What brings about change? What constitutes Cure?
There are very few papers published about “CURE.” Most medical research studies do not contain a definition of cured, and as a result cannot even recognize that a cure has occurred, much less determine the cause of the cure. I have looked in vain for ten years, trying to find research papers on “theory of cure.” None.
So, I was more than delighted when I learned that Transactional Analysis Journal (TAJ) had published two special editions, first in 1980, and then again in 2021, on the subject of cure. The 2021 edition was available on line at my local university, but I had to request the 1980 edition from the archives – and then scan and convert each article to text for easier searching and reference. In my online search I found two other papers in TAJ, and one in a different journal, Future Virology, on theory of cure. The full list of articles can be seen here. Over the next few months, possibly years – I will present my analysis of the cure concepts discussed in this journal.
The 1980 edition of TAJ began with a quote from TAJ’s founder, “From a transcription of Eric Berne in Vienna, 1968:
I want to end up saying, we are not interested in making progress. I am sure many therapists or all therapists have patients who have been making progress for ten, fifteen, or twenty years. We’re not interested. We want to cure the patient. That’s what we are trying to do. That’s why we have to be potent. – Eric Berne, TAJ, 3:1, p.68.
The first article in the 1980 edition was a letter from the guest editor, John R. McNeel.
Letter from the Guest Editor
In the introductory letter to the 1980 special edition on CURE, the guest editor quoted questions by Eric Berne, the founder of Transactional Analysis.
“So the problem is how are we going to cure patients, which is what I want to talk about. And I have some questions like: How many cured patients do you know? Have you ever cured a juvenile delinquent by psychotherapy? How many? Have you ever cured a schizophrenic and if not, why not?” -Eric Berne, Transactional Analysis Journal, January 1971, р. 6
and then continued “It has been my and pleasure to serve as the guest editor to this edition of the Journal which has been number completely devoted to seeking answers to…
“What brings about change?”
“What constitutes cure?”
Eric Berne urged fellow TA practitioners to think constantly in terms of cure. His early writings instill an excitement as he spoke of “cure” versus “progress.” …— “cure”… cure of individuals, families, organizations, couples, groups, society, and, yes, the world community.”
Theory of Cure
Neither Berne nor McNeel had an actual theory of cure as a foundation, and no concept of curing “an illness” or an element of illness. As psychologists, they were focused on curing the patient, their couples, families, organizations, groups, and society…
Both Berne and McNeel missed the concept of community, instead using the term “group” and “society.” All life entities live in communities of like and unlike individuals – and communities, from the simplest partnership, to the complex trio, to the family and friends, partners, civic communities, religious communities, business and corporate communities – can also become ill and be in need of cures.
Neither did they have a simple concept of “illness” or “curable illness” as that which we want to be cured. Both speak of “curing the patient” rather than curing the illness.
In the theory of cure, we cure illnesses. Each patient, each individual, couple, family, organization, society, and community might suffer many illnesses at one time. We can only cure one illness at a time if we are to know it is cured. Even if we manage to cure “two illnesses at once” a change in perspective might recognize that the two were actually a single illness.
Berne and McNeel had no foundation, no Theory of Cure, to guide their analysis and no books discussing the theory of cure with respect to healing, caring, and other cure concepts.
Transactional Analysis Journal articles on cure will probably not discuss cures of nutritional deficiencies or poisons, and neither will infectious diseases, and many non-infectious and chronic diseases be analyzed. Cures, for the most part will be about mental, emotional, and community disorders, with causes in the mental, emotional, spirit, and community domains – causes in diet, body, and environment will likely be ignored as they are non-mental and outside of the scope of Transactional Analysis. However, we should still see many clear relationships between their concepts of cure and those in the theory of cure for all types of illnesses, all types of cures: healing caring, and curing.
We will also see language confusion. Without a clear theory of cure, it’s hard to put the words in order. For example, McNeel asks:
“What constitutes cure?” – gives an example from his practice and then asks, “Are they cured?” – as if the couple is the illness to be cured. He should have asked: “What constitutes cured?” and “Is their illness cured?” This confusion over simple concepts, cure, cures, and cured, is common in many writings about cure.
In the theory of cure, a cure is a verb, an action that brings about a successful transformation of present cause, such that the identified illness is cured. But, McNeel identified a married couple in need of a cure or set of cures, without identifying any illness nor any cause – even after the cure is apparently completed and the cured status has been attained.
The letter ends with “I hope that we have added to your thought and made some real “progress” here toward knowing more about cure.”
With our theory of cure in hand, we can look back at the work that has been done, learn how it fits into today’s model, today’s theory of cure, and hopefully gain a better understanding of cure ourselves.
To your health, Tracy
Author: A New Theory of Cure