If Transactional Analysis makes it possible for two persons to understand what is going on between them, can the same language be used to understand what is going on between nations? As with individuals, the transactions between nations can be complementary only if the vectors on the transactional diagram are parallel. Adult-to-Adult transactions are the only complementary actions that will work in the world today in view of the self-determination of even the smallest nations. What once was a workable Parent-Child relationship between large and small countries is no longer complementary. The smaller countries are growing up. They do not want to be the Child any more. To their sometimes bitter criticisms we respond: How can they feel this way after all that we have done for them?
One of the most hopeful institutions for the analysis of international transactions is the United Nations. It has survived many crossed transactions. When the premier of a major nation pounds his shoe on the table, communication stops. When we are told “They will bury us”, it hooks our Child. But we do not have to respond with our Child nor do we have to respond with our sword rattling parent. And therein lies the possibility of change.
One has to tell a little child over and over again, “I love you”, but one “I hate you”, is all that is needed for a life-long negation of any further loving parental advances. If the little person could understand where the “I hate you” came from—how the child in his parent had been provoked to such an unreasoned and destructive display to the child he really cherished—then the little child would not have had to hang to this pronouncement as ultimate truth.
So, it is with this that we will bury the statement of Nikita Khrushchev. Although it was a rather coarse statement and promoted nothing constructive for his country or anyone else’s, it may take some of the sting out of it to remember that he was only a human being with a Parent, Adult, and Child; the content of which is different from the Parent, Adult, and Child of anyone else particularly that of American statesman.
The author is least likely to agree with the statement that: