Individually we all play Games, psychological Games. This observation was the theme of the 1960’s best seller "Games People Play" by Dr Eric Berne, one of the seminal exponents of Transactional Analysis. His thesis was that we divide our daily lives into programmed packets which come under the headings of Procedures, Rituals, Pastimes, or Games. He commented that, for those who have been fortunate enough to have escaped the domination of simple day-to-day survival, it is a sad fact that for most humans life is a process of filling time with these activities until the arrival of death. That is what religion encourages and promulgates. "We are just passing through.", it proclaims.

Eric Berne’s pessimistic view is still largely correct. Nevertheless he did portray a more optimistic view of life for some individuals. He claimed that those who could transcend these programmed behaviours, and develop awareness, spontaneity, and intimacy, would enjoy a more serene and positive life style. In the sixties we were enjoined: "Everyday do something that does not compute". This did not mean something illogical or irrational, merely something spontaneous and unprogrammed. To become a free spirit one has to free one’s spirit, but how does one achieve this?

Eric Berne’s answer was simple. If you recognise what "Games" you are playing, and possibly why you are playing them, then at least you will be able to decide for yourself whether you wish to continue. His hope was that when you realised what effect they were having on your life you would abandon them. To this end he and his colleagues tried to make such life Games and pastimes easily identifiable by giving them catchy titles, such as "Ain’t it Awful?", "Aw Shucks Fellars!", "Buzz off buster!", "Sunny side up", "Why don’t you?....Yes, but!", "Let’s you and him fight", and over 150 others.

There is often a balance to be struck, however, between being right and being successful. The more I observe life the more I agree that recognition and analysis, of the Games that they and their acquaintances play, would help individuals live more positive lives. In virtually all the cases that I have noticed, the Game title has succinctly encapsulated the form it takes and its "pay-off" for participants. Yet looking at the world over 30 years after the publication of "Games People Play", one can hardly consider that Eric Berne has successfully changed humanity. One minor reason for this could be that the names of the Games are just too catchy, they sound frivolous. People don’t take them seriously. To the European ear they also sound very much of the USA, although Eric Berne was Canadian I believe. "Not invented here" is a great inhibitor the world over.

I consider a major reason, however, to be the influence of the news media. Eric Berne concentrated largely on Games played by the individual. Mass-media Game playing affects the culture of whole societies. The individual hardly stands a chance. The particular Games I have in mind are "Ain’t it Awful", and "Let’s you and him fight". Let us consider them in more detail.

At the individual level "Ain’t it awful" is more of a Pastime than a Game proper. "Things ain’t what they used to be" is one of the more common manifestations, as are "What a pity" and "Look what they have done now", where "they" could be anybody, relations, bosses, or the government. Such conversational ploys are omnipresent and universal. They probably do little short-term harm, but as they stand they do no long-term good. They reinforce the attitude that "they", whoever "they" happen to be at the time, are "not OK". They do little to make the participants in the conversation feel "OK" except briefly relatively by comparison. Rarely, if ever, do constructive proposals emerge, so that as the conversation dies the participants revert to feeling helpless, hopeless, and "not OK".

Eric Berne explains that where "Awful" events actually do happen, there are typically three types of people involved:
a. The majority, where the untoward event is unwanted and beyond their control or reasonable foresight. Such people need the sympathy and support of society. That is the aptious response.
b. A few who, having suffered inadvertently, decide then to play the Game for all it is worth. Selling their story to the news media is a characteristic ploy, whether society also comes their aid or not.
or c. The Game players who actively seek disasters by constantly taking risks, usually small risks, but sufficient to produce a continuous trickle of their feeling the need to call for help. These people certainly need help! I am less certain they need our sympathy.

It is not individual Game playing with which I am presently concerned, however, it is that of the news media. Journalists spend a significant part of their professional time seeking out other peoples disasters to proclaim to the world "Ain’t it awful". They pander to the vicarious and prurient interests in humanity, spreading and reinforcing the view that "others are not OK" because of what "they" have done, and by implication that the victims, readers, listeners, or viewers are not OK either, because there is nothing that can be done about it.

Media magnates expect their journalists and cameramen to take great risks in order to produce the most graphic and horrifying stories. The motives here are usually expressed as "in the public interest". I suggest it is more for the potential advertising revenue. For example, I understand that in Bosnia, for a time, TV camera crews co-operated in sharing their films to minimise the dangers to all. This agreement collapsed under pressure from "Head Office", largely because the various companies could not agree on who would have the future revenue from archive rights. Thereafter it was every camera crew for itself, taking inordinate risks for the most gruesome scenes.

Even for local news the media seem determined to depict the worst. Many elderly people are afraid to venture out because of the consequent fear of violent crime, yet the probability of it affecting them is less than their having an accident at home. I was once told by a policeman that of the over 60,000 reported crimes in his county one year, only a few tens were muggings of people over 60 years old. If the fourth estate insists on playing "Ain’t it Awful" then they might at least try to make more positive suggestions on how these "awful" events they report fit into the context of life as a whole. Then it would be helpful to make constructive proposals as to what could be done. But that would not be "playing the Game"!

An even more reprehensible media Game, in my opinion, is "Let’s you and him fight". At the individual adult level this can be simply a rational way of getting the best value for any project. One seeks various opinions, bids, arguments, and resolves them oneself to decide your way forward. That is not a Game, that is common sense. It is also conducted in private. In the romantic Mills and Boon tradition there is a related attitude that the heroine adopts, perhaps subconsciously before choosing her mate. She does not have formal interviews or rational discussions. Here "events conspire" (or she does) to have the suitors fight in a childlike way to expose their strengths or weaknesses. In real life this is a risky Game. If the "wrong man" wins she may be lumbered for life, and lead to other destructive Games such as "Poor me" and "If it weren’t for you I’d....".

In the media, however, there is rarely even the pretence that a rational solution is being sought to any problem under discussion. The aim seems solely to set two people at each others throats. You can sense the disappointment in an interviewer’s voice when two interviewees express common views, instead of squabbling. I have noticed that over the years it has become less common to have both the potential protagonists present simultaneously. They are interviewed one at a time so that the interviewer can contrast them more effectively. "He said this about you. What do you say about him?", picking hopefully the most contentious interpretation of what the other may have said.

This Game is more reprehensible than "Ain’t it Awful", because the impression is given that "nobody is OK", except the interviewer doing the audience a favour in exposing shortcomings in others. "Let’s you and him fight" is often follwed by "Ain’t it awful", when the dogs and cats have been set upon each other by the innocent but conniving interviewer.

Confirmation of how the media relies on these Games arose when the 1997 UK "New Labour" government was under discussion in a light-hearted radio programme. The new format of Prime Minister’s question time was being denigrated, not because it now happened only once a week, nor because it had been imposed rather than agreed, but because it had become more polite! "We political journalists will soon have lost our rôle" one said. It may have been said tongue in cheek, but there is many a true word spoken in jest. If people refused to fight, there would be less news. That would be good news!

I wish I could foresee some potential improvement, but the evidence suggests that the news media are getting worse. They are increasingly playing another Game "Ain’t it gonna be Awful?". Much of the news now tells us what could be going to happen if or when something else may happen. It is easier to then play "Lets you and him fight" about the hypothetical. A few days or weeks before any major government announcement there is speculation about its potential harmful effect. Rarely is the potential value of the suspected legislation highlighted.

I do not know which came first, this modification or contrived leaks. Whichever, it seems as if this media Game is now being exploited by governments, political parties, and other organisations, by leaking ahead of time some of the ideas which are being considered. Authority is thereby remotely and vicariously encouraging others’ playing the Games. It hopes to divine public reaction, or at least how the media would try to influence public reaction, should a particular idea be adopted. The media are happy to oblige. Their interviewers can play "Let’s you and him fight" more easily because they can invent imaginary "awfulness" to set people fighting. How many ‘ifs’ make a ‘tiff’? They don’t mind; "ifs" are ten a penny.

The reader will by now have realised that for most of this chapter, if not for most of the book, I too have been playing "Ain’t it Awful". Can one never escape it? For most people I suspect that such a Pastime is too ingrained. So long as it does not degenerate into a psychological Game, however, some improvement can be achieved.

The first step, as Eric Berne advises, is to recognise when it is happening. At least then you can consciously decide whether to continue, or not. If you decide to, then one can consider what positive action you might subsequently take individually or collectively. One should also clarify what it is that is so awful. Is it "their" attitude, or is it "them" as people? Aptiously it should be the former. In either case who are "they"? If one can not answer such questions then you would be better to try a more constructive pastime.

I am hopeful that if journalists and interviewers realised exactly what they were doing some would adjust their approach. If they found it hard, as we all do, to avoid playing "Ain’t it Awful", then at least they could begin consciously to learn how to play "Let’s you and him co-operate" instead of "Let’s you and him fight". I suspect only then will the OKness of everybody begin to be accepted by humanity at large. At present the news media seem to seek to portray not-OK aspects of everybody it can. The men and women on the Chatham omnibus just don’t stand a chance of feeling OK themselves. Nobody else is, why should they be?

return to Contents

go to Utopia

View my guestbook