The Relational and Transactional Languages of Purpose vs. Prove

Recap and Case Study Review

Let’s revisit our previous discussion and continue unpacking the remaining four unwritten rules or attributes that comprise the Relational and Transactional Languages.

Case Study Recap: Ava and Mia

A high school student, Ava, is being bullied by her peer, Mia, in subtle yet impactful ways. The bullying includes:

• Exclusion from social groups

• Spreading rumors

• Manipulating others to isolate Ava

Ava feels conflicted because she believed she and Mia had a close friendship. When Ava tries to stand up for herself or confront Mia, Mia deflects by making Ava feel guilty for ruining their friendship or overreacting.

As we discussed in the previous module, this simplified case study holds significant insights when analyzed through the Relational and Transactional Language Framework. It helps identify:

• Patterns in language

• The underlying fabric of interactions

• Whether intentions are collaborative or self-serving

This analysis provides clarity on whether the dynamics promote unity and mutual purpose or foster division and control, especially in the context of bullying within the Tentacles of Obligation Framework.

Unpacking the Remaining Unwritten Rules

To understand the dynamics at play in bullying, we will explore three key relational vs. transactional contrasts:

1. Purpose vs. Prove

2. Maximize vs. Minimize

3. Responsible vs. Rights

Ava’s Perspective: A Relational Approach

Ava viewed Mia as a genuine friend—someone whose purpose was to offer support, loyalty, and understanding. To Ava, friendship came with unspoken expectations of how friends should behave. She believed their shared interests, mutual connections, and trust meant Mia would stand by her when she needed help.

Ava, not recognizing that Mia wasn’t a true friend, might say:

“I know she hurt me, but she has done so much for me.”

Ava was maximizing the positives while downplaying or ignoring the harm. She was acting as a responsible friend, embodying the unwritten rules of friendship and the sense of duty and loyalty that comes with it.

Mia’s Perspective: A Transactional Approach

While appearing to be a friend, Mia would:

• Exclude Ava

• Spread rumors

• Pressure Ava into proving her friendship

When Ava expressed concerns, Mia would minimize them and accuse Ava of:

• Overreacting

• Trying to damage their friendship

Mia was attempting to redefine the unwritten rules of friendship, shifting focus from mutual support to personal power. Instead of valuing Ava’s feelings, she exercised her rights over responsibility.

Analyzing the Language Dynamics

Let’s compare Ava and Mia’s interaction through the Relational and Transactional Language Framework:

Ava naturally expects relational behavior in friendships, while Mia operates transactionally, forcing Ava into a position of proving her worth.

Key Takeaways for Parents and Educators

Maggie’s Legacy emphasizes that healthy friendships require both individuals to reciprocate relational language. When one person engages in relational language and the other manipulates with transactional tactics, an imbalance occurs, leading to:

• A sense of guilt and obligation for the relational individual

• A cycle of proving worth rather than mutual respect

By recognizing these patterns in language and behavior, parents can:

1. Identify and predict how conflicts in friendships develop.

2. Guide their child to recognize manipulative behaviors and set boundaries.

3. Help children protect themselves from toxic social dynamics.

Next Module: The Battle of the Tentacles of Obligation

What happens when Ava doesn’t realize that relational and transactional languages are two distinct approaches and instead tries to navigate both simultaneously?

Join us in the next module as we explore the psychological impact of these conflicting obligations, known as the Psychological Cage.