sociatry ideas
Peter Howie
peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au
Tue Aug 11 19:32:44 CDT 2009
Dear Adam and others,
I have been having fun with Edward de Bono's creativity ideas recently
and at different times in the past. I am not sure how influential he
is in the US but in Australia he has found a ready home. One of his
ideas was the idea of the six thinking hats - google away for any
number of articles. It seems to me that some of the discussion here
can be looked at in a few ways. Role theory would be one but requires
more than we have produced here. So the six thinking hats is an
attenuated type of taxonomic role theory (that is defining the roles
not by what is seen and done but buy the purpose of the actions).
Given this I kind of get the sense that Adam you are often taking the
black hat approach or feeling the need for the black hat and this
leads you to socratically pick apart arguments, point our logical
flaws in many ways act something between a lawyer and an academic
marking a paper. Whereas others here, such as Ed could be seen as
using red hat thinking where they are passionately presenting their
ideas, wisdom and worries, sort of an enthusiastic Cassandra while Ivo
is working between yellow hat which is a logical and positive approach
and a green hat which is a creative, lateral type approach sort of
like a wild and refined scientist-philosopher. In writing this I am
aware that I could be seen to be using a blue hat approach which
relates more to group process. From the blue hat perspective and
working from the 6 thinking hats paradigm, I would recommend that
folks respond from the same hat for a while before changing hats. Try
experimenting with unfamiliar hats. I reckon Ed can critique his ideas
as well as anyone and Ivo can see the looseness of his ideas and Adam
can't hide the underlying positivity of his posts.
de Bono conceived the purpose of the 6 hats as furthering creativity
in thinking. Perhaps here we are trying to use argument to develop
relationships which is always a torturous path. Maybe better to
develop relationships and then develop the arguments?
Cheers for the moment
Peter
Peter Howie B.Sc, TEP
Managing Director
The Moreno Collegium for Human Centred Learning, Research and
Development
0411 873 851
www.morenocollegium.com.au
On 12/08/2009, at 8:19 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
> Dear Ivo, sorry, I find your effort at being specific to be a
> weaving of more abstract ideals. For example regarding your example:
> Specifically what would you imagine anyone doing regarding the
> financial crisis? Is there any even rationally proposed evidence
> that identifies one step in this that is unequivocally affected by
> anything psychodramatic, sociometric, etc.--- (Of course we can say,
> oh, if only politicians were more deeply concerned about the plight
> of the people...)
>
> We must remember, though, that many people in this catastrophe
> were greedy and childishly gullible---both those who sold the
> mortgages and those who bought them. Who are the innocent victims
> and what specifically (oh I am so sorry for harping on this nasty
> word) do you suggest to remedy the problem? Should those who were
> foolish and greedy be allowed so suffer the consequences of their
> folly? If not, what else would you propose?
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Ivo Banaco
> To: Adam Blatner
> Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Tuesday, August 11, 2009 2:20 PM
> Subject: Re: sociatry ideas
>
> Hi Adam and all,
>
> I understand your concerns about the excessive abstraction. In any
> given area in politics for example I could give you several examples
> of how the tools generated by psychodrama, sociodrama and for that
> matter all the so called "consciousness movement" could help. The
> problem with the specifics is that they could easily loose track of
> the more general concern of this group. Loosing the forest for a
> tree is a risk that I don't want to take either. But OK, let's go
> for it. I will give you a specific...:-)
>
> The US economic crisis:
>
> Look to the unemployment numbers: about 15 million, a historical
> number by any standard - 2 years ago unemployment was at more or
> less 7 million people.
> ab irrelevant
>
> Most of the money is being spent in the rebuilding of the financial
> system and in some highly questionable economic projects.
> Name which ones are questionable; describe the consequences
> of refusing to do this.
>
> There are no tools given to politicians, to my knowledge, that help
> them to look beyond the numbers. Why the financial system broke? If
> we can see beyond we can look to the financial theatre, the actors,
> the spontaneity (or the lack of it), the reactivity, the lack of
> reason, the exuberance, the egoistic approach, etc.
> remember greed and the willingness to cheat, to almost cheat,
> to fudge the truth, to say you earn more than you do, to promise
> unrealistically
> but that's not my point. The problem with spontaneity is that the
> Morenian definition begs the question: an effective response to an
> old situation (is part of the definition) -- but we don't know what
> will be in fact effective. So the argument is circular. If the
> politicians had true spontaneity they'd be automatically wise. And
> of course (saying this sarcastically) we know how to teach them
> that. Right.
>
> What is being done? Simply is being delivered a lot of
> money to the same guys with the same instruments to mess it up again.
> aB: I kind of agree with you here and am not sure of the actual
> rationale. It does seem foolish.
>
> IB What could be done? A fundamental intervention, one that can
> combine all the good stuff that was created (that become possible,
> for example, to spread the risk, turning some important assets like
> houses more affordable to poor families - the so called subprime
> families, etc) with what I would call the subjective and inter-
> subjective interventions.
> AB: I am totally bewildered by this---haven't the foggiest
> idea what you're talking about!
> How spread the risk? what does that mean? How does this deal
> with anything Morenian?
>
> IB Any important player in the market must have skills beyond
> its obvious technical abilities.
>
> Intersubjective skills, emotional intelligence and so.
> name one and show how it would apply. Otherwise
>
> They are wonderful and highly respected scientific literature
> supporting this (like Howard Gardner multiple intelligences). But
> this is a major and complex educational problem.
>
> This is the problem--- and almost a cop-out; it's like saying
> if people could be smart, we'd solve things. But it's not clear that
> smart people who were psychologically minded would have any ideas
> that you don't have. So I await more specifics.
>
> Our societies gave over the years an increasingly value to cognitive
> skills that yes, it's true, helped to promote technological progress
> and material well being. But today we all know that this is not
> enough and could be danger not only to a particular nation but to
> the world at large. Society as a whole must gave (urgently I would
> say) value to several dimensions of the human being. Today an
> educated man and woman that will go leading business, families,
> political affairs must have a new sensibility and see things that
> others are blind to. Psychodrama courses for example could be a
> priority education project combined with the core training of a
> given person.
> ab: see point above. You're implying that holistically
> enlightened people would be more effective than non-holistically-
> psychologically enlightened people. sounds plausible, but you
> haven't made the case that knowing sociometry, psychodrama, or
> anything Moreno taught---which, though I value it---I'm not yet
> willing to make serious claims for--- will be proven to do a better
> job.
> as you say, it's a complex problem...
>
> All psychological literacy (a wonderful term that I get from you)
> is important to all leaders not in order to absolutize that
> particular type of knowledge but to give it the place that is
> deserved (this is particularly important, because to absolutize one
> dimension of life is a big mistake and a very easy one to make).
> A "sociatric politician" would have that in the primordial
> agenda and not just in footnotes don't you think?
> AB: I can't disagree, because it's so general. You're saying that
> a politician who is psychologically sensitive and aware would do a
> better job. I would like to agree, but any scientific or even simply
> rational person would require you to break the whole idea down into
> very very specific competencies; test whether each one is very or
> only slightly relevant to the goal task; and assess how much knowing
> Morenian stuff makes a difference in policy development. Lacking
> that tight, meticulous analysis, you're free to make any claims you
> like and they can't be disproven.
>
> IB In a tomorrow's world a economic crisis would not be
> compensate with 7 new million job loss. We would easily know the
> tremendous impact at all subjective and intersubjective levels in a
> family or in a person (emotional, financial, and all the imbalances
> caused by the situation).
> AB: Is subjective and intersubjective the latest in
> psychobabble terms? What about bio-psycho-social, or is that too
> outdated?
> Who is the we, how would we know it, the impact at all subjective
> levels-- can we know the impact of ANYTHING at ALL subjective
> levels? We as outsiders or as the person feeling it? etc. And
> who would the people be who are intersubjectively interacting,
>
>
> A business leader would try to reformulate their business with
> their human resources in a different way.
>
> ab: name one specific example
>
>
> People would not be just a number.
> That implies that all managers or politicians (not most but
> all) are treating people only as numbers. An easy claim, but not if
> you interview them or look at the situation closely.
>
> Things would be worked out differently.
>
> This is the kind of argument that says in effect that if
> people would be smarter, they'd be better, and then everything would
> be better. It's unprovable and I can't imagine one specific example
> of what you're talking about.
>
> This is the point of concretization, of setting a scene in
> psychodrama. Clients in talk therapy tend to talk this way,
> generalities. We need to cut through abstractions and find out what
> the actual situation is. If I can't imagine a concrete example I
> really don't know what you're talking about and it is possible that
> in believing your own abstractions you're weaving a web of self-
> delusion that works for you, satisfies your feelings of coherence.
> Lots of folks live this way----believing in the web or network of
> loosely assembled platitudes.
>
> For example with the natural and frequent use of psychodrama
> and sociodrama tools other reality surplus would come out,
> creativity would be raised and solutions be found. Creativity is not
> just faith or utopia or wishful thinking. It's an endogenous power
> of the human being that have to be recognize.
> AB: well, sure. That's kind of my point: I think that as
> psychological literacy in general penetrates the culture that there
> may be a development of mental flexibility and the foundations of
> more consciousness can be built on this---but it would require a
> thousand other components---political, technical, economic, etc.---
> also part of the growing infrastructure--- and it will likely take
> generations if not centuries.
>
> IB This is just some quick and not worked thoughts about
> specific applications in business, leadership, social values and
> above all education. This is just not just about being aware that
> psychology and consciousness are important matters to social life.
> This is about how to integrate in the social activities all the good
> knowledge that We are being finding without loosing all the good
> practices that part of what we do already.
>
> aB: The question is whether staying at the level of
> affirming ideals is a lot more effective than the obviously more
> illusory song verse below.
>
> IB The challenges of the integration of the new to a well stablish
> cultural conserve it's the challenge of life itself, I believe. Some
> of you guys in grouptalk should have an important voice in political
> decision making in this crisis. AB: What do you mean "should"?
> Which ones of us?
>
> IB Have Obama called you to ask an opinion? Do you care at all or
> just keep just wondering like in the Dave Mathews's song:
> "Tell me everything will be OK if I just stay on my knees and keep
> praying believing in something
> Tell me everything is all taken care of by those qualified to take
> care of it all."
>
> AB: I'm reminded of the anecdote of JLM doing one of his first
> Theatre of Spontaneity, inviting the audience members to come up and
> be king, and help the chaotic and struggling remnants of the Austro-
> Hungarian Empire to find a way to accommodate to the changes and
> realities of the post WWI world.
>
> If Obama called me and asked my opinion, I'd have a few things
> to say, but they'd be pretty obvious and easily arguable. Nor am I
> sure that I'm ultimately "right" or smarter than him.
>
>
> All the best, Ivo ab: enough. talk to you later.
>
> PS: About the word Sociatry. What I find is that iatros, is indeed a
> physician but iatry comes from iatreia and that is not the healer is
> the heal itself...and if it is true (and I'm not a specialist) will
> make all the difference...
>
>
> On Mon, Aug 10, 2009 at 9:27 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> Dear Ivo and all,
> 1. August 10, IB: Right Adam, but feeling that your point 4
> misleading. In WSS Moreno finds the root of Sociatry in WSS in
> Socius - the other fellow and iatreia - healing;
> AB: sorry for the pedantry but I looked it up: Iatros is
> physician from iasthai ancient greek for heal...
> socius Latin companion
>
> 2. IB All of Moreno's ideas tried to fight the doctor-patient
> model, and I don't think that sociatry relate to that at all,
> although I can see your point.
> AB: Startling statement, unclear how that seems so for you.
> There's a little bit of truth re his wanting less authoritative
> group psychotherapy, but his behavior at his sanatarium was quite in
> keeping with the doctor-patient model.
>
> 3. IB But I admit this is a matter of taste, like your dislike
> about tele.
> AB: Please don't give people the impression that I dislike tele,
> but rather think that while the dynamic is of central importance in
> a more holistic psychology, the term perhaps might be better
> understood by non-psychodramatists if called something else, such as
> rapport.
>
> 4. IB For me Sociatry calls for a higher level of
> intervention in society, a inter/ trans disciplinary approach to the
> socius with a fundamental emphasis to treat it. Quoting Moreno. "The
> art and skill of the sociatrist will depend upon a synthesis of
> knowledge toward which all social and psychiatric sciences will have
> made their contribution." And that doesn't exist yet as such, but we
> have all the ingredients...we have to cook them!
> AB: Fine, when you've cooked up something specific let us
> know.
>
> 5 IB Of course we can always question: If that is so what is
> the difference between sociatry and politics. It should be none but
> it is not the case at this moment. What sociatry could bring to
> politics is a type of knowledge (e.g. sociometry, group dynamics,
> all the invisible structures, cultural bias, etc,) that seems to
> escape most of politicians today.
> AB: Sure, it's nice to imagine that our political leaders
> could know all sorts of things and that this would help, but can you
> give a single example of how a political leader would act
> differently, think differently, knowing the above? I'm not saying
> they wouldn't, but integrating knowledge and ranking its relevance
> is a problem.
> More, it is unrealistic to just dump all we know into an
> expert's lap and expect the expert to know how to pick out what is
> more or less relevant. (It's surprising how many less-experienced
> psychotherapists or psychiatrists will present a case by dumping out
> information in such a way as to demonstrate they they haven't begun
> to sort out what is more or less important---see my paper on my
> website on the art of case presentation.)
>
> 6. In the future Sociatry could well be the real political
> action.. why not as sociatry could not exist as such (if it aims a
> large scale social intervention) without politics? AB: The problem
> is giving more specifics, more definition: One could also say
> "Makingbetter" will be the real sociatry, which would also be the
> real political action.
>
> Perhaps this quibbling about terms is unnecessary. I certainly
> want to support enthusiasm, and the belief that our field has
> important tools to introduce into the mainline of the culture. I
> have put this idea into many of my writings.
> But an excess of abstraction just might evoke a
> counter-reaction, the appellation of "psychobabble," or some such,
> so I occasionally comment on this.
>
> Best, Ivo AB And good wishes to you...
> "The term derives from a Latin and Greek root, the one
> is socius, the “other fellow”, the other iatreia, healing." see
> above...
>
> On Sat, Aug 8, 2009 at 3:13 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>
> wrote:
> Okay, let's see. The world is in trouble in thousands of different
> ways at many levels. What can "sociatry" do? Which methods are
> useful with groups beyond the sick role? (i.e., beyond psychotherapy).
> 1. Starting small: Consider the feminist notion that the
> personal is political and reverse it. In the 1970s the institution
> of the happy nuclear family was questioned. Might it for some be a
> prison? Questioning social arrangements is one example. Could
> therapy include social action? Groups whose task is to change more
> than the consciousness of its own members generate new types of
> group dynamics, concerning as how best to accomplish its chosen tasks.
>
> 2. Recognize that sociometry and psychodramatic methods
> constitute at most only 23.2% of the many different kinds of skills
> and knowledge involved in social action. Things like composing an
> effective letter, lobbying, etc. --- there are hundreds or thousands
> of such components that transcend any particular discipline---
> including the skill bases of rhetoric, advertising, spin-doctoring,
> propaganda, all the elements of politics, lobbying, newsletter
> editing, community organizing, etc. etc.
>
> 3. In a larger sense, much of politics throughout history
> (including some military efforts) have been rationalized as
> promoting what was for the time viewed as an improvement on the
> previous system. For example, feudalism, as prone to tyrrany as at
> was, was nevertheless believed to be an improvement of some degree
> of order and predictability, better than what had been happening in
> the earlier "dark ages" in which people felt far too vulnerable to
> robbers, invaders, and pure barbarism. In other words:
>
> 4. The problem with sociatry is the problem with fascism: The
> doctor-patient model of the 1940s (relating to the -iatros Greek
> root meaning physician) involved a wise knower-how-to-diagnose and
> treat and a submissive patient. This does not apply well to large
> social groupings. It is not at all clear that anyone knows how to
> fix it all and can garner adequate consensus for "I'll just tell you
> what to do and then you take this medicine and follow my 'orders.'
> type of management.
> I'm just noting that the word may be misleading. The spirit
> Moreno advocated is something I share: Let's apply what we're
> learning in psychology, sociology, and every other field to efforts
> in every institution---political, educational, economic, clubs,
> recreation, medicine, etc. I saw his idea as an interdisciplinary
> vision during an era in which fields were more compartmentalized.
> Ed's advocacy of social action has merit, but awaiting specifics,
> I'm not sure that our field has more to offer than other fields. It
> certainly has some to offer, though!
>
> 5. I'm continuing to do adult education classes and weaving in
> principles from role theory, the idea of externalization and
> personification of defenses (i.e., imagining that they can be
> played, given voice, imagined to be little seductive con-men, little
> Bernie Madoffs or whoever). , and other Morenian ideas along with
> the contributions of others--- all part of the aforementioned idea
> of "psychological literacy" or promoting the continued integration
> of the insights of psychology in life.
> (In a larger sense, I think sociatry refers in large part
> to this cultural trend towards bringing psychology into the
> mainstream of culture rather than its having operated at the
> periphery as a semi-irrelevant procedure for folks at the margins of
> society)
>
> 6. Writing, publishing, presenting at other conferences, and
> talking about how psychodramatic and sociometric methods might have
> applications beyond its own field... I think these are small but not
> meaningless efforts. A measure of humility is okay.
>
> 7. Continuing efforts (and modeling) in integrating good ideas
> from other fields will also help to break down perceptions of
> psychodrama as somewhat insular.
>
> Those are a few things perhaps that can advance the idea of our
> field's relevance to social activism.
> The targets include not only global warming (as Ed
> noted), but thousands of other worthy causes.
>
> Some of these, interestingly, are complex: The question
> regarding health care for me, for example, is to what degree I
> support the present kluged-together bill or exert myself for the
> cause of a single-payer system (as supported by the Physicians for a
> National Health Plan)? It could be argued that in the present
> climate, a compromise is necessary and that single-payer has zero
> chance. On the other hand, the present bill is so fraught with
> compromises that it will be unsatisfactory in many ways, the problem
> will "heat up" further, and more radical surgery will be frustrated
> because "we already tried socialized medicine" (when in fact we
> only put our toe in the water, so to speak). So political decision-
> making is a problem in weighing which tactic to use in the interim.
>
> Warmly, 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 - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.49/2294 - Release Date:
> 08/10/09 06:10:00
>
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.392 / Virus Database: 270.13.50/2296 - Release Date:
> 08/11/09 06:10:00
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090812/c156078c/attachment.html>
More information about the List
mailing list