Reciprocity schemes. Power games. Relationship between people
Many years ago, I read Eric Berne’s book “Games People Play”. It showed a new way of seeing the relationships between people. This theory explains many things and clarifies many of the dynamics working in relationships. But I had the feeling that there was still something to discover. For a long time, I asked myself:
“If the effects of certain power games are so disastrous, why is it so hard to stop them?”
I tried to give me answers: It is difficult to give up a habit – Gambling addiction–Refuse to back down, etc. However, I had the impression that all these hypotheses explain only some aspects of the problem. There had to be a deeper and more general explanation. And one day I found what I believe to be the solution:
Reciprocity means that people feel obliged to return (reciprocate) what they have received from others. If I play tennis and the opponent hits the ball to me, I think I must hit back. If someone gives me a gift, I must give him one myself. And if someone does me wrong, I think I must pay them back. Why?
Influence of education
The answer could be in our education. The child learns: “if someone greets you, you must respond politely”, if someone gives you something, you must thank them and then you must return “, etc. “If you don’t, you’re ungrateful, a bad child, an asocial, etc.”
So, is this poor education, and reciprocity should not exist? If we ask ourselves this question, we have lost sight of the real problem:
THE PROBLEM SHOULD NOT BE RECIPROCITY, BUT THAT IT SEEMS OBLIGATORY.
I don’t see why it shouldn’t be a pleasure (rather than a duty) to return a greeting, or return a gift, or even a simple kindness? Why should relationship between people follow a coded pattern?
But what would be the difference? A lot! And it would be the difference between a free, conscious and loving act and an obligatory act, done for not feeling guilty. Can you perceive the difference?
This is not a matter of education. Almost no parent says to a child: “If someone punches you, you must punch them back”. So, children do not feel guilty if they escape instead of returning the punch. And, in this case of missing reciprocation, nobody considers them ungrateful, nor terrible children, nor asocial. The opposite is true: People consider them obedient children, they behave properly. Negative reciprocity is, in fact, prohibited. The rule applies:
- Whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also. –
But did Jesus Christ only mean that one must turn the other cheek or also suggest that it is possible to get free from reciprocity? Personally, I like to believe that this phrase would not impose a different reciprocity scheme (instead of the old “Eye for an Eye”, the new “Turn the other cheek”). I prefer to believe that it shows the possibility of being active (and therefore acting unusually), rather than reactive and mechanical, in the relationships between people.
Trapped in a scheme
Since I used the term “Reciprocity Schemes,” I will try to explain what they are.
As we have seen, positive reciprocity obliges us to reciprocate the gift received, while the negative one obliges us (morally) not to reciprocate. What’s the moral? In both cases we feel obliged to act in a certain way, that is, to follow a certain pattern. Well, it is just that pattern that gives rise to reciprocity schemes.
Many of Aurora Mazzoldi’s introspective paintings represent psychological power games.
If we take as an example a detail of the painting “La Madre 1. Il Possesso” (the Mother 1. Possessiveness) we can see the interaction between a mother and her son. The mother considers her son as a property and has a limiting approach towards him. The son who would have, at least in theory, the possibility of getting out from that kind of relationship, stays there to be limited. What keeps them in the game? If the child wanted to get out, he should:
And this is very difficult. The son feels protected: “You give me your protection and I accept that you limit me”. This could be a rule of the game. But how to get out of it? Reciprocity gives us the key: we should interrupt it.
An experiment of no reciprocity
So far, we have presented the theory. Now we can see how to put it into practice. Imagine you want to end a relationship with someone. VISUALIZE THAT PERSON REALIZING THAT THERE WILL BE NO RECIPROCITY ANYMORE.
How do you feel? Do you experience a feeling of emptiness? That feeling keeps you from getting out of the power game. You can tell yourself that you will be well on your own, that if you interrupt the relationship, you will have everything to gain, etc. However, there is a price to pay, there is something to interrupt and there is a void to feel. Closing inwards, trying not to think, does not help us. Only when we ACCEPT to stop reciprocity, we will be free.
This brings us to reality and helps us to decide. We know what the price to pay is: the power (real or alleged) we will lose by interrupting the scheme. Thus, we can also consider more moderate options, such as that of interrupting only one type of reciprocity (a game we don’t like anymore) keeping, perhaps, the rest of the relationship.
The book “The Power of Targeted Choices” by Luis Pisoni and Aurora Mazzoldi gives further information on this topic in “Reciprocity and Reciprocity Schemes” (page 177-180),