Was It Deconfusion?
The tears came without a sound. Rhys turned his face towards the window, his hands still in his lap, and for a long moment neither of us spoke. I remember thinking, almost straight away, that I knew what this was. After more than a year of slow, careful work with a man who had spent his life holding everything together, the young part of him had finally been met. I had a word ready for it: deconfusion.
A week later, in supervision, I was asked a simple question. What did his crying actually look like? I started to describe it, and as I did, the word began to slip. He had made no sound. He had not wiped his face or moved in his chair. He had never quite let go. Something real had happened in that room, but I was no longer sure I had named it rightly.
This piece walks back through that session, one moment at a time, and asks what really changed. The answer I will gently build towards is that what changed was his Adult, and that it changed through something he experienced with me rather than anything I explained. I have come to call this decontamination through relationship. A belief the Child holds about relationships cannot be argued away, but it can be disconfirmed by one, and the Adult can then put into words what the relationship has already shown. Along the way, I look at how the different schools of TA might read the same few minutes, because their disagreements taught me as much as their agreements.
Rhys
Rhys is in his thirties and works in logistics. When he was eleven, his father’s drinking ended the marriage, and from then on Rhys was the sensible one at home. He managed the money, read his mother’s moods before she did, and got his younger brother to school. He came to therapy after a promotion at work, because he had started to feel flat and could not say why.
The session described here is inspired by a real encounter in my practice. Its shape is true to that encounter: the order of the moments, the way he cried, and the movement from feeling into words. To protect the client’s anonymity, his history, identifying details and the dialogue itself have all been changed, so the exchanges are reconstructed rather than recorded. That matters for how the piece should be read. I wrote these lines, so of course they fit my reading. They are offered as a clear surface on which to show the thinking rather than as evidence for it, so you can test it against your own work.
Our contract was to explore the flatness, and what it might be protecting him from. In this session he was telling me about a weekend visit home, when his mother had once again asked him to sort out her finances. He described it briskly, as a task he had handled. It was no trouble, he said.
Anyway
The first moment that matters comes early, and it turns on a single word.
“It’s easier that way,” he said. I wondered aloud who it was easier for, and how long he had been the one who sorts things out.
“Since Dad went,” he said. “I was eleven. Someone had to.”
“Someone did have to,” I said. “But that someone was meant to be an adult, not an eleven year old boy.”
He agreed quickly. “Yeah, well. Anyway.” His hands came together, his voice brightened, and he offered me something about work instead.
That word turned out to be the hinge of the session. My statement was a Confrontation in Berne’s (1966) sense, setting his belief that the family was his job against the reality of how young he had been. Underneath it sat what Berne (1961) called contamination: Parent and Child material held in the Adult as if it were plain fact. Rhys’s Adult was doubly contaminated. From his Parent came prejudice: keep it together, don’t burden anyone. From his Child came something closer to delusion: if I fall apart, nobody will hold it.
His quick agreement came from his Adult. “Anyway” came from somewhere younger. In the second order structure, I understand it as the Little Professor, A1, doing what it learned to do early: sensing that something tender was close and steering away from it, while P1 held the old rule in place. It came again a minute later, with a small smile, when I simply repeated his words, “old news”. Across the session it appeared each time I came close to the boy, and never when I spoke to the man.
I chose not to chase it, and not to follow him to work either. “We can go there,” I said. “Before we do, I noticed something just then. You were with me, and then you weren’t.” A Redecision therapist would probably have named the deflection more directly. A Cathexis therapist might call it a tangential transaction, one of the redefining transactions the Schiffs described, quietly moving the conversation somewhere safer (Stewart and Joines 2012). Both readings are fair. I wanted to name what had happened without making him wrong for it, and to leave the next step with him.
Stillness
The second moment is quieter. It is the moment the feeling arrives.
He did not take up the offer to talk about work, and he did not go further in either. He went very still.
“You’ve gone very still,” I said. “I’m not sure you’re breathing.”
He let out a breath. “I hadn’t noticed.”
“It looks like grief to me.”
He turned towards the window, and tears came.
In Berne’s (1961) terms I was making a behavioural diagnosis, reading his ego state from his body rather than his words. His smile and his “anyway” carried one message, that none of this mattered. The held breath carried another. Berne’s third rule of communication (Berne 1966) holds that what happens next is decided at the psychological level, so that was the level I spoke to. Hargaden and Sills (2002), building on Clark (1991), would call the naming an empathic specification: offering words to a feeling that has not yet found any. “To me” mattered. It left the feeling his to accept or to set aside.
What I most want to draw attention to is how he cried. He made no sound. He did not wipe his face, shift in his chair or let the crying take him over. He looked at the window and stayed exactly where he was. When he spoke again it was to say, “I don’t really do this,” and then, “It’s stupid. It was years ago.” Even as he cried, his Parent was commenting on it. The protection had loosened, but it was still there, keeping the most hurt part of him, the earliest Child, C1, just out of full view (Fowlie 2005).
Holding the weight
The third moment is the one I have thought about most, because it is where I put something of myself into the room.
I told him I could feel the weight of what that boy had carried, sitting there with him. Then I said, “It was a lot for an eleven year old to hold, and no one held it with you.”
These are the lines the schools would argue about most. Classically, my disclosure is permission given by example, a man feeling something and staying with it, and it quietly tests his Parent’s rule. He has shared his burden, I feel its weight, and I am fine. Relationally, the weight I felt can be understood as part of what we were making together, what Ogden (1994) calls the analytic third.
A Redecision therapist would be more cautious. The Gouldings wanted clients to find their own permission and their own strength, and might hear my second line as me doing some of the holding for him (Goulding and Goulding 1979). The Schiffs, whose reparenting deliberately provided what had been missing, would be more at ease, although their reparenting was a structured, contracted method rather than a single moment of care (Schiff et al. 1975).
I hold the Redecision challenge as a real one, and I do not want to answer it too quickly. The Gouldings would be right that a therapist who holds the feeling can quietly become the one who carries it, which is exactly the role Rhys learned at eleven. What reassures me is what happened next. Had the disclosure been for me, his attention would have turned to me, and it did not. Had my words rescued him, the feeling would have closed down (Karpman 1968), and instead he went on crying. The words that mattered most, “who I had to be”, were his, not mine. Where the Redecision reading still has something to teach me is in what comes next. If I go on holding the weight for him, I risk replacing one carrier with another. The next stage of the work is for him to hold this himself, with me alongside him rather than in his place.
Who he had to be
The last moment is the one the whole session had been moving towards. It is where his Adult catches up with what he has felt.
After a while he said, quietly, that he had always thought that was just who he is. The one who copes.
I offered back the start of his sentence. “Who you are...”
He finished it himself. “Or who I had to be, I suppose.”
“Had to be,” I said.
He breathed out. “That’s different, isn’t it.” When I asked what it was like to say it, he said it felt strange. Lighter, maybe.
This is decontamination (Berne 1961). A belief he had lived inside for over twenty years became visible as a belief, an adaptation a boy had needed to make rather than a fact about who he is. My part was small. I marked his words so they stayed with him, what Berne (1966) called Specification, and left the sentence open for him to complete. The content was his. “That’s different, isn’t it” is his Adult taking in something new, and checking with me that it is all right to have arrived there.
The Gouldings would hear “had to” as a decision a child made in order to survive, and a decision, once seen, can be made again (Goulding and Goulding 1979). No redecision happens here, but the decision has come into view.
Was it deconfusion?
I don’t think so, though I can see why I first thought it was, and a relational colleague could reasonably argue that it was.
The view that first unsettled my reading has a long history in TA. Berne counted cathartic expression among the routes to deconfusion, and Clarkson (1992) described it in similar terms (White 2021). A sharper version was offered to me in supervision. It places deconfusion in the very earliest layer of the Child. TA calls this third order structure, where even the earliest Child, C1, is divided again, into P0, A0 and C0. On this view, deconfusion shows itself as full, unguarded early feeling, the uncontained crying of a much younger child. I hold it as one supervisor’s reading rather than a position the literature has settled, but by that measure Rhys’s quiet tears were not deconfusion.
I find that view a useful check, but I would not want to adopt it as a definition. Tying deconfusion to how intense the feeling is risks mistaking release for repair. What changed my mind was something else. His protection was still in charge, and the clearest change in the session was in his Adult.
A classical colleague could still push back, and the challenge deserves an answer. If what changed was the Child’s old prediction, that nobody would hold it, then perhaps this was deconfusion after all, and his Adult was simply reporting it. I think the difference lies in what one session can show. In the room I could see his Adult change: a belief he had lived inside became something he could look at and name as an adaptation. Whether his Child now expects something different from relationships is a separate question, and one session cannot answer it. That would show over the following weeks and months, in whether feeling can arrive with me without the “anyway”, and whether he can let someone else hold some of the weight outside the room. Decontamination can be seen in a moment. Deconfusion, as I understand it, can only be seen over time.
Each school would read the moment through its own idea of deep Child work.
| School | How it tends to understand deep Child work | How it might read Rhys |
|---|---|---|
| Classical (Berne) | Deconfusion: resolving the Child’s archaic confusion, generally once the Adult is decontaminated and can act as an ally | Decontamination: his Adult separating belief from fact |
| Relational (Hargaden and Sills 2002) | Deconfusion as a gradual process in which the Child’s experience is felt, understood and integrated in relationship over time | Possibly a moment within deconfusion, though one moment held within protection is not yet the process |
| Cathexis (Schiff et al. 1975) | Reparenting: a structured, often regressive method in which old Parent messages are replaced, developed largely for severe disturbance | Not reparenting work. What shifted was his thinking |
| Redecision (Goulding and Goulding 1979) | The early scene re-entered in the present with its feeling, and a new decision made from the Child, whether the affect is quiet or intense | Not redecision. Feeling was present, but no new decision was made |
| Co-creative (Summers and Tudor 2000) | Less weight on repairing the past, more on what is newly possible in the present relationship | New experience now: feeling in company, which his Adult can use |
On every reading, what changed most clearly was his Adult. My own view is that deconfusion does not have to wait for decontamination to be finished. Hargaden and Sills treat Berne’s separation of the two as artificial, since deconfusion through the relationship begins from the start of the work (White 2021). In my experience, though, it becomes more available once a few things are in place: a strong working alliance, a strengthened Adult, some decontamination, and growing emotional literacy (Steiner 1997). With Rhys, those conditions were building. His protection held, and I respected it. Pushing past it to reach the moment I hoped for would have repeated his history, a relationship in which someone else’s need came first.
So this is where I am left. I helped to create an environment in which deconfusion became possible, but Rhys’s experience did not strike me as deconfusion. The possibility of that work remains, and it remains between him and me.
Decontamination through relationship
If this was decontamination, it was an unusual kind. In Berne’s account, decontamination is the Adult’s work. Through Interrogation, Specification and Confrontation (Berne 1966), the therapist helps the client set beliefs against reality, usually through facts, inconsistencies and the client’s own words.
Rhys’s Child contamination could not be reached that way. “If I fall apart, nobody will hold it” is not a statement about the world that information can correct. It is a prediction about relationships, and a prediction like that can only really be tested in one. In this session it was. He came close to falling apart in front of another man, and he was held. A few minutes later, his Adult put into words what the experience had already shown him.
The order matters, because the change was felt before it was thought. When he cried, the belief was disconfirmed in experience, before he had any words for it. When he said, “It’s stupid. It was years ago,” his Parent was still commenting, so the contamination had loosened but not yet gone. When I said, “No one held it with you,” and stayed, his Parent’s rule, don’t burden anyone, was tested too. Only when he said, “Or who I had to be, I suppose,” did his Adult find the words for what had already happened.
None of this will surprise readers outside TA. Alexander and French (1946) wrote about the corrective emotional experience. Weiss and Sampson (1986) described clients testing their pathogenic beliefs on the therapist, and changing when the therapist does not respond as the belief predicts. The Boston Change Process Study Group (Stern et al. 1998) distinguished implicit relational knowing, changed in moments of meeting, from explicit insight. Within TA, Hargaden and Sills (2001) place the relationship at the centre of change, and see Berne’s therapeutic operations as mapping both decontamination and deconfusion.
This is where I want to be precise about what I am adding. Hargaden and Sills use the relationship, through empathic transactions, mainly to describe deconfusion. Weiss and Sampson describe beliefs being disconfirmed by the therapist, in a different language. Within TA, Co-creative TA comes closest, with its emphasis on what client and therapist create together in the present rather than on repairing the past, which Summers and Tudor (2000) call present centred development. What I am suggesting is that a relational encounter can also do decontaminating work, and that this matters most for Child contamination. A delusion of this kind is a prediction about relationships, so facts and inconsistencies barely touch it. The evidence the Child will accept is relational. The encounter supplies that evidence, and the Adult’s task is then to name what the relationship has already shown. Classical decontamination tests a belief against facts. Decontamination through relationship tests it against an experience.
The idea has its limits. The corrective emotional experience has been criticised for inviting the therapist to play a part, and nothing here would have worked had I been performing a response to disconfirm his belief. A classical reader may still ask whether this is decontamination at all, or the beginning of deconfusion. My answer is that the change I can point to is in his Adult. By the end of the session he could hold a belief and an adaptation side by side, and know the difference between them.
In your own work
If you find yourself reaching for the word deconfusion after a moving session, it may help to pause and ask a few gentle questions. How did the feeling actually show itself, and was the client’s protection still quietly in charge? Where can you see the change, in the Child’s experience or in the Adult’s understanding? And is the word you have chosen serving the client, or your hope for the work?
None of these questions has a right answer. They simply slow us down enough to see what happened, rather than what we wished had happened. With Rhys, they led me somewhere I had not expected, and somewhere more useful.
What the word changes
What we call a moment shapes what we do next. Had I settled on deconfusion, I might have spent the following sessions reaching for the boy, hoping to find him again at the depth I thought I had glimpsed. Calling it decontamination keeps me alongside the man, whose Adult now has something new to work with, while the conditions for deeper work go on quietly building.
There is something more personal in it too, and I would rather name it than leave it implied. What I felt with Rhys was tenderness, a sense of him as a dear little boy, and anger at what he had been left to hold. Later I held a sadness on his behalf that he could not yet hold himself. Feelings like these pull towards a hoped for moment, and I think they shaped how quickly I reached for the bigger word. The more moved I am by a session, the more carefully I want to describe it. Our names for clinical moments are partly stories we tell about our own effectiveness, and I have learned to be a little suspicious of mine when they arrive quickly. Rhys did not need me to have witnessed something extraordinary. He needed me to see what had actually happened, and to stay with him there.
Appendix: the full exchange
For readers who would like the whole reconstructed exchange in one place, T marks my lines and R marks his. I have used R rather than C so that his lines are not confused with C1 and its neighbours in the structural model.
| Code | Content |
|---|---|
| R1 | It’s fine, honestly. I just sorted it, like I always do. It’s easier that way. |
| T1 | Easier for who, I wonder? |
| R2 | For everyone, I suppose. Mum gets stressed, and it only takes me ten minutes. |
| T2 | Ten minutes now. I’m thinking about how long you’ve been the one who sorts it. |
| R3 | Since Dad went. I was eleven. Someone had to. |
| T3 | Someone did have to. But that someone was meant to be an adult, not an eleven year old boy. |
| R4 | Yeah, well. Anyway. (rubs his hands together) I was going to tell you about work, actually. |
| T4 | (pause) We can go there. Before we do, I noticed something just then. You were with me, and then you weren’t. |
| R5 | Was I? I don’t know. It’s old news. |
| T5 | Old news. |
| R6 | (brief smile) Yeah. Anyway. |
| T6 | You’ve gone very still. I’m not sure you’re breathing. |
| R7 | (lets out a breath) I hadn’t noticed. |
| T7 | (softly) It looks like grief to me. |
| R8 | (looks towards the window, tears come silently) |
| T8 | (long pause) I’m here. Take your time. |
| R9 | I don’t really do this. |
| T9 | I know. And you’re doing it now, here. |
| R10 | It’s stupid. It was years ago. I don’t even know why it’s getting to me. |
| T10 | Something about saying it out loud, and hearing what that boy had to carry. I feel the weight of it, sitting here with you. |
| R11 | (nods, still crying) Yeah. |
| T11 | It was a lot for an eleven year old to hold, and no one held it with you. |
| R12 | (quietly) No. (pause) I always thought that’s just who I am. The one who copes. |
| T12 | Who you are... |
| R13 | Or who I had to be, I suppose. |
| T13 | Had to be. |
| R14 | Yeah. (breathes out) That’s different, isn’t it? |
| T14 | It is different. What’s it like, saying it? |
| R15 | Strange. Lighter, maybe. (small smile) |
References
Alexander, F., French, T. M. et al. (1946) Psychoanalytic Therapy: Principles and Application. New York: Ronald Press.
Berne, E. (1961) Transactional Analysis in Psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press.
Berne, E. (1966) Principles of Group Treatment. New York: Grove Press.
Clark, B. D. (1991) Empathic transactions in the deconfusion of Child ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 21(2), 92 to 98.
Clarkson, P. (1992) Transactional Analysis Psychotherapy: An Integrated Approach. London: Tavistock/Routledge.
Fowlie, H. (2005) Confusion and introjection: a model for understanding the defensive structures of the Parent and Child ego states. Transactional Analysis Journal, 35(2), 192 to 204.
Goulding, M. M. and Goulding, R. L. (1979) Changing Lives Through Redecision Therapy. New York: Brunner/Mazel.
Hargaden, H. and Sills, C. (2001) Deconfusion of the Child ego state: a relational perspective. Transactional Analysis Journal, 31(1), 55 to 70.
Hargaden, H. and Sills, C. (2002) Transactional Analysis: A Relational Perspective. Hove: Brunner Routledge.
Karpman, S. (1968) Fairy tales and script drama analysis. Transactional Analysis Bulletin, 7(26), 39 to 43.
Ogden, T. H. (1994) The analytic third: working with intersubjective clinical facts. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 75, 3 to 19.
Schiff, J. L. et al. (1975) Cathexis Reader: Transactional Analysis Treatment of Psychosis. New York: Harper and Row.
Steiner, C. with Perry, P. (1997) Achieving Emotional Literacy. London: Bloomsbury.
Stern, D. N., Sander, L. W., Nahum, J. P., Harrison, A. M., Lyons-Ruth, K., Morgan, A. C., Bruschweiler-Stern, N. and Tronick, E. Z. (1998) Non-interpretive mechanisms in psychoanalytic therapy: the “something more” than interpretation. International Journal of Psycho-Analysis, 79, 903 to 921.
Stewart, I. and Joines, V. (2012) TA Today: A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis, 2nd edn. Lifespace Publishing.
Summers, G. and Tudor, K. (2000) Cocreative transactional analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 30(1), 23 to 40.
Weiss, J., Sampson, H. and the Mount Zion Psychotherapy Research Group (1986) The Psychoanalytic Process: Theory, Clinical Observation, and Empirical Research. New York: Guilford Press.
White, T. (2021) Deconfusion of the Child ego state: an examination of the main contributions and how redecision adds to the literature. International Journal of Transactional Analysis Research, 12(2), 17 to 24.
