Time is what we want most, but what alas! we use worst. - William Penn

One of the most dramatic scientific adventures of this century is the exploration of space. We are not content to understand that it is infinite. We want landmarks, so to speak, platforms for our satellites, or mathematical slots into which we can aim our space vehicles. We want to comprehend space; to define it; in a sense, to use it.

The other great cosmic reality is time. We may speculate about either end of our earthly existence. We may trust in immortality in the face of incomprehensible death; but, as in our efforts to define space, we must in our definition of time start where we are. All we can know is that man's average ration of time is three score and ten years. What we do with our known allotment is what concerns us. Of most immediate concern is what we do with the smaller blocks of time within our grasp: the next week, the next day, the next hour, this very hour.

We all share with Disraeli a common concern that 'life is too short to be little'. Yet our greatest frustration is that so much of life is just that. Perhaps more significant and dramatic than space exploration is an investigation of our use of time. 'What folly,' said John Howe, 'to dread the thought of throwing away life at once, and yet have no regard to throwing it away by parcels and piecemeal.'

As with space, we are not content to comprehend time only as infinite. For many people the pressing question is 'How am I going to get through the next hour?' The more structured time is, the less difficult is this problem. Very busy people with many external demands do not have time on their hands. The 'next hour' is very well programmed. This programming, or structuring, is what people try to achieve, and when they are unable to do it themselves, they look to others to structure time for them. 'Tell me what to do.' 'What shall I do next?' 'What we need is leadership.'

Structure hunger is an outgrowth of recognition hunger, which grew from the initial stroking hunger. The small child has not the necessary comprehension of time to structure it but simply sets about doing things which feel good, moment to moment. As he gets a little older he learns to postpone gratifications for greater rewards: 'I can go outside and ake mudpies with Susie now, but if I wait twenty more minutes and keep my nice dress on, I can go to the shopping centre with Daddy.' This is basically a problem in structuring time. Which alternative will be more fun? Which will bring a greater reward? As we grow older we have more and more choices. However, the not ok position keeps us from exercising these choices as freely as we might think we do.

In our observation of transactions between people, we have been able to establish six types of experience, which are inclusive of all transactions.

They are withdrawal, rituals, activities, pastimes, games, and intimacy.

Withdrawal, although it is not a transaction with another person, can take place, nonetheless, in a social setting. A man, having lunch with a group of boring associates more concerned about their own stroking than his, may withdraw into the fantasy of the night before, when the stroking was good.

Page 88.

His body is still at the lunch table, but 'he' isn't. Schoolrooms on a nice spring day are filled with bodies whose 'occupants' are down at the swimming hole, shooting into space on a blazing rocket, or recalling how nice it was kissing under the wisteria. Whenever people withdraw in such fashion it is always certain that the withdrawal keeps them apart from those they are with bodily. This is fairly harmless unless it happens all the time, or unless your wife is talking to you.

A ritual is a socially programmed use of time where everybody agrees to do the same thing. It is safe, there is no commitment to or involvement with another person, the outcome is predictable, and it can be pleasant in so far as you are 'in step' or doing the right thing. There are worship rituals, greeting rituals, cocktail party rituals, bedroom rituals. The ritual is designed to get a group of people through the hour without having to get close to anyone. They may, but they don't have to. It is more comfortable to go to a High Church Mass than to attend a revival service where one may be asked, 'Are you saved, brother?' Sexual relations are less awkward in the dark for people for whom physical intimacy has no involvement at the level of personality. There is less chance for involvement in throwing a cocktail party than in having a dinner for six. There is little commitment, therefore little fulfillment. Rituals, like withdrawal, can keep us apart.

An activity, according to Berne, is a 'common, convenient, comfortable and utilitarian method of structuring time by a project designed to deal with the material of external reality'. {1} Common activities are keeping business appointments, doing the dishes, building a house, writing a book, shovelling snow, and studying for exams. These activities, in that they are productive or creative, may be highly satisfying in and of themselves, or they may lead to satisfactions in the future in the nature of stroking for a job well done. But during the time of the activity, there is no need for intimate involvement with another person. There may be, but there does not have to be. Some people use their work to avoid intimacy, working nights at the office instead of coming home, devoting their lives to making a million instead of making friends. Activities, like withdrawal and rituals, can keep us apart.

Pastimes are a way of passing time. Berne defines a pastime as

... an engagement in which the transactions are straightforward ... With happy or well organized people whose capacity for enjoyment is unimpaired, a social pastime may be indulged in for its own sake and bring its own satisfactions. With others, particularly neurotics, it is just what the name implies, a way of passing (i.e., structuring) the time: until one gets to know people better, until this hour has been sweated out, and on a larger scale, until bed-time, until vacation time, until school starts, until the cure is forthcoming, until some form of charism, rescue, or death arrives. Existentially a pastime is a way of warding off guilt, despair, or intimacy, a device provided by nature or culture to ease the quiet desperation. More optimistically, at best it is something enjoyed for its own sake and at least it serves as a means of getting acquainted in the hope of achieving the longed-for crasis with another human being. In any case, each participant uses it in an opportunistic way to get whatever primary and secondary gains he can from it. {2}

Page 89.

People who cannot engage in pastimes at will are not socially facile. Pastimes can be thought of as being a type of social probing where one seeks information about new acquaintances in an unthreatening, noncommittal way. Berne's observation is that 'pastimes form the basis for the selection of acquaintances and may lead to friendship' and further that they have as an advantage the 'confirmation of role and the stabilizing of position'.

Berne has given some delightful and disarming names to certain of these pastimes, which can be recognized at cocktail parties, women's luncheons, family reunions, and the Kiwanis Club as: variations of 'Small Talk', such as 'General Motors' (comparing cars) and "Who Won' (both 'man talk'); 'Grocery', 'Kitchen', and 'Wardrobe' (all 'lady talk'); 'How To' (go about doing something); 'How Much' (does it cost?); 'Ever Been' (to some nostalgic place); 'Do You Know' (So-and-So); 'What Became Of (Good Old Joe); 'Morning After' (what a hang-over!); and 'Martini' (I know a better way). {3}

Pastimes may be played by the Parent, Adult, or Child. A parent-Parent pastime was initiated by the following transaction:

Maude: You mean you do upholstery?

Bess: Only when necessary.

This led to a discussion of the high price of having it done, how shoddy work is these days, and the sale at Macy's.

One Child-Child pastime is the sharing of impossible alternatives symbolic of the damned-if-you-do and damned-if-you-don't situation of the little child. Anxiety may be relieved by this pastime, not because the problem is solved, but because it is handed to someone else - 'Here, you struggle with this for a while!' The following questions were overheard in an exchange between two five-year-olds: Would you rather eat a hill full of ants or drink a pail of boiling medicine? Would you rather be chased by a wild bull or wear your shoes on the wrong feet all day? Would you rather sit on a hot stove or go through the washing machine fifty times? Would you rather be stung by a thousand wasps or sleep in the pigpen? Answer one or the other! You have to answer one or the other. Grown-up versions may be more sophisticated, as, Are you a Democrat or a Republican?

The Adult may play pastimes about such subjects as the weather in order to keep a

relationship going until something interesting or stroke-producing appears:

Mr A: Looks like a storm coming up.

Mr B: Those clouds really look black.

Mr A: Reminds me of the time I was flying my plane and ran into a squall over San Francisco Bay.

Mr B: Oh, you fly?

Page 90.

As useful as pastimes may be in certain social situations, it is evident that relationships that do not progress beyond them die or, at best, exist in quiet desperation and growing boredom. Pastimes, like withdrawal, rituals, and activities, can keep people apart.

Games are such significant transactional phenomena that Berne has devoted a whole book to them, his best-selling Games People Play. Most games cause trouble. They are the relationship wreckers and the misery producers, and in understanding them lies the answer to 'why does this always happen to me?' The word 'game' should not be misleading, explains Berne. It does not necessarily imply fun or even enjoyment. For a full understanding of games, his book is recommended. However, the following is a brief definition, which will serve the purposes of this guide to Transactional Analysis.

A game is an ongoing series of complementary ulterior transactions progressing to a well-defined,, predictable outcome, Descriptively it is a recurring set of transactions, often repetitious, superficially plausible, with a concealed motivation; or, more colloquially, a series of moves with a snare, or 'gimmick'. Games are clearly differentiated from procedures, rituals, and pastimes by two chief characteristics: (1) their ulterior quality and (2) the payoff, Procedures may be successful, rituals effective, and pastimes profitable, but all of them are by definition candid; they may involve contest, but not conflict and the ending may be sensational, but it is not dramatic. Every game, on the other hand, is basically dishonest, and the outcome has a dramatic, as distinct from merely exciting, quality. {4}

As pointed out in Chapter 3, all games have their origin in the simple childhood game of 'Mine Is Better Than Yours', easily observable in any group of four-year-olds. It was then, as it is now, designed to bring a little momentary relief from the burden of the not ok position. As in the more sophisticated grown-up versions, it is ulterior in that it does not express what is really felt. When the little person says, 'Mine is better than yours', he is really feeling, I'm not as good as you'. It is an offensive defence. It is protective in that it seeks to maintain homeostasis. It also has a pay-off, as do games grownups play. When 'Mine Is Better Than Yours' is pushed far enough, the game ends with a hard shove, a slapped face, or devastating evidence of some sort that 'It is not: mine's better.' This then puts the little person back in his place, it has been proved again that I'm not ok, and in the maintenance of this fixed position there is a certain miserable security.

This is the essence of all games. Games are a way of using time for people who cannot bear the stroking starvation of withdrawal and yet whose not ok position makes the ultimate form of relatedness, intimacy, impossible. Though there is misery, there is something. As the comedian said, 'It's better to have halitosis than no breath at all.' It is better to be roughed up playing games than to have no relationship at all. 'The developing [child] is more likely to survive in the warmth of wrath and to suffer blight in the chill of indifference,' wrote Dr Richard Galdston, of abused children. {5}

Page 91.

Thus, games provide benefits to all the players. They protect the integrity of the position without the threat of uncovering the position.

To further clarify the nature of games we shall report the moves in one game, 'Why Don't You, Yes But'. The players are Jane, a young career woman, and her friend. (This game frequently is played in the helping situation, the clergyman's study, the psychiatrist's office, or the kitchen of a longsuffering coffee mate.):

Jane: I am so plain and dull that I never have any dates.

Friend: Why don't you go to a good beauty salon and get a different hairdo?

Jane: Yes, but that costs too much money.

Friend: Well, how about buying a magazine with some suggestions for different ways of setting it yourself?

Jane: Yes, but I tried that - and my hair is too fine. It doesn't hold a set. If I wear it in a bun, it at least looks neat.

Friend: How about using makeup to dramatize your features, then.

Jane: Yes, but my skin is allergic to makeup. I tried it once and my skin got rough and broke out.

Friend: They have lots of good new nonallergenic makeups out now. Why don't you go see a dermatologist?

Jane: Yes, but I know what he'll say. He'll say I don't eat right. I know I eat too much junk and don't have well-balanced meals. That's the way it is when you live by yourself. Oh, well, beauty is only skin deep.

Friend: Well, that's true. Maybe it would help if you took some Adult Education courses, like in art or current events. It helps make you a good conversationalist, you know.

Jane: Yes, but they're all at night. And after work I'm so exhausted.

Friend: Well, take some correspondence courses, then.

Jane: Yes, but I don't even have time to write letters to my folks. How could I ever find

time for correspondence courses?

Friend: You could find time if it were important enough.

Jane: Yes, but that's easy for you to say. You have so much energy. I'm always dead.

Page 92.

Friend: Why don't you go to bed at night? No wonder you're tired when you sit up and watch The Late Show' every night.

Jane: Yes, but I've got to do something fun. That's all there is to do when you're like me!

Here the discussion has gone full circle. Jane has systematically knocked down every one of her friend's suggestions. She begins with the complaint that she is plain and dull, then ends up begging the question with the final reason: she is plain and dull because 'that is he way I am'.

Her friend finally gives up in defeat and perhaps finally stops coming over, further underlining Jane's not ok. This 'proves' to Jane that there indeed is no hope for her - she can't even keep the friends she has, and this justifies her indulging in still another game, 'Ain't It Awful'. The benefit to Jane is that she doesn't have to do anything about herself because she has repeated proof that nothing can be done.

'Why Don't You, Yes But' can be played by any number, according to Berne:

One player who is 'it', presents a problem. The others start to present solutions, each beginning with 'Why Don't You'. To each of these the one who is 'it' objects with a 'Yes But'. A good player can stand off the rest of the group indefinitely, until they all give up, whereupon 'it' wins.

Since all the solutions, with rare exception, are rejected, it is apparent that this game must serve some ulterior purpose. The 'gimmick' in 'Why Don't You, Yes But' is that it is not played for its ostensible purpose (an Adult quest for information or solutions) but to reassure and gratify the Child. A bare transcript may sound Adult, but in living tissue it can he observed that the one who is 'it' presents herself as a Child inadequate to meet the situation; whereupon the others become transformed into sage Parents anxious to dispense their  wisdom for the benefit of the helpless one. This is exactly what 'it' wants, since her object is to confound these Parents one after another. {6}

(This is a latter-day version of 'Mine's Better Than Yours', which denies the real conviction, You Are Better Than I.) As the game ends, all those who offered advice are dejected, having failed in helping 'it', and 'it' has proved the point that her problem really is insoluble, which makes it possible for her to indulge her Child in a new game of 'Ain't It Awful'. That's the way it is and that's the way I am (and therefore I don't have to do anything about it, for, as we have just seen, nothing can be done).

Berne describes about three dozen games in Games People Play. His games titles are colloquial, and most of them, with semantic precision, put the finger on the central characteristic of the game, as: 'Ain't It Awful'; 'If It Weren't for You, I Could'; 'Let's You and Him Fight'; and 'Now I've Got You, You Son of a Bitch'. Because the titles are colloquial, they frequently bring a laugh. The fact is games are not funny. They are defenses to protect individuals from greater or lesser degrees of pain growing from the not ok position. The popularity of Berne's game book has given rise in many sophisticated circles to a new pastime of game calling.

Page 93.

The concept of games can be a useful therapeutic tool when used in combination with a prior applied understanding of P-A-C; but in the absence of such insight the game concept, particularly game calling, can simply be another way to be hostile. People with an understanding of P-A-C can use an academic discussion of games by applying it to themselves; but to be 'called' on a game by another person, in the absence of insight or true concern, most often produces anger. It is my firm belief from long observation of this phenomenon that game analysis must always be secondary to Structural and Transactional Analysis. Knowing what game you are playing does not, ipso facto, make it possible for you to change. There is danger in stripping away a defence without first helping a person to understand the position - and the situation in childhood in which it was established - which has made this defence necessary. Another way of stating this is that if only one hour were available to help someone, the method of choice would be a concise teaching of the meaning of P-A-C and the phenomenon of the transaction. This procedure, I believe, holds more promise for change in short-term treatment than game analysis.

Summarily, we see games as time-structuring devices which, like withdrawal, rituals, activities, and pastimes, keep people apart. What then can we do with time in a way which does not keep us apart? George Sarton observed: 'I believe one can divide men into two principal categories: those who suffer the tormenting desire for unity and those who do not. Between these two kinds an abyss - the "unitary" is the troubled; the other is the peaceful.'

For many thousands of years man's existence has been structured preponderantly by withdrawal, ritual, pastimes, activities, and games. Scepticism about this assertion could perhaps best be met by a reminder of the persistent recurrence throughout history of war, the grimmest game of all. The majority of men have helplessly accepted these patterns as human nature, the inevitable course of events, the symptoms of history repeating itself. There has been a certain peace in a resignation of this sort. But, as Sarton suggests, the truly troubled people of history have been those who have refused to resign themselves to the inevitability of apartness and who have been driven on by a tormenting desire for unity. The central dynamic of philosophy has been the impulse to connect. The hope has always been there, but it has not overcome the intrinsic fear of being close, of losing oneself in another, of partaking in the last of our structuring options, intimacy.

A relationship of intimacy between two people may be thought of as existing independent of the first five ways of time structuring: withdrawal, pastimes, activities, rituals, and games. It is based on the acceptance by both people of the I'm ok - you're ok position. It rests, literally, in an accepting love where defensive time structuring is made unnecessary. Giving and sharing are spontaneous expressions of joy rather than responses to socially programmed rituals. Intimacy is a game-free relationship, since goals are not ulterior. Intimacy is made possible in a situation where the absence of fear makes possible the fullness of perception, where beauty can be seen apart from utility, where possessiveness is made unnecessary by the reality of possession.

Page 94.

It is a relationship in which the Adult in both persons is in charge and allows for the emergence of the Natural Child. In this regard the Child may be thought of as having two natures: the Natural Child (creative, spontaneous, curious, aware, free of fear) and the Adaptive Child (adapted to the original civilizing demands of the Parent). The emancipation of the Adult can enable the Natural Child to emerge once more. The Adult can identify the demands of the Parent for what they are -archaic - and give permission to the Natural Child to emerge again, unafraid of the early civilizing process, which turned off not only his aggressive antisocial behaviour but his joy and creativity as well. This is the truth that makes him free - free to be aware again and free to hear and feel and see in his own way. This is a part of the phenomenon of intimacy. Thus the gift of a handful of primroses may more readily be a spontaneous expression of love and joy than the expensive perfume from I. Magnin on the socially important anniversary date. The forgotten anniversary date is not a catastrophe for the intimate husband and wife, but it very often is for those whose relationship exists by virtue of ritual.

The question is frequently asked: Are withdrawal, pastimes, rituals, activities, and games always bad in a relationship? It is safe to say that games nearly always are destructive, inasmuch as their dynamic is ulterior, and the ulterior quality is the antithesis of intimacy. The first four are not necessarily destructive unless they become a predominant form of time structuring. Withdrawal can be a relaxed, restorative form of solitary contemplation. Pastimes can be a pleasant way of idling the social motor. Rituals can be fun - birthday parties, holiday tradition, running to meet Dad when he's home from work - in that they repeat again and again joyous moments which can be anticipated, counted on, and remembered. Activities, which include work, not only are necessities of life but are rewarding in and of themselves, as they allow for mastery, excellence, and craftsmanship and the expression of a great variety of skills and talents. However, if there is discomfort in a relationship between two people when these modes of time structuring cease, it is safe to say there is little intimacy. Some couples programme their entire time together with frantic activity. The activity itself is not destructive unless the compulsion to keep busy is one and the same as the compulsion to keep apart.

The question now arises: If we strip ourselves of the first five ways of time structuring, do we automatically have intimacy? Or do we have nothing? There seems to be no simple way to define intimacy, yet it is possible to point to those conditions which are most favorable for its appearance: the absence of games, the emancipation of the Adult, and the commitment to the position I'm ok-you're ok. It is through the emancipated Adult that we can reach out to the vast areas of knowledge about our universe and about each other, explore the depths of philosophy and religion, perceive what is new, unrefracted by the old, and perhaps find answers, one at a time, to the great perplexity, 'What's the good of it all?' An elaboration of this idea will follow in Chapter 12.