "Let's go see that film" my context, or label, for the situation might be two media-watchers going to view a social artifact for professional interest (the film). My colleague might label the situation as a date. The transaction is punctuated differently by the participants and the results are unsatisfactory for both.

Perhaps the most important aspect of punctuation and one which is extremely useful to investigate is complementarity and symmetricality in relationships. In a symmetrical relationship the participants perceive themselves as equal; neither one sees the other as having a superior or inferior role.

A complementary relationship is one in which they perceive themselves in a hierarchy; one is seen as the superior of the other.

These relationships, as in all aspects of punctuation, depend on the role a person is assuming during a transaction. When two people agree on the context and their relative positions, communication is said to work. That is, communication centers on the semantic content of messages. When there is incongruity in the aspects of punctuation, however, it is often said that these people "Just can't communicate." This is not the case; they are certainly communicating. But their messages are only marginally about the semantic content of the words they use. They are arguing not about the subject at hand, but about how to define their roles and punctuate their behavior. The subject at hand is not, for example, the weather, but that each participant would like the other to accept his or her punctuation.

Neither a complementary nor a symmetrical relationship can be said to be better than the other.

What is crucial to what we might call effective communication is that the participants agree on what their relative roles are and the kind of relationship they have at the time. I say "at the time" because relationships often shift from one moment to the next, which is normal and not at all troublesome -- if the A Transactional Approach 3 participants agree on the shift. When they are not in agreement, or "incongruous," there is the potential for explosive argument over roles and relationship. This is described by Watzlawick, Bavelas and

Jackson as "symmetrical escalation."3

In a symmetrical relationship, each participant perceiving equality, there is the possibility of competition for a "one-up" position. When one person sends a relationship message that he or she is trying to go one-up on the other (and thereby redefine the relationship as complimentary) the other must either accept the new definition (inferior position) or act reciprocally in an attempt to either maintain symmetricality or go for the superior position if the relationship is going to be complimentary. The other person, then, may respond with another "reciprocal" and so on, escalating to interpersonal open warfare until "they eventually stop from sheer physical or emotional exhaustion and maintain an uneasy truce until they have recovered enough for the next round."4

The transactional approach yields a great deal of understanding in the examination of interpersonal communication. Using this method, we can begin to identify just what elements make communication effective or hopeless where less powerful models might leave us with the conclusions that, for some situations, they "just can't communicate." If we examine such situations as transactions we may begin to see why. Below, a play is used to examine complimentarity and symmetricality. Although a play represents an artificial ecology, it is a communication event which is "frozen" in time as a text and makes an excellent subject for study.

"Widows And Children First"

Harvey Fierstein's one act play, "Widows and Children First" which he includes in "Torch Song

Trilogy," illustrates the problems that arise when two people disagree about their roles and find their perception of relationship incongruous. This happens throughout the three related plays in "Torch Song" but is best illuminated in the relationship between Arnold, the lead character in all of the plays, and his mother, "Ma."

Their meetings take place entirely within "Widows and Children First" which is the finale of the trilogy. Arnold and Ma have three "rounds" of symmetrical escalation, each one escalating higher than A Transactional Approach 4 the last. It is worth noting the natures and shifts in some of the other relationships in the play and, where they relate directly to Arnold and Ma they will be discussed.

In the prelude to Ma's arrival Arnold discusses his fear with ex-lover Ed, but not until they establish an uneasy agreement on the nature of their own relationship. Arnold seeks a symmetrical relationship with Ed while Ed seems to try to one-up Arnold but will try to act in a symmetrical way to maintain the relationship. When Ed attempts to explain his problems with his wife Arnold responds with:

ARNOLD Look, Ed, I realize this is a trying time for you and I'll gladly supply a place to sleep, a home thrown meal and all the amoral support I can muster, but you've got to keep the gory details to yourself.

ED (Grandly) Ah, what price compassion!?!

and

ED ...We've known each other for six years.

ARNOLD Four of which you spent married to another woman.

Arnold and Ed fall into a symmetrical relationship here, if only by default. Neither of them can out-do the other and gain a superior position and they are inclined to call a truce before escalating to serious fighting. The antagonism builds momentarily and then one or the other refuses to respond with the next reciprocal. Instead, after the example above, Arnold offers his adopted son some milk and changes the subject.

This very neatly exemplifies the sometimes precarious nature of a symmetrical relationship. Ed and Arnold have a potentially volatile relationship as ex-lovers, friends and possibly future lovers.

Fierstein has them portray this well -- an agonistic but symmetrical relationship. Dramatic development of the plot enters into the decision to have Arnold and Ed call a complete truce so that Ed can question

Arnold about Ma (for the benefit of the audience). Only after this exposition do they return to one-upmanship but it is brief as the main event begins. A Transactional Approach 5

ARNOLD She can't see the place looking like this. She'll walk through the door and head straight for the vacuum cleaner.

MA [In the open doorway] Well, I might change my shoes first.

The roles appear agreed on at first. Ma's joke carries a symmetrical relationship message. The son wants the place looking nice for the visiting mother and the mother understands that she is a little critical of the son's habits. There is not a son in America who has not experienced this.

But Arnold and Ma have an extremely fragile symmetrical relationship and round one begins almost immediately. This is a minor skirmish compared to what will follow. Ma begins by criticizing the walls. Arnold makes no defense and accepts the temporary superior position of Ma. Ma moves from the walls to the apartment itself, criticizing the fact that Arnold moved from "that lovely place in Brooklyn."

Here, Arnold must reciprocate with the fact that he needed two bedrooms. Ma considers this response as ammunition: "Three men, two bedrooms...I'll have my tea first"(ellipsis in original). She declines to use this information -it would mean bringing up Arnold's sexuality - which could put her in a one-down position. She is just warming up anyway and so goes for easier targets: "You don't get much light here.

Arnold is willing to take the one-down position or ignore the criticisms. When Ma asks about Ed, Arnold responds with "Tell me about Florida."

This does not satisfy Ma. She establishes Ed's identity as Arnold's ex-lover who married a woman (approval from Ma) and is now separated. She blames Arnold for breaking up their marriage.

Arnold attempts a defense but is still willing to surrender and accept Ma as the superior in a complementary relationship. They break from the engagement suddenly at Arnold's refusal to escalate:

MA You mean he's still... [gay]?

ARNOLD Can we talk about the weather now?

MA I'm glad you reminded me... I baked you some cookies.

It is unclear as to how Arnold's question reminded her of cookies, except that the weather is good in Florida. What happens is a momentary truce brought on by Arnold's behavior. A Transactional Approach 6

This is short lived, however, as Arnold decides, we are led to think innocently, to show off his crocheting. Ma disapproves. This is, to her, effeminate and distressing but this time it is she who refuses to escalate. She does not like to be reminded that Arnold is gay and so takes the temporary one-down position while Arnold displays the afghan he is making. She works her disapproval to her advantage without direct reference to his sexuality and Arnold takes the one-down position again. While she has him there, Ma works in the possibility that Arnold might some day "meet a nice girl" and Arnold ends the round with Ma holding the one-up position. Arnold suggests that he take his shower, she unpack and that they have "a lonng (sic) talk." They were both unprepared for a real battle. This round amounts to a sort of interpersonal sparring. Each participant tests the other for the escalations to come.

The break in the action for Ma and Arnold is used for David to come home and allow Ma the opportunity to learn that the "roommate" calls himself Arnold's son. Mom reenters later after having spent the day with David at school and Arnold has berated Ed for not helping him deal with Ma.

When Ma returns to the apartment we see that they have maintained the complimentary relationship that had been established earlier with Ma in the one-up position. The relationship is congruent, accepted by both sides, as they begin to prepare dinner. In a warm Mother-son way, Ma agrees to make potato latkes giving Ma the opportunity to compliment Arnold with a proud reference:

"He has Matzoh Meal. Did I bring him up right?" Arnold helps her by getting the ingredients and being subservient and helpful, prompting Ma to reminisce about her potato soup.

Round two begins when David makes a comment about Oscar Wilde and Arnold begins to explain Wilde's homosexuality and his resulting troubles with the law. Mom tries to assert her superior position by interrupting Arnold to ask for help with the cooking, although it is clear that she doesn't need help (she turns down Ed's offer, and asks Arnold repeatedly). Arnold will not obey Ma, however, and she escalates by being direct: "For God's sake, Arnold. Could you change the subject?" Arnold will not surrender and although he breaks off the conversation with David, he responds with a reciprocal. He escalates by telling her that he doesn't like her to interfere. A Transactional Approach 7

It quickly escalates to the point that Arnold divulges that he plans to adopt David. Ma cannot accept this and marks the sequence with a slamming door, a common sequence marker in disputes over roles.5

The round is not over. The escalation had gone too fast and too high to maintain a hostile symmetry. This temporary lull is used to remove the observers, Ed and David, and for Arnold and Ma to

"cool of" for a few minutes. In this way, the round can continue with both participants "de-escalated" and therefore, with room to escalate again. Ma returns and attempts to gain the one-up position by making

Arnold feel guilty about not telling her about his relationship with David:

MA Frankly Arnold, you've done a lot of crazy things, but this...

ARNOLD Adopting David is not a crazy thing. It's a wonderful thing that I'm very proud of.

MA If you're so proud how come you were too ashamed to tell your mother?... six months he's been here and not a word. Why?

Arnold submits for a while as his mother temporarily holds the one-up position. Their conversation about

David leads to Arnold's former lover, Alan, who was killed some time before. When Arnold counters Ma with his loneliness as a result of losing Alan, Ma escalates:

MA Are you trying to compare my marriage with you and Alan? Your father and I were married for thirty-five years...You have the nerve to compare yourself to that?

ARNOLD That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the loss.

MA What loss did you have? You fooled around with some boy... ?[ellipsis in original] Where do you come to compare that to a marriage of thirty-five years?

Arnold is now prepared to escalate without regard. He explains his suffering over the loss of his lover. He cannot accept Ma's denial that it was a real and tragic experience. But Ma insists on attempts on regaining the one-up position by calling Arnold disrespectful. If Arnold broke off there, Ma could A Transactional Approach 8 regain superiority. Arnold decides otherwise and brings up the subject that will end the round: His homosexuality. He tells her of life among gays and throws in the fact that Alan was murdered

(presumably by anti-gay thugs) and not killed in a car accident, as she had been told.

With that speech, Arnold takes the one-up position and leaves Ma in a situation in which she cannot respond. She runs out of the room. In this way, we are not sure who "wins" the round and the relationship is symmetrical as Arnold and Ma separate.

The interim between rounds is short. Arnold takes strength from his, at this point, clearly complimentary relationship with David and Ed. They comfort him; he sends them out. Arnold is in charge and is ready to begin the final round with Ma. He does not accept her punctuation and tries to begin the round on the offensive.

He begins by calling Ma out of the bedroom and mentions that the others have left and "we have the whole place to fight in." The cooling-off period has been too short to bring the battle down in ferocity.

They are beginning with already escalated positions. Ma's strategy is to appear to de-escalate by telling

Arnold that she doesn't want to fight, admits that her family used to fight quite a bit and looks for some sympathy from Arnold. This is momentarily effective; she gains a one-up position by de-escalating the situation around her. Arnold appears to agree with her, yielding to her superior position, and Ma takes the opportunity to further her position:

ARNOLD we're going to stay calm.

MA Ha!

ARNOLD I give up.

MA Arnold, darling, open your eyes. Don't you see how ridiculous this is?

She is referring to Arnold's plans to adopt David. Arnold reciprocates and escalation proceeds quickly.

Ma rapidly scales progressively higher accusations: that he is having a sexual relationship with David, that he destroyed his father and finally, her basic disagreement with Arnold, that he has refused to keep A Transactional Approach 9 quiet about being gay. Having reached this subject, Ma is again put at a disadvantage and ends the round as usual: She walks out of the room and, we are told, is leaving altogether.

The next morning, after a few uneasy moments, Ma leaves after seeming to understand that

Arnold's pain was the same as hers. Her leaving serves the same purpose as her exits during the rounds.

That is, it puts her in a one-up position or, at least, obscures who is the winner.

Conclusion

On the surface, Arnold and Ma appear to be two people who simply "can't communicate" with one another. After spending some time together and engaging in emotional argument they seem to come to no deeper understanding of each other. We might say that they have a pathological relationship in that their communication is limited to who will get to define the relationship and whose definitions of their roles will be accepted. A transactional approach shows that they communicate a great deal on this level.

Neither one of them can accept a symmetrical relationship for more than a few minutes. When one attains the one-up position, either one of them thinks that these roles have been accepted by the other and begins to preach to the other, which immediately becomes unacceptable and symmetrical escalation results. The semantic content of their messages is almost unimportant. The relationship content of their messages is their conversation, and their problem. A Transactional Approach 10

NOTES

1 Dennis Smith & L. Keith Williamson, Interpersonal Communication. Dubuque: Wm. C. Brown, 1977, p. 13.

2 Ibid., p. 85.

3 Paul Watzlawick, et al., Pragmatics of Human Communication. New York: W.W. Norton, 1967, p. 107.

4 Ibid., p. 108.

5 See Eric Berne, Games People Play for descriptions of transactions in which slamming doors serve as sequencing punctuation, especially in family games.