Letter From the Coeditors

The focus of this issue of the Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ) is one that has been close to our hearts, both as coeditors and as members of the international transactional analysis community. Its importance stems from professional curiosity and responsibility—namely, that of examining the theory of Schiffian reparenting—and also from a desire to offer space for reflection about a significant troubled moment in the history of TA.

At the time of Eric Berne’s sudden and untimely death in 1970, transactional analysis was flourishing, and its growth was producing such novel and diverse approaches as redecision therapy, reparenting, and radical psychiatry. As is so often the case with a burst of new ideas, these innovations were met with excitement, competition, and idealization.

Schiffian reparenting—a radical approach to the psychotherapy of schizophrenic disorders—was pioneered by Jacqui Schiff and her colleagues in the late 1960s. Although it was controversial within and outside of transactional analysis, Schiff’s work, and what came to be known as Cathexis theory, made important contributions to the development of transactional analysis. Ultimately, following a series of ethical and legal charges against Schiff and her staff, the International Transactional Analysis Association required her to undergo stringent peer supervision. By refusing that condition, Schiff terminated her own membership in the association.

It has required the passage of time and the thought and concern of second- and third-generation transactional analysts to sort through what happened. As part of that process, we decided to publish this theme issue to examine both the controversies and the contributions of reparenting. And as an indication of the importance of these issues to us as coeditors, we have both contributed articles to this journal.

In a rather implicit way, we let ourselves as coeditors be guided in this endeavor by the philosophy of writing laid out by Eric Berne (1966). In his view, writers have two obligations: integrity and craftsmanship. The articles included in this theme issue approach the topic of Schiffian reparenting with sensibility, a sound understanding of transactional analysis theory and practice, and respect for one’s capacity to learn from owning one’s failures. In our view, the authors have therefore fulfilled their obligations.

The journal opens with two papers, “Schiffian Reparenting: 15 Years in the Early TA Literature (1961–1975)” and “Transactional Analysis Literature on Schiffian Reparenting (1975–2022): Future Explorations,” both by N. Michel Landaiche. These articles provide an in-depth review and reflections on the existing literature that represented, illustrated, and critiqued reparenting theory and methods over the decades. Landaiche asks in his first article, “In regard to reparenting, can we hold both the contributions and the exploitations, gradually extricating ourselves from the latter harm and investing in the generative potential of the former?” (p. 21). Landaiche provides our community with an exceptional service in pulling all of these publications together in a single place to serve as resources for future researchers and clinicians.

In “Memories of Young Man: A Witness to the Hearings About Jacqui Schiff,” John McNeel, a member of the ITAA Board of Trustees during the time of the ethics crisis around Schiff and her work, offers a compelling, personal account of the organizational struggles to address ethical and clinical accountability for the use of radical techniques without sufficient supervision and oversight. McNeel’s article offers a window into the organizational trauma that this period created for the organization. He vividly conveys the impact of this time on the TA leadership and community members, which made it nearly impossible for those involved to gain sufficient distance to think through the meaning of those events at systemic or theoretical levels.

William Cornell, in “Schiffian Reparenting Theory Reexamined Through Contemporary Lenses: Comprehending the Meanings of Psychotic Experience,” undertakes a challenging critique of the theory underlying the methods of reparenting. He argues that serious flaws in that theory resulted in styles of intervention that stressed dysfunctional behavior and fostered dependency and adaptation to the Parental therapists at the expense of personal agency and the unfolding of meaning. He then discusses more contemporary thinking about psychotic processes within the TA and psychoanalytic literatures.

In “A Therapeutic Stance Addressing Destructiveness: What We Can Learn From Looking Back at the Experience With Schiffian Reparenting,” Nicoleta Gheorghe, Marina Brunke, Diana Deaconu, Alexandra Gheorghe, and Lucia Ioanas compellingly address the long-term implications of the use of techniques in reparenting that were physically or psychologically coercive. They argue that aspects of reparenting theory were dehumanizing and that in identifying the Parent ego state as the source of pathology, the source of one’s destructive or dysfunctional ways of being are placed outside of the self to be corrected by another parent figure rather than being explored for meaning and function. They warn that “the dehumanized mind treats self and others as mere objects, entities that are neither alive nor dead but that are liable to being used as instruments, owned or deprived of agency and autonomy” (p. 62).

This special issue of the TAJ concludes with another deeply personal essay, entitled “Schiffian Reparenting: A Critical Evaluation” by Cholena Mountain. She offers an overview of many of the critiques of the work of Jacqui Schiff and those who followed her. Mountain also shares some of her own experiences with traditional psychiatric hospitalization, which was followed by her life-changing involvement in a residential reparenting program in the United Kingdom. Mountain describes the significant changes in the structure of this reparenting program as developed by Jenny Robinson (Rawson, 2006; Robinson, 1998) . Her article is an eloquent rendering of a reassessment of the Cathexis model that is both critical and carefully considered, illustrating the therapeutic potential of some aspects of the reparenting approach.

We hope to covey in this theme issue of the Transactional Analysis Journal that the theories we articulate need to be considered seriously, not by viewing them as unquestionable truths that dictate our independent minds and practice but from a place that facilitates dialogue and acknowledges the troubles in which we, as practitioners, may find ourselves at times.

William F. Cornell
[email protected]

Diana Deaconu
[email protected]