I’m OK, You’re OK Politics
Bill Falzett
February 02, 2007
For those of you who remember Transactional Analysis, this will probably make you feel warm and fuzzy. You will remember the warm fuzzy fairy tale of the ‘60s. At that time, we were trying to get people to realize that positive strokes/warm fuzzies were unlimited. You could say and do nice things to and with people indefinitely and never run out.
We were also pushing the idea that OK-ness was inborn and not negotiable. You don’t have to bargain for your self-esteem. You are OK, period. Your behavior can be not-OK. So, when someone says, “That’s stupid,” they might be referring to your behavior and not you. Of course, that introduces another sticky side to communication – the secret message level. They could also be saying, “You’re stupid.” Then you have to defend yourself. You have to defend your existence rather than what you have done. The struggle is now about morals, being, and justification.
Everyone knows, intuitively, that any given communication has at least 2 levels – what is said and what is meant. If I only respond to what is said, most people are going to describe me as naïve -- “You’re missing what they really mean.” The problem is that for a given statement there can be multiple meanings. If I try to track all of them, I will likely need to see a psychotherapist. If I decide on just one meaning, I run the risk of being described as a know-it-all or inflexible. I also might be wrong. Good grief. You see the dilemma.
But, I digress. The real point is that we need a political dialogue that starts from a basis of OK-ness. I’m OK with me. You are OK with me. We’re OK with each other. I know, I know, that’s too hard for someone who does not trust. I’m not saying that we don’t do stupid, ignorant, thoughtless, or mean things. We need to start from a place where we have faith that we’re OK and we can fix the behavior part. We should start with a faith in the good will of others. You do not have to give up your good sense to have such faith.
My mom used to say, “Heaven knows there are surely enough examples of not-OK.” That’s easy to prove -- watch or read the news. Not-OK is all over the place.
Maybe it’s sappy but I believe that if you have confidence in yourself and in the good will, intelligence, and creativity of others, you don’t have to worry about who is OK and who isn’t. You can just have a dialogue about how to get on with fixing things in interesting, creative ways and still be strong. Even President Reagan was in favor of trusting while also watching the silverware.
We were also pushing the idea that OK-ness was inborn and not negotiable. You don’t have to bargain for your self-esteem. You are OK, period. Your behavior can be not-OK. So, when someone says, “That’s stupid,” they might be referring to your behavior and not you. Of course, that introduces another sticky side to communication – the secret message level. They could also be saying, “You’re stupid.” Then you have to defend yourself. You have to defend your existence rather than what you have done. The struggle is now about morals, being, and justification.
Everyone knows, intuitively, that any given communication has at least 2 levels – what is said and what is meant. If I only respond to what is said, most people are going to describe me as naïve -- “You’re missing what they really mean.” The problem is that for a given statement there can be multiple meanings. If I try to track all of them, I will likely need to see a psychotherapist. If I decide on just one meaning, I run the risk of being described as a know-it-all or inflexible. I also might be wrong. Good grief. You see the dilemma.
But, I digress. The real point is that we need a political dialogue that starts from a basis of OK-ness. I’m OK with me. You are OK with me. We’re OK with each other. I know, I know, that’s too hard for someone who does not trust. I’m not saying that we don’t do stupid, ignorant, thoughtless, or mean things. We need to start from a place where we have faith that we’re OK and we can fix the behavior part. We should start with a faith in the good will of others. You do not have to give up your good sense to have such faith.
My mom used to say, “Heaven knows there are surely enough examples of not-OK.” That’s easy to prove -- watch or read the news. Not-OK is all over the place.
Maybe it’s sappy but I believe that if you have confidence in yourself and in the good will, intelligence, and creativity of others, you don’t have to worry about who is OK and who isn’t. You can just have a dialogue about how to get on with fixing things in interesting, creative ways and still be strong. Even President Reagan was in favor of trusting while also watching the silverware.
Print
Email
