In Praise of Loving “Betrayal”: Reflections on the Steiner–Novellino Letters and the Life of Behavioral Science Organizations Gianpiero Petriglieri Abstract note from the guest editor expressing interest in As a reviewer for the Transactional Analy- publishing it in the April TAJ 2005 theme issue sis Journal (TAJ), in October 2004 the au- on “Transactional Analysis and Psychoanaly- thor read the Steiner-Novellino correspon- sis,” I felt intrigued, curious, and honored to dence, which was being considered for pub- have a preview of this most interesting and lication in the April 2005 theme issue on colorful exchange. After a couple of readings, “Transactional Analysis and Psychoanaly- I found myself agreeing with the editor that the sis.” In this article, he uses his unfolding material deserved publication, and for several feelings and thoughts on reading it—in his reasons. First, although the content is in the roles as TAJ reviewer and as a member and public domain—having been extensively cov- officer of the International Transactional ered by the authors in their scholarly works Analysis Association (ITAA)—as a starting (e.g., Novellino, 1990, 2003; Steiner, 2003)— point for reflecting on the relationship be- the nature of the exchange merited inclusion in tween tradition and innovation, integrity, a theme issue on “Transactional Analysis and betrayal, and the vitality, or lack thereof, of Psychoanalysis.” Second, the authors’ voices behavioral science organizations. deserve to be heard for their prominence as ______ theoreticians. Third, and most important in my view, the exchange of letters articulates central When Fritz Perls died, TA-trained lay ana- theoretical, methodological, and political de- lyst and teacher Carolyn Crane had asked bates in transactional analysis today. Berne, “What happens to the followers of It is a delight to witness the evolution of the a great man who dies?” Eric had replied TAJ into a welcoming host of good-quality aca- bluntly, “They always get screwed. Either demic argument between theoreticians and way they get screwed. If they go on believ- practitioners within and outside the transac- ing in the system it becomes a dead end, tional analysis community. The more debate we and if they go out on their own in reaction can encourage in the pages of our journal, the to the death of the leader they get equally better. Of course, such debate needs to be car- lost. (Jorgensen & Jorgensen, 1984, pp. ried out in the Adult tone that a scholarly pub- 8-9) lication deserves and in the OK-OK spirit that No one needs psychoanalysis but some is part of our values. We need to keep these people might want it. Psychoanalysis, as a standards close to our hearts. However, I would theory and practice, should not pretend to be surprised if we could ever fully live up to be important instead of keeping itself in- them. I consider the presence of a strong feel- teresting (importance is a cure for noth- ing tone, the crossing of the threshold between ing). You would think, reading the profes- knowledge and belief, and the existence of overt sional literature, that it is psychoanalysis political agendas compatible with publication. that mattered and not what it was about. Were we to purge our journal of such ex- (Phillips, 1995, p. xvi) changes, there would probably be no writing— or no writing worth reading. When I received the Steiner-Novellino corre- Obviously, however, affect, beliefs, and poli- spondence (Steiner & Novellino, 2005), with a tical aims cannot be all there is to an article. Vol. 35, No. 3, July 2005 285 GIANPIERO PETRIGLIERI The Adult ego states of authors, reviewers, and the reason that led me to recommend that we editors need to keep a watchful eye. The letters publish the epistolary in its original format. by Steiner and Novellino provide a good ex- What intrigued me most about this exchange ample of such a transparent and thought- was the unfolding of the discourse. It is a fasci- provoking exchange between authors in dis- nating document of the inevitable theoretical agreement. Strong feelings are clearly there, and political struggles occurring in all organi- points are argued with quasi-religious zeal, and zations of behavioral professionals, especially political agendas are frankly discussed. Never- those originally born around a novel and vi- theless, Adult argument is in close proximity, if sionary idea. not always in executive control, and the authors explicitly use transactional analysis principles Tradition and Innovation and methods to tackle the difficulties in their Looking at it from this angle—and with my communication—providing a living proof of ITAA member “hat” on—I became aware of the potency of transactional analysis to sustain reading the exchange with a shade of sadness. interpersonal dialogue. The sadness, I believe, was about the relation- As I crafted a review of the Steiner-Novel- ship between tradition and innovation. It seems lino correspondence, a fleeting doubt impinged rather difficult for us humans—who are differ- on my delight in the openness of the exchange ent from trees in fundamental ways—to regard and my appreciation for the authors’ points of roots for what they are: anchoring and nourish- view and interpersonal skills: What form might ing parts for the trunk, branches, leaves, flow- best suit publication of such debates in the ers, and fruits. In a tree, roots reach under the Transactional Analysis Journal? Normally, I ground and do work for the rest of the plant, would have suggested that Steiner and Novel- and for themselves. Leaves, flowers, seeds, and lino convert their letters into an exchange of so on, in turn, do their work to keep themselves, position papers. Within such a format, both au- the plant—and consequently the roots—alive. thors would have had a chance to deepen their But defending? Both Steiner and Novellino arguments, and the journal would have avoided claim to be defending “Berne’s roots.” Were setting a precedent. One cannot, as a matter of we to turn a behavioral lens on this claim, we course, have an enlightened, interesting, and would have to pause and wonder. Where is the circumstantiated exchange of views with a col- threat coming from? We promptly externalize league and expect to see it published as such in the threats; we identify external attacks to our a scholarly journal—even if you are a leading personal, theoretical, methodological, and or- author of papers and books. In this particular ganizational integrity. But might there be case, however, I found myself of two minds. equally dangerous threats within? On the one hand, a traditional exchange of Every organization, to survive and thrive, position papers would have helped readers needs to accomplish its primary task (Miller & deepen their appreciation of the content of Rice, 1967). This requires boundaries, pro- Steiner’s and Novellino’s letters: the relation- cesses, values, and leadership, which contain ship of transactional analysis to Freudian psy- and direct the flow of the organization’s re- choanalysis; Berne’s relatedness to Freud; the sources and the energy of its people. When authors’ relatedness to Berne, Freud, and each boundaries become rigid, processes cannot be other; the existence of many “psychoanalyses”; questioned, values become impositions, and the validity and utility of psychodynamic and leadership turns messianic; then trouble is in transactional analysis concepts; the purpose of sight. Revolutionary ideas become compelling the TAJ and the ITAA—only some of the top- ideologies and are then revered as the “glue” ics that the debate stimulates us to reflect upon. that holds an organization together and pro- On the other hand, there is value in being vides cohesion among its members. If we con- open. The reader needs to see things as they tinue with this metaphor, however, it carries a are, not sanitized, and have a chance to witness disturbing prophecy: What happens to glue the process of the debate. This is, ultimately, with the passing of time? 286 Transactional Analysis Journal IN PRAISE OF LOVING “BETRAYAL”: REFLECTIONS ON THE STEINER-NOVELLINO LETTERS “Every family is an institution, and the child Sound coherence, predictability, reliability, does not learn much flexibility from them,” efficacy, validity, and so on are necessary attri- wrote Berne (1972/1975, p. 57). We all know butes for a theoretical framework. In so many rigid families—and rigid institutions, for sure. words, a theory needs to hang together clearly; That institutions limit individual freedom is if it contradicts itself, it is usually neither popu- inevitable. That they do so rigidly might often lar nor practically helpful. An organizational be the case. But is the rigidity inevitable? De- framework, however, much like an individual spite his opinion of “institutions,” one of Berne’s psyche, works the opposite way: To be viable, major accomplishments was to found a suc- it must allow, if not actively encourage, the ex- cessful one—the ITAA—which several dec- pression of difference and apparent contradic- ades later aspires to be a learning community tions. Painful as they might be, internal conflict that is encouraging of individual thinking, re- —and occasional separation, as well—are nec- spectful of tradition, and welcoming of novelty essary for vitality and growth. For individuals, and debate. As Berne demonstrated with his groups, and organizations, development often life’s work, this requires curiosity and intellec- begins with an emotionally loaded polarization tual acumen as much as distraction and disobe- (Wood & Petriglieri, 2005), whereas remaining dience (Petriglieri, 2004, p. 7). In that respect, “undivided” for too long leads to developmen- the talk about “father’s” programs and vision in tal arrest or psychological inflation. the Steiner-Novellino letters leaves me some- Not all kinds of integrity are necessarily what perplexed.