GETTING BEYOND AN "OK" TITLE A book review of I’m OK—You’re OK: A Practical Guide to Transactional Analysis by Thomas A. Harris, M. D.  (© 1969 Harper and Row ISBN:1578660750)

 

If any book was more of a lightning rod for fundamentalists than I'm OK – You're OK, it could only have been Dr. Benjamin Spock's book on child-rearing.  I have often heard ministers/speakers refer to the title of this book and quickly jump to their point that we are all sinners in need of a Savior and that none of us is really “OK.” So much so that listeners could assume that this popular relational analysis guide was dangerous heresy that Christians should avoid. It undermined the gospel, and provided a sense of security where none should be, in the opinions of many.

 

Readers may wonder why we at ill-legalism would review an older book, but this one deserves resurrection and reconsideration due to major misconceptions about its purpose and message. First published in 1967, the most recent reprint is 2004, indicating continued interest in transactional analysis. The typical fundamentalist black/white dichotomy lacks the nuances of reality in its critique. This hinders a more in-depth examination of I’m OK—You’re OK and what Dr. Harris’ concepts bring to relationships, especially those relationships within Christianity where it is understood that people are not okay. In an author’s note Dr. Harris explains that some of the terms have specific meaning, one of them being “OK.” I wonder if some critics have even bothered to get beyond the title, but have resorted to parroting the condemnation of others in an unthinking non-analysis paraded as insight.

 

First, I agree that we are not OK. Now, with that out of the way, let’s look inside the book itself. It is most important for readers to indulge Harris on his specific definitions for clarity’s sake, accepting his definitions for “parent,” “child,” and “adult.” He extrapolates that these three “psychological realities” are within each of us. For purposes here, the "Parent" is domineering, shaming, and rule oriented. The message of the “Parent” is “You are not okay.” The “Child” is passive, self-blaming, looking to others for significance. The message of the “Child” is, “I’m not okay.” The “Adult” is busy analyzing data from the parent to see if it is accurate. The “Adult” is able to move beyond the feelings of rejection in the fragile child, and come to relational terms with those around him or her which are not condescending and not self-rejecting, but is “I’m OK—You’re OK.”

 

Harris explains four possibilities which describe these interactive (transactional) dynamics:

 

·        I’m not OK—You’re OK

·        I’m not OK—You’re not OK

·        I’m OK—You’re not OK

·        I’m OK—You’re OK

 

He explains that through examining these positions people are able to move into an adult role within their relationships, assuaging pain and frustration. Ironically, some of the emotional dynamics within fundamentalism launch these same messages. Restating Dr. Harris' four stances from a fundamentalist perspective would look something like this:

 

• I’m okay because I’m right about God, but you are not okay.
• I’m not okay, and neither are you because we are all condemned before God.
• I’m not okay, but you must be okay because you claim to speak for God.
• I'm okay because I am right with God and you are okay because you are right with God too.

 

Interestingly, even the last one (I’m OK—You’re OK) is mutilated and changed into an elitist club. We are okay, but “they” are not okay.

 

Rarely do fundamentalists and legalists come to the relationship table with a true I’m okay, you’re okay stance. They are either on the giving end, or the receiving end of guilt and shame. After all, we are all sinners, we are in need of a Savior. Some say, "I am what I am by the grace of God," but have a hard time letting others be what they are by the same grace of God.

 

Condemning Harris' popular book based on uncritical non-analysis and hearsay rumor is just one more way we allow our overly alarmist heresy-hunting to get in the way of our heart needs. Ignoring these needs produces a tendency to hold others at arm’s length, to condemn from our vantage point, to make others accountable to us, or to give others undue power over us.

 

Psychology is not the total answer to life’s ills. However, the propensity to silence the voice of psychology even before opening the pages of a book severs truth that God may have coming from that arena. Fundamentalism and legalism fail us here—more than anywhere else—in our relational and emotional needs.

 

Why is it that “I’m okay, and you’re okay”  is better, in light of Scripture, than “I’m not okay—you’re not okay”?  In one sense, it’s not, because human beings are not okay spiritually or relationally. In another sense, Jesus says the same thing when he tells us not to judge each other, and when he encourages us to trust his grace. Readers may wish to read Chuck Swindoll’s The Grace Awakening for a similar message if they are still not comfortable with Harris’ book.  The OK/OK positioning eradicates the manipulative, dishonoring tactics many legalists use as tools to keep others in line (and also, unfortunately, use for actual parenting). It allows for relationship truth—we are equals, we need acceptance—to coexist with theological truth—we are all sinners. We can be both okay, and not okay at the same time.

 

I'm OK--You're OK provides examples for dealing with those who are "parenting" over us. Too bad some of them have kept us from reading this book for a very long time.

 

by Rachel Ramer