Games People Play

2 COURTROOM 
Thesis
. Descriptively this belongs to the class of games which find their most florid expressions in 
law, and which includes "Wooden Leg" (the plea of insanity) and "Debtor" (the civil suit). 
Clinically it is most often seen in marital counseling and marital psychotherapy groups. Indeed, 
some marital counseling and marital groups consist of a perpetual game of "Courtroom" in which 
nothing is resolved, since the game is never broken up. In such cases it becomes evident that the 
counselor or therapist is heavily involved in the game without being aware of it. 
"Courtroom" can be played by any number, but is essentially three-handed, with a plaintiff, a 
defendant and a judge, represented by a husband, a wife and the therapist. If it is played in a 
therapy group or over the radio or TV, die other members of the audience are cast as the jury. The 
husband begins plaintively, "Let me tell you what (wife's name) did yesterday. She took the . . ." 
etc., etc. The wife then responds defensively, "Here is the way it really was . . . and besides just 
40

---

before that he was . . . and anyway at die time we were both . . ." etc. The husband adds gallantly, 
"Well, I'm glad you people have a chance to hear both sides of the story, I only want to be fair." At 
this point the counselor says judiciously, "It seems to me that if we consider . . ." etc., etc. If there is 
an audience, the therapist may throw it to them with: "Well, let's hear what the others have to say." 
Or, if the group is already trained, they will play the jury without any instruction from him. 
Antithesis. The therapist says to the husband, "You're absolutely right!" If the husband relaxes 
complacently or triumphantly, the therapist asks: "How do you feel about my saying that?" The 
husband replies: "Fine." Then the therapist says, "Actually, I feel you're in the wrong." If the 
husband is honest, he will say: "I knew that all along." If be is not honest, he will show 'some 
reaction that makes it clear a game is in progress. Then it becomes possible to go into the matter 
further. The game element lies in the fact that while the plaintiff' is overtly clamoring for victory, 
fundamentally he believes that he is wrong. 
After sufficient clinical material has been gathered to clarify the situation, the game can be 
interdicted by a maneuver which is one of the most elegant in the whole art of antithetics. The 
therapist makes a rule prohibiting the use of the (grammatical) third person in the group. 
Thenceforward the members can only address each other directly as "you" or talk about themselves 
as "I," but they cannot say, "Let me tell you about him" or "Let me tell you about her. "At this point 
the couple stop playing games in the group altogether, or shift into "Sweetheart," which is some 
improvement, or take up "Furthermore," which is no help at all. "Sweetheart" is described in 
another section (page 107). In "Furthermore" the plaintiff makes one accusation after the other. The 
defendant replies to each, "I can explain." The plaintiff pays no attention to the explanation, but as 
soon as the defendant pauses, he launches into his next indictment with another "furthermore," 
which is followed by another explanation—a typical Parent-Child interchange. 
"Furthermore" is played most intensively by paranoid defendants. Because of their literalness, it is 
particularly easy for them to frustrate accusers who express themselves in humorous or 
metaphorical terms. In general, metaphors are the most obvious traps to avoid in a game of 
"Furthermore." 
In its everyday form, "Courtroom" is easily observed in children as a three-handed game between 
two siblings and a parent. "Mommy, she took my candy away" "Yes, but he took my doll, and 
before that he was hitting me, and anyway we both promised to share our candy." 
ANALYSIS