Fw: attachment & sociometry

Sun Apr 26 13:41:42 CDT 2009

What is making a connection? Of course we can map degrees of connection using a variety of depictions; however, the impetus to connect is wired in our nervous system. We are born with it. We can adjust our desire to connect based on experiences which build in "threat" as a signal to our neuronal system...and /or we may have developed a "wait and see" response.  Tele, for me, is when we get a clear go-ahead signal.

Moreno and his wife Florence wrote the Spontaneity Theory of Child Development during the time that Regina was small.  (Florence was a teacher and an avid student of the learning process.)  Attachment theory and the work of Moreno are connected in terms of the warm-up to connect, the capacity to attach and detach (in order to build self sufficiecy) and the ability to accomplish social atom healing through the use of psychodramatic methods (doubling, mirroring, teaching parents to warmup and respond, etc).

Warm fuzzies can feel good, especially when genuine and timed to reflect the interpersonal bond.  A key aspect of Moreno's invitation to an encounter is "eye to eye, face to face..."  

What I have learned as a sociometrist is  when there are  traumatic interferences with the parental bond, occuring before the infant or toddler has the cognitive capacity to understand their experience,  the adult may not be able to distinguish the here and now sociometric situation from the incidents in the past.  Their body, and their memory storage retrieval simply recognizes the threat and closes off  (a retreat to the non-verbal stages perhaps).   

I see every event as a sociometric one where connection is part of the mix.  That does not mean I spend my life analyzing, it just means that we are able to understand and integrate our experiences in ways which contribute to more and more spontaneity and the ability to heal others in our every-widening circle.

Regarding the underlying question, "why do some people make out alright, and others have a difficult time?"  Moreno had the same question: "Why are two people who are mentally "normal" able to create a toxic, or unhealthy relationship, and two mentally challenged people able to form a healthy relationship."  I believe the answer lies in the ways each person integrates experiences which relieves them of burdensome scripting and opens them to authentic connection, rather than pretense.  Ann Hale (Sorry for being so lengthy.)

To read further see, Patricia O'Rourke (2006) Integrating infant mental health and psychodrama perspectives. ANZPA Journal, 15, p. 1-12.

----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Blatner 
  To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Sunday, April 26, 2009 12:09 PM
  Subject: attachment & sociometry

  The conversation a few weeks ago about attachment theory left me a little uncomfortable, though I couldn't say why. Then I found a new textbook about it and looked through it---haven't begun to read it yet--- but then it occurred to me: People tend to think that if there wasn't primary attachment at a satisfactory level that leaves scars. Well, maybe so; but what about people who were attached just fine in their early childhood, but then grew up or moved out into a profoundly un-attached teen and young-adult and middle-adult world---i.e., the postmodern society. I think it's probably possible with a fair amount of effort and consciousness to regenerate a vibrant social network that offers an adequate number of strokes, but I think it's also common that people---even those with "good educations"---can find themselves feeling unaccountably alienated. 
           I said it's probably possible, but I didn't mean to say it was easy. 
        And I think that if this is true, some of the insights of sociometry may be useful and helpful.

          One of the major themes I've noticed is that people do not disclose enough to others, and to enough others, to make it probably that one will find a congenial other with positive tele, reciprocity, compatibility. This is not just about romantic partners---though that, too---but also friends, social groups. 
           I suspect that worry and attendant inhibitions of a variety of types---such as not wanting to appear to be too eager or needy or vain---leads to a subtle and somewhat unconscious withdrawl---just a bit. One takes care of business, but extends little surplus energy into exploration, reaching out, giving feedback, sending thank-you notes, etc. As a result, the vibrancy of whole networks loses energy. I've seen it happen with some other groups, and I suspect it might be happening a bit to some psychodrama communities.

         Other factors:  Effectiveness and warmth and frequency of reaching-out from leaders; reciprocal comments and gracious interactions on, say, grouptalk---and most ASGPP members don't know, don't care, or fear that it would be too much of a drain. 

  Back to attachment: So I wonder if this doesn't overlap with some thoughts I had about ol' Claude Steiner and Eric Berne and their theory of giving strokes, positive "warm fuzzies," as elements in building tele and group cohesion. Comments?

      Warmly, Adam
  Adam Blatner, M.D.
     website: www.blatner.com/adam/   

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  Grouptalk mailing list
  List at grouptalkweb.org
  http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

  No virus found in this incoming message.
  Checked by AVG. 
  Version: 7.5.557 / Virus Database: 270.12.4/2081 - Release Date: 4/26/2009 9:44 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090426/9743a4d4/attachment.html>