Conversation with Jennie McNamara: how transactional analysis in Russia found its own voice

Full Text

The interview was conducted by Liliia Lukianova, reviewer for the journal Transactional Analysis in Russia, with the support of interpreter Katerina Ermishina-Martyukova.

Jennie’s Encounter with Transactional Analysis: ”It Blew My Mind!”

Reference from the magazine «TA in Russia»

— How did your childhood experience influence your decision to become a psychotherapist?

— My childhood was extremely happy. I was deeply loved by both my mother and father. I was born shortly after the end of the Second World War. My father had been a prisoner of war and was presumed to have died during the war. But in fact, he survived and eventually returned home. My family were overjoyed, and I was born into a loving and happy environment. I believe this gave me a deep foundation of love and empathy, which later enabled me to understand and care for other people in the way that I myself had been loved. I think this is one of the foundations of an effective therapist - the ability to embody empathy. However, my life later took a different direction. When I was four years old, I contracted polio and became paralysed from the neck down. I was expected to die. During that time, I had a vision of flying out of my body above the flower beds of the hospital. I believe it was a spiritual experience. My mother was religious, and throughout my childhood we often visited and helped other people. Then, when I was sixteen, I met my first boyfriend and became pregnant. By the age of eighteen, I already had two children. I was desperately unhappy, and my marriage was very difficult because my husband suffered from a serious mental illness. In trying to understand and help him, I began reading books on depth psychology, psychiatry and psychotherapy. From that moment, my path gradually led me towards psychotherapy, first through the work of Carl Rogers, and later through transactional analysis.

— Your first encounter with psychotherapy came through Carl Rogers. Were you his client, or did you first come across his work through reading his books?

— I first encountered his work through reading his books and attending training courses. I also knew someone who was a friend of Carl Rogers.

— Could you tell us about the moment when you first became interested in transactional analysis?

— At that time, I was working in a radical psychiatry unit funded by the government. Through that work, I was supported to attend a TA 101 course with Michael Reddy, who was both a Jesuit priest and a transactional analysis trainer. Before attending that course, I had never even heard of transactional analysis. During the training, Michael asked whether anyone had had a dream. I was very naïve and innocent at the time, so I simply said, “Oh yes, I’ve had a dream,” and shared it with him. Looking back now, I realise it was quite a risky dream to tell publicly, but I did not understand that then. He then did a significant piece of work with me during the 101. It completely blew my mind. Something opened up inside me, I still find it difficult to fully explain, but it opened something profound in me. From that moment on, I wanted to know more about transactional analysis.

— In one of your interviews or conversations, you mentioned that your great-great-grandfather was a priest. It is also interesting to hear that the first person who introduced you to transactional analysis was a priest as well. Do you see any connection there? Is there something particularly meaningful about this for you?

— I had never thought about that before, Lilia. That is so interesting, I can actually feel goosebumps. Yes, I think my script is very important in the work that I do. Dmitry Shustov used to say that I had a very powerful religious ego state. He was teasing me, but he was also right. I think that many people in TA sometimes experience script as something negative, something that needs to be overcome or radically changed. But I believe that our script also carries ancient knowledge and ancient wisdom that we need to rediscover and actualise, even as we challenge it. We should not, as the saying goes, throw the baby out with the bathwater. I believe that a deep interpretation of script is both necessary and valuable. For me, it is a little like trying to decode ancient texts, a language we have somehow forgotten. And I think that is part of the beauty of script.

— What you are saying about script really resonates with me. And it seems to me that this spiritual connection is also very important. Could you name the main TA trainers and teachers who influenced you?

— My main TA trainer was, of course, Petruska Clarkson. She had a profound influence on me, particularly in terms of discipline and structure. At the same time, many other European trainers also influenced me greatly - Salomon Nasielski and Antoinette de Möll, with whom I did much of my examination preparation; Carla Moiso; Richard Erskine; Mary Goulding; and Claude Steiner. I was very fortunate to be examined by Claude Steiner, Mary Goulding and Jack Dusay. I feel incredibly lucky to have had contact with such great minds and such strong and inspiring people. There were many others as well. Maria Gilbert and Sue Fish were also part of that professional environment, although Sue Fish and I trained together in the same training group, so we were more peers and fellow students than teacher and trainee.

— Claude Steiner examined you. What do you remember most about him?

— He was wonderful. I attended several trainings with him because Petruska Clarkson would invite people such as Claude, Carla and others into our training programme. So we came to know them not only through being trained by them, but also by spending informal and social time together. What I remember most about Claude Steiner was that he really saw people – or at least, he saw me. He knew how to be with people and how to connect deeply. He was incredibly powerful in the way he gave strokes, and also in the way he confronted people when the strokes they were giving were not authentic or appropriate. What he did was, in many ways, very simple but at the same time extraordinarily powerful.

Training with Petruska Clarkson: ”To Pay for My Training, I Sewed Dresses for Her”

— Petruska Clarkson was the person who created a bridge and brought many of these trainers to England. Do you remember your first encounter with her, and what impression she made on you?

— Oh yes, very clearly. I was attending an ITAA conference and walking along a corridor when I saw two very tall women walking towards me in long coats and large, rather old-fashioned hats. They looked quite unusual, and I remember thinking, “My God, who are these women?” At that moment, I didn’t yet know that they were Petruska and Sue. I signed up for one of Petruska’s workshops at the conference, without realising that she was one of the women I had seen earlier. When I entered the workshop, she looked completely different. She was no longer dressed in those heavy clothes, but instead wore flowing, elegant and beautiful garments. The workshop focused on regression therapy. During the session, she guided us into very early states, almost back to infancy. Once again - much like my earlier experience with Michael Reddy - I found myself thinking, “What is this?” It felt extraordinarily powerful. In many ways, her way of working reminded me of Michael Reddy’s approach. The experience had a very deep impact on me.

— What, in your opinion, distinguished Petruska from other psychotherapy trainers? Perhaps her approach or her teaching style?

— I do not really like comparing people, because every trainer I have met has their own unique gifts, capacities and ways of sharing both their knowledge and their authentic selves. What I can say is that, at that time, Petruska Clarkson offered a highly structured training programme. Perhaps I should explain that before meeting Petruska, I had been trying to find a pathway into training as a transactional analyst, but I could not find a systematic or clearly defined route. Petruska had only been in the UK for about a year and had only recently established her training programme. What she offered was a very clear and well-structured four-year training course. It was transparent, accessible, and you could realistically calculate how much money you would need in order to complete the training.

— You mentioned that Petruska had only recently arrived in the UK at that time. Do you know where she emigrated from, and perhaps why?

— She came from South Africa. I am not entirely sure why she left, but she was unhappy with the political regime there. She was a deeply political woman, very concerned with issues of equality, and I think she did not feel comfortable living within the situation that existed in South Africa at that time. That is as much as I know personally, although I imagine other people may know more about that part of her life than I do.

— I also heard that, in order to train with Petruska, you sewed dresses for her. Is that true? Could you tell us more about it?

— Absolutely, when Christine Lister-Ford and I went to be interviewed by Petruska Clarkson to see whether she would accept us into training, she agreed to take both of us. However, at that time we were very poor and only had enough money for one person to train. Because Christine already had a degree in psychology, it made sense for her to begin first. I had already enrolled at university to complete my joint honours degree in psychology, but financially I simply could not afford the training. I was also a single parent. At some point, Petruska discovered that I could make clothes. I think perhaps she admired something one of us was wearing, and I mentioned that I had made it myself. She then said, “Well, you can sew clothes for me and pay for your training that way.” And that is exactly what happened. For much of my training, I paid by making clothes for Petruska. It was actually a very beautiful experience, because it brought me close to her in a way that was quite different from many other people’s relationships with her. Of course, today this would be considered very unusual. Ethical codes in the UK have changed significantly, and arrangements like that would no longer be permitted.

— You already knew Christine before training with Petruska, and it seems that you continued your professional journey side by side while studying with her?

— Yes, by that point I had already known Christine for about two years. In fact, I was the one who first introduced her to transactional analysis, and we felt that we shared a similar vision. I had already divorced by then, and we decided to continue our professional journey side by side and eventually create a psychotherapy institute together.

— How did you experience Petruska’s death? What was it like for you personally and professionally?

— By the time Petruska died, we had not been in contact for several years. In some ways, her death did not entirely surprise me. She had a very deep soul, and probably a troubled one as well.

— Do you think a teacher’s script can influence their students?

— Of course it can. But I also think it depends on the student’s own script. With Petruska Clarkson, I always felt free to choose what I wanted to take from her and what I did not. She taught me what to do, but she also taught me what not to do, and I was free to make those choices within my own script.

— What you are saying partly resonates with something Petruska wrote in her final letter that, whatever happens, we are still able to make choices about our own lives and even about the way they may come to an end. What is your view of her final letter? Do you think we can say that her decision to end her life was an Adult and conscious choice?

— I honestly do not think I can answer that question. Unless you know a person very deeply, especially close to the time of their death and the choices they are making, how can you truly know? I do not think we can know. What I do believe about choice is that we need to think very carefully about the choices we make, which part of ourselves is making the choice, the reasons behind it, and the impact those choices have on the people around us. It is a very deep question, and not one that any of us can answer easily or entirely truthfully. There is, however, one thing I would like to share with you about Petruska Clarkson. When I used to make clothes for her, she would buy the most exquisite fabrics - the most beautiful materials I have ever touched in my life. And when I fitted the clothes on her, she would stand on a small stool, and between the two of us, surrounded by these beautiful fabrics, there were moments of extraordinary beauty and human contact. She would say that in those moments she felt like a little girl. And she was so beautiful then. That is what I carry with me when I think about Petruska.

— It reminds me of something that can happen between a client and therapist, when a kind of shared field emerges that affects both people within it.

— Yes, that exquisite moment of genuine contact.

The Legacy of TA in Russia: ”We Started the Programme, and Over Time It Became Fully Autonomous - Truly Russian”

Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Olga Tuchina, Jennie McNamara. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

— Do you remember when Russia first entered your field of awareness as a place where people were interested in learning TA?

— Yes, it was a very rich and fascinating time. I first came to Russia in 1988 as part of a group of psychologists from the UK. We all represented different therapeutic modalities, and the trip was organised through Findhorn, the spiritual and therapeutic community in Scotland. Interestingly, I had not originally been invited. My friend Ken Evans, who was a Gestalt therapist, had to withdraw and offered me his place instead. So that is how I came to Russia. We arrived first in St Petersburg. I was the only transactional analyst in the group. The purpose of the visit was to tour various psychological, psychiatric and social care institutions in St Petersburg, Moscow and originally Vilnius, although because demonstrations were taking place in Vilnius at the time, we travelled to Estonia instead. Altogether, we stayed for eighteen days. While in St Petersburg, we were invited to a meeting with a fairly large group of people interested in psychotherapy. The organiser invited each of us from the UK to briefly introduce ourselves, explain our modality and speak about our work. Afterwards, participants approached the people whose presentations interested them. Only a few people came to speak with me about transactional analysis, but among them were Tatyana Sizikova and Tatyana Gliznetsova. There was also a man whose name I unfortunately no longer remember. But I especially remember the two Tatyanas. In many ways, Tatyana Gliznetsova played a fundamental role in establishing the first connection between myself and the emerging TA community in St Petersburg. During that meeting, she told me that Tatyana Sizikova would be teaching a TA 101 course the following evening at an adult evening school and asked whether I would like to observe. Of course, I agreed. Naturally, the entire training was conducted in Russian. We had no interpreter. Tatyana Sizikova did not speak English, and I spoke no Russian. Tatyana Gliznetsova could speak some English, although the interpretation was rather limited, but it was enough. At the end of the workshop, Tatyana Sizikova asked whether I would give her feedback. Since I could not understand the language, I relied entirely on non-verbal communication, observation of contact, group process and emotional atmosphere. She seemed very pleased with the feedback I gave her. Afterwards, she became concerned about how I would get back to my hotel. It was late, dark, and Russia at that time was very different from what it is today. Through gestures and signs rather than words, she explained that she would walk me back herself. We walked a very long way through the dark and cold streets. In those days, one could often obtain things through the black market, and although I did not smoke, I always carried cigarettes because they could help you in almost any situation. At one point, when a car approached, I held up a packet of cigarettes, and the driver stopped and gave us a lift to my hotel. Tatyana laughed the whole way, that passionate, wholehearted Russian way of being alive. We do not really do that in England. I remember loving her immediately. When we arrived at the hotel, it was already around midnight. The babushka supervising the corridor was very strict and would not allow Tatyana to come to my room. So instead, I brought down a bottle of cognac and some chocolates. I did not realise at the time that Tatyana did not drink alcohol and was very strict about healthy eating, but she accepted them anyway. We shared the cognac and chocolates, became slightly giggly and somehow managed to have a deep conversation despite barely sharing a common language. I still do not know exactly how we communicated, but there was a profound human connection between us. She then walked all the way home alone, very late at night. Looking back, I realise she took risks that evening. After that meeting, Tatyana Gliznetsova began organising further contacts, and the following year I was invited to return together with Christine Lister-Ford to teach in Russia. That was really the beginning. Later, Tatyana Sizikova asked whether I would become her sponsor, and I agreed, but only on the condition that she learned English. Within three months she was fluent. After that, she travelled to the UK, I travelled regularly to Russia, and together we began building a structured training programme in St Petersburg, based on the same framework we had established in our own institute. At that time, transactional analysis in Russia resembled the situation I had experienced earlier in England: there was enthusiasm and interest, but there was no clear structure through which people could systematically study, train and qualify professionally. Creating that structure, a framework through which people could become qualified transactional analysts became very important to me.

Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Jennie McNamara, Irina Pingareva. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

— So, the first TA 101 programme in Russia was created together with Tatyana Sizikova, but you yourself were the main trainer?

— Yes, I was the main trainer, although Tatyana worked closely alongside me. She would assist with interpretation and sometimes clarify the language, because naturally people were unfamiliar with TA terminology at that time. In the beginning, I did most of the teaching myself, but gradually Tanya also began teaching parts of the programme. I created the overall framework and structure of the training, taught some of the modules myself, and supervised her work very closely. I was actually quite strict and disciplined, because that was the only way Tanya and I could successfully build the programme together. Over time, we invited other trainers to become involved and contribute to the programme; people such as Mary Cox, Moniek Thunnissen and Spiridon Main. They were deeply involved, contributed a great deal of time and commitment, and also signed formal contracts within the programme. From the very beginning, however, my vision was that the training should gradually become autonomous, genuinely Russian, rather than overly shaped by Western culture. I hoped that over time we, as foreign trainers, would slowly step back and allow the programme to become fully independent. And that is exactly what eventually happened. I feel immensely proud of those early pioneers who helped create transactional analysis in Russia, and also of all of you who continue developing the discipline within your own culture and in your own way. I find that truly amazing.

— Thank you for your contribution. Tomorrow, the first scientific conference on transactional analysis will take place in Russia. And in many ways, this has become possible because of your contribution and the work you began here. More than 200 people will be attending the conference.

— That’s really beautiful to hear.

— Did Tatyana Sizikova become the first student from Russia to sign a training contract with you? And did this later create an opportunity for other people in Russia to study transactional analysis directly through her?

— Yes. As I mentioned, from time to time there had been people from America coming to Russia to run workshops, although I do not know a great deal about that period. What I do know is that, in terms of creating a structured and systematic training programme, Tanya was the first person to fully engage with that process. At the same time, I cannot speak about Tanya without also speaking about Dmitry Shustov, who brought psychiatric and scientific rigour, alongside his wonderful personality, into transactional analysis in Russia. So I worked closely with both of them, in Moscow and St Petersburg, to help establish and develop the training. I have very warm and dear memories of both of them and of their families. But there were many others as well - Boris (Volodin), Alla (Dalit), Yelena (Soboleva) and many more. There were a great number of people involved. Still, for me, the two central figures were Dmitry and Tanya. In many ways, they laid the foundations for transactional analysis as a professional discipline in Russia. And now the newer generations are continuing to develop it further exactly as they should.

World TA Conference in Montpellier, France, 2025: Alla Dalit, Jennie McNamara, Boris Volodin, Ludmila Shekholm. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

— I have also heard that when you were first invited to teach in Russia, you sometimes stayed in people’s homes, and that your visits were organised and funded by the trainees themselves. I have even heard that some of the early teaching may have taken place in people’s apartments. Is that true, or is some of this more myth than reality?

— No, I paid for everything myself in the beginning. My visits were not funded. Only in the later years, when people had more financial resources, were some of my flights occasionally paid for. I never claimed any funding from ITAA, although I probably could have done so. But it involved too much bureaucracy and paperwork, and I preferred simply to continue the work directly. What people did offer was hospitality in exchange for my teaching. In the early years, nobody really had money to pay. It was only later that Dmitry Shustov began paying me professionally for my work. But honestly, I also received so much from coming to Russia and teaching there, it was a reciprocal experience. I learned a great deal myself. Tatyana Gliznetsova often accommodated us in her flat, and a few times I stayed with Tatyana Sizikova and her family in Pushkin. Later on, when circumstances changed, I would sometimes stay in hotels or with people not directly connected to the training programmes. But in those early years, people offered extraordinary hospitality and welcomed me into their homes very generously.

Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Tatyana Sizikova, Dmitry Shustov, Jennie McNamara. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

— In what year was the first TA 101 course launched in Russia?

— I think it was 1989.

— According to the information I was able to find, in 1993 you organised the first structured TA training programme in Russia together with Christine Lister-Ford. Is that correct? More generally, I know that you often came to Russia together. Could you tell us more about your collaboration and your experience of working together in Russia?

— Christine Lister-Ford first came to Russia with me, I believe, in 1989. She visited and taught several times during the early years of the programme. Later, however, she needed to focus much more on the Northern Guild and maintaining our training work in the UK. At that time, both of us were also heavily involved professionally and politically in various organisations, including ITAA, EATA and the European Association for Counselling. We both held leadership positions and carried significant responsibilities. Because I became very deeply involved in European training and the development of the Russian programme, Christine was ultimately less involved in Russia than I was, although her contribution remained very important. At the same time, she continued offering training in the UK, and many people from Russia would come to the Northern Guild for training, therapy and professional support. So in that sense, she also played an important role in supporting the development of transactional analysis in Russia.

With Isabelle Crespelle. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

— Do you remember any particular moments from those early years of teaching, when you were essentially among the first people bringing transactional analysis to Russia? Was there anything that especially stayed with you, perhaps a difficulty in explaining certain ideas, a particular reaction from people, or something else that comes to mind now when you think back to that period?

— Yes, I do. The cultural difference was incredibly powerful for me. At that time, I was a very reserved, typically British, woman, perhaps even what one might call a “lady.” And then there was the passion of the Russian students, their hunger for knowledge after so many years in which access to certain ideas and forms of learning had been restricted. The meeting of those two forces, my reserve and their intense hunger for learning, was very powerful. People would quite literally corner me against the wall, wanting to ask questions, talk, learn, absorb everything. They demanded all of my time and energy. And in the end, it was actually very good for me. I came to love that passion deeply. I had to learn to become stronger, more direct and more passionate myself. I had to learn how to say no. In many ways, I had to become a new person and it was wonderful. That is probably what I remember most vividly from that time.

— I can really feel, through your story, the energy and intensity of those years. You are speaking about cultural differences and cultural codes. Do you think that British traditions and culture, through you, may also have influenced the development of transactional analysis in Russia on a cultural level?

— Well, I am not entirely sure about that, because within the English class system people can be very different from one another depending on their background and social position. I myself come from a working-class family and did not receive a traditional education when I was young, so I do not think we can speak about “British influence” in a simple or uniform way. At the same time, I do think that people in Russia sometimes had to adapt, and perhaps at times adapted too much - to Western influences. But there is something else I would like to say about what was especially powerful for me, both in the beginning and increasingly throughout the years of my involvement in Russia. Before coming to Russia, I was neither particularly interested in nor knowledgeable about transgenerational transactional analysis or transgenerational work more generally. It was through my therapeutic work with Russian clients and trainees that I became very quickly aware of the profound transgenerational influences present in the room and within the people themselves. I became deeply fascinated by this, and over time it became one of the central focuses of my work, both internationally and in the UK. In many ways, it eventually became my specialism. And that came directly from my encounter with Russian culture. In order to truly understand people, I realised I needed to understand their history and their story. So alongside the cultural differences I mentioned earlier, there was also this immense spiritual and historical depth present in the room between us. And that had a very deep influence on me.

World TA Conference in Montpellier, France, 2025: Ludmila Shekholm, Vera Kovalenko, Jennie McNamara, Elena Soboleva. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

— Yes, and today we pay enormous attention to transgenerational scripts, especially in a country like Russia, with its many layers of history and historical trauma. When you were in Russia, you travelled to Sergiev Posad together with Dmitry Shustov and Tatyana Sizikova, and there was a story about a dog that experienced what seemed like a miraculous recovery. Could you tell us more about that?

— I had a dog named Tessie, a Scottish Terrier. She was terminally ill at the time, and it was expected that she would die while I was away in Russia. Before leaving, I cut off a small piece of her fur and took it with me. One freezing winter day, we travelled to Sergiev Posad. While we were there, I immersed myself in an ice hole in the water, completely naked. Though I should probably clarify: not in front of Dmitry. At that moment, I had Tessie’s fur with me. In the end, something extraordinary happened - Tessie recovered. She lived for several more years afterwards. I do not know whether I truly believe in miracles. Perhaps it was simply a kind of synchronicity of events. And yet, in some way, a miracle did happen. It was extremely cold, and Dmitry Shustov strongly discouraged me from going into the water. He was quite shocked that I decided to do it anyway. It is truly a magical story.

— While listening to you, I noticed a very interesting physical reaction in myself. It may have seemed as though I was crying, but in fact my eyes simply began to fill with tears, almost as if my body was responding on its own. I think this is how my body reacts to the depth of the processes you are speaking about. And since we are gradually coming to the end of our conversation, I would like to ask you one final question. What message or perhaps piece of guidance would you like to offer to transactional analysts in Russia?

— I think that, once you have learned the theory, the most important thing is to focus on the connection between yourself and your client or patient. If you truly know the theory, understand your boundaries and work ethically, much of that eventually becomes almost automatic, rather like driving a car. What really matters is your presence and your connection with the person in front of you. It is about being able to stay with the client without constantly feeling the need to intervene, simply being with them.

— So, in a sense, the person becomes more important than the theory.

— Absolutely!

About the authors

Liliia G. Lukianova

Author for correspondence.
Email: lilia0606@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0009-0002-8526-957X

Psychologist, practicing in Transactional Analysis modality, art therapist, private practice

References

Supplementary files

Supplementary Files

Action

1. JATS XML

Download

2. Reference from the magazine «TA in Russia»

Download (254KB)

Indexing metadata

3. Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

Download (341KB)

Indexing metadata

4. Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Olga Tuchina, Jennie McNamara. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

Download (167KB)

Indexing metadata

5. Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Jennie McNamara, Irina Pingareva. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

Download (231KB)

Indexing metadata

6. World TA Conference in Montpellier, France, 2025: Alla Dalit, Jennie McNamara, Boris Volodin, Ludmila Shekholm. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

Download (232KB)

Indexing metadata

7. Training with Jennie McNamara in Russia: Tatyana Sizikova, Dmitry Shustov, Jennie McNamara. From the Archive of A. E. Dalit

Download (246KB)

Indexing metadata

8. With Isabelle Crespelle. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

Download (372KB)

Indexing metadata

9. World TA Conference in Montpellier, France, 2025: Ludmila Shekholm, Vera Kovalenko, Jennie McNamara, Elena Soboleva. From the Archive of L. Yu. Shekholm

Download (244KB)

Indexing metadata