Terrorism as a "Kick Me" Game

In Transactional Analysis we note a pattern of interpersonal behavior which is (unfortunately) quite common, called the "Kick Me" game. In TA a game is defined as a limited and predictable series of moves with a reaction and payoff. Without going into technical details and analysis, imagine the following sequence of events: Person A makes irritating comments, sarcastic remarks and mildly hurtful statements over a period of time to Person B. The goal of this irritation is to provoke a response from Person B that is "out of proportion" to the most recent irritation from A. When B reacts strongly, A is able to cast B in the role of villain. A has been "kicked". This is the goal of the game. A is now (comparatively) the good guy, and B is the bad. People do this all the time, in many circumstances, from playground to boardroom, in their attempts to get someone else "in trouble".

It's easy to see that terrorist attacks all over the world are operating by the rules of the "Kick Me" Game. They threaten, frighten, provoke, cause small-scale tragedies and deaths. They hope for a large, dramatic response from those they attack, thus enabling the terrorists to characterize those who respond as villains. These terrorists then become the Victims, through their own actions. As a tactic, when it works, it unifies both sides and simplifies the conflict. "Sides" are taken, people are polarized into opposing groups. Small splinter groups of terrorists benefit by such unification, validating their position and even raising funds for future attacks.

In reality, there is little the terrorist groups can do that is actively so harmful or dangerous that an entire nation is endangered. Their attacks are painful and people die, which is not a minor issue, but there is no chance that their attacks can cause the fall of a nation. By not responding, we minimize their effectiveness, even while mourning the dead. It has always been possible for people to hurt other people, and rarely is there any way of stopping it; war has not been particularly successful in reducing pain and conflict.

Taking Things Personally

Lately, in our therapy groups, Elaine (my wife and co-therapist, an LCSW) and I have been considering the cognitive structure of "taking things personally" or "getting one's feelings hurt". Much of the conflict in close relationships seems to start with this issue. Some time ago we realized that we had taken this expression at face value and focused our attention on the conflicts and difficulties that followed, rather than on the starting point.

Let me begin with an example. Maxine has had a difficult day, and comes through the front door with a slam and a muttered curse, having just realized that she left some important papers at her office. Her husband, George, looks up and sees her angry face as she looks at him. Immediately he says "What's the matter? Have I done something wrong?"

Maxine, whose mind was on the missing papers, replies with considerable irritation, "No!". She goes into the bedroom to change clothes and prepare to drive back to the office. George, following her into the bedroom, feels defensive and on guard. "Are you sure?" he asks uncertainly. Now she is becoming irritated with George. "Didn't you hear me say so? Just leave me be!"

George is now sure she is angry at him, and he is not sure what he has done wrong, but he has been looking forward to her return and is now frustrated as well. "I'll leave you be, all right," he replies, and stamps out of the room. He retires to his favorite chair and sulks. Both George and Maxine are angry and primed for a fight.

It's interesting to consider in detail the thought processes involved in the initial stages of the interaction. Maxine is not even thinking about George as she enters the house. He sees her frustration and out of his anxiety constructs a worst-case scenario, i.e. that her anger is about him and some failure on his part. He adds a further extension to this catastrophe with his fear that their relationship is in trouble and that somehow it is his fault. His only plan is to ask Maxine to explain. At this point he becomes another frustration for Maxine, and her anger turns to include him. Her tone of voice confirms his fear, i.e. that she is angry at him about something. He responds with a veiled threat and retreats to sulk, since he has no idea what the "fight" is about. His "sulk" is intended to communicate to her that this is her problem and that he is ready to fight or to just withdraw.

Why does George assume that Maxine is angry at him? George is frequently anxious, which means that he is in the habit of "catastrophizing" every event, looking for the worst possible outcome so that he can prepare for it. For him, the worst case scenario he has constructed to account for Maxine's anger involves him. This particular scenario has at its core the fear that he is failing in some major way to be the partner Maxine needs and that the relationship will break or end. His readiness to believe this possibility is based on earlier failed relationships. He is ready to blame himself for any potential failure, and at the same time to defend himself against any such blame.

Nothing hurts us unless we are prepared to believe in its truth. No accusation or attack can wound us without our consent; we have to believe that there is at least some truth in the attack or we dismiss the attack as meaningless. Think, for instance, of the things that people could say that would hurt you, and you will note that they are all things that at some time have concerned you about yourself. Then think of some totally inappropriate and untrue accusation. In the first instance, the things that people could say that might hurt you are things you "worry" about, that you consider to be possibly true. In the second instance, you would experience the attack as basically futile, because you do not fear that it might be true. This kind of attack is equivalent to telling a Nobel Prize winner that s/he is stupid; the person would not be so much hurt as puzzled at the inappropriateness of the comment. But calling an overweight person “fatty” is guaranteed to result in unhappiness.

Our internal Parent/value structure is the gateway through which accusations have their power. For this reason, people who know us and our secret doubts and guilts can more easily damage us that strangers can. Attacks aimed at our known “triggers” are usually successful (in the sense that they result in our being hurt or angry). This is why battles between intimate partners are so likely to be taken personally. In a sense, we collude with the attacker in attacking ourselves, or we do not and thus take no harm. In the example above, George is ready to believe that he has done something wrong, and thus is vulnerable to the interpretation of her frustration as somehow his responsibility. She did not attack him, but in a sense, George attacked himself. Even in the instance in which the other person deliberately does in fact attack the other person in the relationship, the "consent" of the victim is required for damage to the ego to occur, and the damage, in a sense, is self-inflicted with the active encouragement of the other person.

It is instructive analyze an instance of taking things personally between you and a loved one. List all the actions, thoughts and behaviors that were elements in the conflict. Being careful to be as honest as possible, look for the moments of self-doubt and fear and the content of your thoughts.