Articles

Reviews

Related Links

Related Research

TILT and Structural Pathology

by Kalman J. Kaplan, Ph.D.

Abstract

The present paper applies TILT (Teaching Individuals to Live Together), a psychosocial and developmental  model of individuation and attachment, to the problem of structural pathology.  TILT provides a unique vantage point towards contamination and exclusion.  Exclusion of an ego-state may actually be adaptive if that ego state (whether Parent or Child) is contaminating one’s Adult. When the Parent or Child ego state is no longer a contaminant, exclusion of it is no longer necessary, and thus non-adaptive.

In a series of papers in The Transactional Analysis Journal over a decade ago, Kaplan and his associates (Kaplan, Capace and Clyde, 1984; Kaplan, 1985, 1988, 1990) began to apply a psychosocial model of human development to transactional analysis. TILT (Teaching Individuals to Live Together) has offered a unique perspective on the development of self in relationship, postulating individuation-deindividuation and attachment-detachment as conceptually orthogonal dimensions underlying interpersonal distance.

The Original TILT Model

1. A Bidimensional versus a Unidimensional View of Distance

Interpersonal distance has been viewed as a unidimensional concept ranging from far or remote distance at one end to near or intimate distance at the other (see Figure 1). The "near" end of the distance dimension offers intimacy but carries the danger of loss of self. The "far" end offers space for oneself but is accompanied by the sensation of loneliness and isolation. These two endpoints, labeled A and C, are mutually exclusive. Intimacy is achieved at the expense of loss of self, and self-definition at the expense of isolation. As such, Position A represents enmeshment, and Position C disengagement. No wonder people seem confused, not knowing what they want or, even worse, wanting contradictory things. TILT suggests an alternate way of looking at the problem of interpersonal distance, one, which does not share this essentially pathological assumption on "mutual exclusivity" with regard to individuation and attachment. We think that this alternate view can be of great therapeutic value for our society.

2. Individuation and Attachment

As we begin to consider this problem further, it becomes apparent that the concept of interpersonal distance, in fact, contains two separate dimensions. The first of these can be conceptualized as distance from the other; the second, in contrast, denotes distance from oneself.

DISTANCE FROM THE OTHER REFERS TO THE ISSUE OF ATTACHMENT OR DETACHMENT

Attachment is an interpersonal construct and refers to the capacity to bond to another human being. Considerable research has emerged in the last few years around the issue of attachment. The work of John Bowlby (1969,1973) and of Mary Ainsworth (Ainsworth, 1972, 1973, 1979, 1982, 1989, Ainsworth et al 1978, Main 1973, Main et al 1985) and her associates both point to the importance of early attachment history on subsequent development. One way to think of attachment is as the capacity to reach out one's hand to another to give and take help.

DISTANCE FROM ONESELF, IN CONTRAST, REFERS TO THE ISSUE OF INDIVIDUATION OR DEINDIVIDUATION

Individuation is an intrapersonal construct and can be thought of as the capacity to differentiate oneself from others. The work of Margaret Mahler and her associates has stressed the importance of the individuation differentiation in human growth (cf. Mahler, Pine & Bergman, 1975). Individuation can be thought of as the capacity to stand on one's own two feet.

TILT superimposes a bidimensional view of distance on the traditional unidimensional one, thus clarifying the ambiguities in the traditional definitions of "near" and "far." A behavioral tendency toward interpersonal "nearness" (i.e., an approach response) potentially contains components of both attachment (nearness to other) and deindividuation (farness from self). Likewise, a behavioral tendency toward interpersonal "farness" (i.e., an avoidant response) potentially contains both an individuation component (nearness to self) and detachment (farness from others).

This reveals a fundamental difference between the unidimensional and bidimensional views of distance.

THE UNIDIMENSIONAL DEFINITION OF DISTANCE ASSUMES AN INVERSE RELATION BETWEEN ATTACHMENT AND INDIVIDUATION

The "near" end of the dimension denotes enmeshment (i.e., high attachment and low individuation). The "far" end of the dimension denotes disengagement (i.e., low attachment and high individuation). Both of these extremes are pathological. Health exists only at the middle points of moderate attachment and moderate individuation.

THE BIDIMENSIONAL VIEW, IN CONTRAST, DOES NOT ASSUME AN INVERSE RELATION BETWEEN ATTACHMENT AND INDIVIDUATION

Four positions emerge in this two-space, labeled respectively, A, B, C and D, in Figure 2. Positions A and C describe the two endpoints of the unidimensional view as described in Figure 1, A representing enmeshment and C, disengagement. Positions B and D represent distance configurations not apparent in the unidimensional presentation.

Both Cells A and C represent a fundamental imbalance. In Cell A, the individual is attached at the expense of individuation; in Cell C he is individuated at the expense of attachment. Cells B and D, in contrast, are balanced. In Cell B the individual shows is neither individuated not attached. In Cell D he is both individuated and attached. Health is defined as a balance between individuation and attachment rather than in moderation on these dimensions! This leads to an unexpected conclusion. Cell B, while undeniably undeveloped, represents the first level of a fundamentally healthy axis.

Developments in TILT

Over the years, TILT has deepened as a model in a number of ways, ultimately metamorphosing as a full-length book (Kaplan, 1998). First, TILT has been tested within the context of family structure, developing a distinction between walls and boundaries, which enable us to focus much more on the influence of parental styles on the individual's personality structure. Secondly, TILT has more fully differentiated needs and fears with regard to both individuation and attachment, in the process expanding our conceptions to include eight personality positions. Thirdly, TILT has become more truly a life-span developmental model, focusing on developmental versus clinical axes at each life stage. All three of these developments have led us to again explore linkages between the framework of TILT and basic conceptions of TA, this time on the problem of structural pathology (Berne, 1961, Chapter 4).

1. Walls and Boundaries

The first development of TILT has been the distinction between "walls" and "boundaries". The term "boundary" has been employed by the family therapist Salvatore Minuchin (1974). What is a boundary for Minuchin? It can be thought of as the points of interchange between one member of a family and another. Minuchin (1974, p.54) describes an enmeshed or overinvolved family as having diffuse boundaries. Such a family has difficulty providing sufficient privacy. A disengaged or underinvolved family, in contrast, is described as having rigid boundaries. This type of family should have difficulty promoting sufficient communication or intimacy. Minuchin sees healthy families as having clear boundaries, lying in the middle between diffuse boundaries and rigid boundaries. This family should allow for both some privacy and also some communication and intimacy.

However Minuchin's conception of boundaries, while quite popular, implicitly assumes the same pathological unidimensional view of distance described above. Boundary is simply another way of talking about interpersonal distance. Diffuse boundaries denote the "near" pole of the distance dimension. Rigid boundaries denote the "far" pole of the same distance dimension. Finally, clear boundaries represent a "balanced" or "middle" distance position neither too near or too far. This defines health as the absence of pathology rather than anything positive in itself.

Consider an alternate approach to this problem, one in keeping with TILT's bidimensional definition of interpersonal distance.

INDIVIDUATION AND ATTACHMENT ARE NOT OPPOSITE BUT INDEPENDENT

This approach offers a distinction between walls (denoted in this paper by squares) and boundaries (denoted by circles). Walls denote barriers between persons and thus represent an interpersonal construct. They can be conceptualized as ego defense. Boundaries, in contrast, denote the contours of the self and thus represent an intrapersonal construct. They can be conceptualized as ego strength. In a nutshell, walls exist to "keep the other out," boundaries to "keep the self in." Walls can be thought of as a bandage around the skin and boundaries as the surface of the skin itself.

This distinction between walls and boundaries provides a richer framework than that available in Minuchin's framework. Table 1 denotes walls by outer squares and boundaries by inner circles. Walls denote the attachment-detachment dimension (distance from the other) and can take on three levels. Detachment is represented by wall rigidity or impermeability, semi-attachment by moderate permeability of walls, and attachment by wall permeability. Boundaries denote the individuation-deindividuation dimension and can also take on three levels. Individuation is represented by boundary articulation, semi-individuation by moderate articulation of boundaries , and deindividuation by inarticulation of boundaries.

2. Needs and Fears

Western culture has erroneously come to stigmatize the individual with needs as "needy." Such an individual is seen as childish and dependent. Yet an equally plausible stance is to see needs as the mark of a mature person. It has been said that great people have great needs, lesser people, lesser needs.

A unique aspect of the TILT model is the independent measurement of four subscales: Need for Individuation (NI), Fear of Individuation (FI), Need for Attachment (NA), and Fear of Attachment (FA). Individuation is defined as the capacity to differentiate one's self from another; deindividuation as the lack of capacity for this differentiation. Attachment is defined as the capacity to connect or bond affectionately to another person; detachment as the absence of this capacity.

TILT assumes an inherent ambiguity in our traditional definitions of near and far and employs the Individuation-Attachment Questionnaire (IAQ) to separate out the often fine distinctions found in relation to these dynamics. For example, agreement with the statement, "It is important for me to take other people's needs into account,'' may indicate a need for attachment. However, agreement with the statement, "It is important for me to meet other people's expectations of me," may indicate a fear of individuation. Likewise, agreement with the statement, "Other people's judgment of me seldom determines how I feel about myself" may indicate a need for individuation. On the other hand, agreement with the statement, "A person does not need involvement with others to be fulfilled." may indicate a fear of attachment.

3. Developmental versus Clinical Axes

a. The Developmental Axis. Consider first the developmental axis. The B individual is regressed and defended. His energy is concentrated in fears, both of attachment and of individuation. Fear of attachment results in rigid walls; fear of individuation in amorphous boundaries. The B person is heavily defended because he is so fragile. B's energy is invested exclusively in fears.

As the individual develops on the BED axis, he moves into the E position. The E individual has resolved his fears of individuation and of attachment. He is different from the B individual in that he no longer has invested his energy into fear. Yet he has not yet been able to convert his energy into genuine needs. The E individual can be described as having moderate walls and moderate boundaries. As he becomes more defined, he is able to relax his defenses.

Now consider the D individual. He has matured to the point of having genuine needs, both for attachment and for individuation. D's energy can be described as exclusively invested in needs. His need for attachment results in permeable walls. His need for individuation results in articulated boundaries (See Figure 3a).

Taken as a whole, development on the BED axis involves the conversion of fear-energy into need-energy. As the individual matures, fears become resolved and energy can thus be withdrawn from them. As the individual matures further, needs develop and can be expressed and energy can be invested in them. At each level of development, investment of energy is balanced between individuation and attachment, first in fears, later in needs. This suggests yet another TILT axiom.

AS AN INDIVIDUAL MATURES, WALLS ARE REPLACED BY BOUNDARIES.

Consider a young girl who falls in the schoolyard and scrapes her knee. Her mother cleans the wound and bandages it. The bleeding skin can be thought of as a shattered boundary and the bandage as a protective wall. In a few days the girl's mother sees the wound as healing and she removes the bandage. The restored boundary has replaced the need for a wall, which is now superfluous. What is critical here is that wall application and boundary development are coordinated.

b. The Clinical Axis. The clinical axis is very different. Here the application of walls is not coordinated with the establishing or restoration of boundaries (see Figure 3b). Consider first the A individual. His energy is invested in fear of individuation and in need for attachment. He is enmeshed or a dependent personality disorder and all his energy is directed toward avoiding abandonment. This is clearly an imbalanced neurotic position. The enmeshed neurosis can be summarized as follows:

WALLS ARE LOOSENED PREMATURELY - BEFORE BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED

The flip side of this position is the equally imbalanced C individual. His energy is invested in fear of attachment and in need for individuation. He is disengaged or an avoidant personality disorder. All his energy is directed toward avoiding absorption. This also is an imbalanced neurotic position. This disengaged neurosis can be expressed as follows:

WALLS ARE MAINTAINED UNNECESSARILY - AFTER BOUNDARIES HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED

Now let us consider more severe clinical pathologies. First consider Position (A/C)Ind. This represents a borderline configuration-depressive subtype. This individual's energy is invested totally in the individuation dimension. However, it is equally distributed between needs and fears. Such a person is ambivalent about individuation, both needing it and fearing it. However, he is indifferent about attachment, neither needing it nor fearing it. This depressive subtype can be defined as having a boundary which vacillates between articulateness and amorphousness. His wall, in contrast, are moderate.

Consider now position (A/C)Att, the borderline configuration -paranoid subtype. The energy of this individual has invested all his energy in the attachment dimension, equally distributed between needs and fears. This person is ambivalent about attachment, both needing it and fearing it. However, he is indifferent towards individuation. This paranoid subtype has a moderate boundary but a wall which vacillates between rigidity and permeability.

Consider finally position (A/C)Tot This represents a psychotic configuration. This individual has both need and fear energy invested in both individuation and attachment. He is ambivalent about both forces. His wall vacillates between rigidity and permeability and his boundary between articulateness and amorphousness.

All these clinical positions represent states of conflict between needs and fears. In the neurotic positions, energy-investment is imbalanced between individuation and attachment. In the borderline positions energy is invested in only one of the two issues, and equally balanced between fears and needs. In the psychotic position, energy is totally conflictual, invested equally in needs and fears for both individuation and attachment.

The Components of Structural Pathology

Structural pathology according to Berne (1961) deals with anomalies of psychic structure, two of the commonest being contamination and exclusion. Contamination, for Berne, refers to the intrusion of one ego state into another and is best illustrated by prejudice on the one hand and by delusions on the other (p. 31). Exclusion, in contrast, denotes the shutting out of an ego state and is manifested by a stereotyped, predictable attitude which is steadfastly maintained as long as possible in the face of any threatening situation (p. 27).

1. Contamination

Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 50-53) distinguish three types of contamination: a) Parent contamination, b) Child contamination, and c) Double contamination. In Parent contamination, (Figure 4 a), Parent content intrudes into the Adult causing the individual to mistake Parental slogans for Adult reality. In Child contamination, (Figure 4 b), Child content intrudes into the Adult causing the individual to cloud his grown-up thinking with beliefs from his childhood. Double contamination (Figure 4 c) occurs when a person re-plays a Parental slogan, agrees to it with a Child belief and mistakes both of these for Adult reality.

2. Exclusion

Stewart and Joines (1987, pp. 53-55) likewise discuss three analogous types of exclusion. People who exclude Parent will operate with no ready-made rules about the world (Figure 5a). Instead, they make their own rules afresh in every situation. People who exclude Child will shut out the stored memories of his own childhood (Figure 5b). They may be regarded as a "cold fish" or "all head." A person in constant Adult excludes both the Parent and Child ego states (Figure 5c). This "double exclusion" results in a person functioning solely as a planner, information-collector, and data-processor with no real evidence of his own plan or any real capacity to join in activities with others.

TILT and Structural Pathology

1. Fears and Contamination

Contamination is represented in TILT terminology by High Fears. Child contamination is denoted by high Fear of Individuation (FI). The child believes he cannot survive on his own and is thus terrified of being left on his own. Parent contamination is denoted by high Fear of Attachment (FA). The Parental slogan is that one must stand on one's own two feet. Thus, dependence on other is seen as weakness. Double contamination is denoted by high Fears of both Individuation and Attachment. Such an individual carries both the childhood fear of being alone and the parental injunction against dependency.

2. Needs and Exclusion

Exclusion is represented in TILT terminology by low needs. Parent Exclusion is represented by a low Need for Individuation. Such an individual does not have a strong need to formulate plans or to take responsibility for his actions. Child Exclusion is represented by a low Need for Attachment. This person does not have a strong need to join in interpersonal activities, instead remaining as an observer on the sidelines. Double exclusion represents a person who does not seem to have needs to formulate his own identity nor to become too attached to others.

3. TILT Position, Contamination and Exclusion

In this final section of this paper, we examine the specific TILT position with regard to the questions of contamination and exclusion (see Table 2) . As always, TILT provides a unique vantage point and some unexpected conclusions.

a. The Developmental Axis. On the developmental axis, the Adult protects himself from contamination by Child and/or Parent through excluding that ego state.

WITH CONTAMINATION, EXCLUSION IS FUNCTIONAL. WITH NO CONTAMINATION, EXCLUSION IS DISFUNCTIONAL

The Regressed Type B Adult excludes Parent and Child ego states (low needs of both individuation and attachment) because he is contaminated by them (high fears of both individuation and attachment). The Emerging Type E Adult is no longer contaminated by Parent and Child ego states (low fears) but still excludes them (low needs). Finally, the Mature Type D Adult comes to overcome his exclusion of these ego states (high needs and low fears).

b. The Clinical Axis. On the clinical axis, in contrast, no such coordination between contamination and exclusion occurs. The Type A adult is enmeshed (High Need for Attachment and Fear of Individuation). He excludes his Parent and is contaminated by his Child. The Type C adult is the opposite (High Fear of Attachment and Need for Individuation). He is disengaged, excluding his Child, while contaminated by his Parent. These types are both neurotic.

The next two borderline types show the following structural pathology. The Depressed Borderline Adult (A/C)Ind is contaminated by his Child and excludes it (ambivalent toward individuation and indifferent toward attachment). The Paranoid Borderline Adult (A/C)Att has the opposite problem, contaminated by his Parent and excluding it (ambivalent toward attachment and indifferent toward individuation). Each of these types experiences conflict when its respective volatile (ambivalent) issue becomes triggered.

The psychotic Adult (A/C) Tot shows the following pathology, double contamination of both the Child and Parent ego states, without the protection of excluding these states. Such an individual carries both the childhood fear of being alone and the parental injunction against dependency and is conflicted in all areas of his life.

c. Summary. TILT has been applied to an analysis of structural pathology in Transactional Analysis. Low Needs (for Individuation and Attachment) are linked to Exclusion (of Parent and Child) and High Fears (of Individuation and Attachment) are linked to Contamination (of Child and Parent). TILT provides a unique vantage point regarding structural pathology, leading to the following observation. Exclusion of a contaminating ego state is functional. Exclusion of a non-contaminating ego state, however, is dysfunctional.

REFERENCES

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1972). Attachment and dependency: A comparison. In J. Gerwirtz (Ed.) Attachment and Dependency (pp. 97-137) Washington, D.C.: V. H. Winston & Sons.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1973). The development of infant-mother attachment. In B.M. Caldwell & H. N. Ricciuti (Ed.) Review of Child Development Research (Vol. 3). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1979). Infant-mother attachment. American Psychologist, 34, 932-937.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1982). Attachment: Retrospect and prospect. In C. M. Parkes & Stevenson-Hinde (Eds.), The place of attachment in human behavior, (pp. 3-30). New York: Basic Books.

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1989). Attachments beyond infancy. American Psychologist. 44. 709-716.

Ainsworth, M. D. S., Blehar, M. C., Waters, E., & Wall. S. (1978). Patterns of attachment: A psychological study of the strange situation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Berne, E. ( 1961 ). Transactional analysis in psychotherapy. New York: Grove Press.

Berne. E. (1964). Games people play. New York: Grove Press.

Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss (Vol. 1): Attachment. New York: Basic Books.

Bowlby, J. (1973). Attachment and loss (Vol 2): Separation, Anxiety and Anger. New York: Basic Books.

Erikson, E. (1951, revised 1963). Childhood and Society. New York: W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. (1968). Identity: Youth and Crisis. New York: W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. (1980). Identity and the Life Cycle. New York: W. W. Norton.

Erikson, E. (1982). The Life Cycle Completed. New York: W. W. Norton.

Ernst, F. (1971). The OK corral: The grid for get-on with. Transactional Analysis Journal. 1(4), 33-42.

Freud, A. (1936). The Ego and the Mechanisms of Defense. New York: International Universities Press

Gilbert, J. ( 1985). A response to a bidimensional distancing approach to transactional analysis. Transactional Analysis Journal, 15, 142?143.

Harris, T. (1969). I'm Okay, You're Okay. New York: Harper and Row.

Kaplan, K.J. (1985). A response to Gilbert's comments. Transactional Analysis Journal, 15, 144145.

Kaplan, K .J. (1987). Jonah and Narcissus. Self-integration versus self-destruction in human development. Studies in Formative Spirituality, 8, 33?54.

Kaplan, K. J. (1988). TILT: Teaching individuals to live together. Transactional Analysis Journal, 18, 220-230.

Kaplan, K. J. (1990). TILT for Couples: Helping Couples Grow Together. Transactional Analysis Journal, 20, 229-244.

Kaplan,, K. J. (1998) TILT: Teaching Individuals to Live Together. Philadelphia: Brunner-Mazel.

Kaplan, K J., Capace, N.K., Clyde. J.D. (1984). A bidimensional distancing approach to transactional analysis: A suggested revision of the OK corra1. Transactional Analysis Journal, 15, 114-119.

Mahler, M. S. (1968) On Human Symbiosis and the Vicissitudes of Individuation. New York: International Universities Press

Mahler, M. S., Pine, F. & Bergman, A. (1975). The Psychological Birth of the Human Infant. New York: Basic Books.

Main, M. (1973). Analysis of a peculiar form of reunion behavior seen in some day-care children who are home-reared. In R. Webb (Ed.) Social Development in Daycare. Baltimore, Md.: Hohn Hopkins University Press.

Main, M., Kaplan, N, & Cassidy, J. (1985). Security in infancy, childhood, and adulthood: A move to the level of representation. In I. Bretherton & E. Everett (Eds.), Growing Points of Attachment Theory and Research. Monographs of the Society for Research in Child Development, 50 (1-2, serial no. 209), 66-104.

Minuchin, S. (1974) Families and Family Therapy. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.

Noam, G. G., O'Connell Higgins, R. & Goethals, G. W. Psychoanalytic approaches to developmental psychology. In B. B. Wolman and G. Stricker (Eds.) Handbook of Developmental Psychology. Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey: Prentice-Hall, Inc.

Stewart, I. A.; Joines, V. (1987) . TA Today: A New Introduction to Transactional Analysis. Nottingham and Chapel Hill: Lifespace Publishing.

Copyright © Kalman J. Kaplan, all rights reserved.

About the Author

Kalman J. Kaplan, Ph. D., is a professor of psychology at Wayne State University and the University of Illinois College of Medicine.