The Two Ego State Model

This paper examines the structural distinctions made in contemporary ego state theory. Freud consciously avoided placing boundaries between the superego, ego and id, whilst Berne openly attacked the problem of concretely delineating the three psychic subsystems. As this paper unfolds it will become apparent that descriptively Berne achieved success, yet structurally he had major problems. INTRODUCTION As the two ego state model relates to the structure of ego states rather than their function, it is necessary to begin with a statement by Berne as to what he saw as the structure of ego states. For example, Berne (1961) states—“A Parental ego state is a set of feelings, attitudes, and behaviour patterns which resemble those of a parental figure. ...The Adult ego state is characterized by an autonomous set of feelings, attitudes, and behaviour patterns which are adapted to the current reality. ...The Child ego state is a set of feelings, attitudes, and behaviour patterns which are relics of the individual’s own childhood” (1961, p. 66-69). Berne holds to such a definition of the structure of ego state throughout his writings (for instance, Berne [1964, p. 2324] and Berne [1972, p. 11-12]). In addition, it is fortunate that other subsequent writers have also followed this primary definition of ego states (for example, Hohmuth & Gormly, 1982; James & Jongeward, 1971; Joines, 1976; Woollams & Brown, 1978). A second and closer look at these definitions results in a most interesting finding when one considers structural analysis. This analysis of ego state structure as noted by Woollams and Brown (1978) “deals with each ego state’s developmental history and innate capacity of expression—in other words the content of the ego state” (p. 7). What is the developmental history and content of the three ego states, as defined above? The Parent ego state’s content and history is explained by the imitations and identifications made by the youngster. The Child ego state’s history and content is explained by early childhood experiences where the relies of childhood have survived into later life. However, where does the Adult ego state come from; where does it get its content? The Adult is defined as an autonomous set of feelings, attitudes and behaviour patterns that are adapted to current reality. That seems to be true, but how did they get there? Berne states the developmental history of the Parent and Child, but not the Adult. This happens consistently through the references cited above. THE ADULT’S DEVELOPMENTAL HISTORY With Berne’s definition of the structure of ego states clarified, one can begin to answer those questions asked in the previous paragraph. Namely, what is the developmental history and content of the Adult? As will become apparent later, the two ego state model incorporates the Adult within the boundaries of the Parent ego state. As a result of this it may seem that the Adult is annihilated. This is definitely not the case; instead the Adult is relocated. It would be most foolish to deny that humans can function as computers, or data gatherers and processors. Obviously they can; however the question is how do they get this ability? It could be an archaic relic from childhood, an internalized parental pattern, or some thing completely different. The answer is in fact the second option. This reproduction courtesy of Books Reborn, Sep 2000. See http://www.netword.com/booksreborn From WPATA Bulletin 1 (Nov 1988), pages 45-55. © 1988 Western Pacific Association of Transactional Analysts, PO Box 448, South Perth WA 6151, Australia.