Moreno's role theory questions

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Katherine, (The others on grouptalk may not know that we've met in Seattle a month ago and you're a philosophy student as well as a student of drama therapy, and one with a broad background. You might want to introduce yourself to people. ) 

   
     further comments interspersed:  ----- 
From: Katherine Morris  responding to the graphic sent To: List at grouptalkweb.org  Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 12:36 PM Subject: Re: fun graphic           by Eric Rutberg <ericrutberg at yahoo.com> wrote: re role theory http://www.psychodramatraining.com/Roles1.htm  

KM Is this really what J.L. Moreno said?! That our personalities are nothing more than the sum of the various roles we play in life?  If that is accurate, I am surprised that someone with a classic education like he had, would make such a superficial conclusion.

      AB: That you are surprised is a clue to the admixture in you of both unusual brightness and breadth of thought and perhaps the lack of readiness to realize that many of your teachers and great people in the many fields often do not match your keeness of perception.   Not that you're always right, either. But you do notice far more than many.  In other words, attend to your surprise.

AB continues:  So  the de-idealization begins. Moreno didn't have that much of a classic education; he ready broadly, but was very narcissistic, so integrated only that which fit his own schema. 
      Moreno was partly right in that he countered the idividual psychology that saw the mind as an interplay of internal desires, identifications, and introjected objects (significant others). Freud had a weak sense (it was there, but not strong) of the power of the here-and-now interpersonal field, group and socio-cultural dynamics. The way I put it, half of who we "really" are (if it could be stated, which it really cannot) involves the activities, identifications, interactions, effects, processes in those extra-skin dimensions. 
      Or we might re-frame it (in Moreno's defense) by expanding the appreciation of what it means to be a psychosomatic role. But in truth, Moreno's role scheme was just a beginning. The right way to appreciate him is as we appreciate Jung or Adler, as a pioneer with lots and lots of good ideas, but in no way the definitive, comprehensive, or final sense. Also, I find many of Moreno's ideas not at all well-thought out, coordinated, or inclusive of others' work. So I give him credit for what he did, and recognize that in many ways he was lacking. I certainly don't take his writing as authoritative, but rather as a beginning---and sometimes perhaps even misleading.

KM     I have not read Moreno's own writing yet, and I suspect that this is an over-simplification and distortion of his thought (and if not, I will be very surprised that someone with a background in philosophy would adopt such a simplistic, behavioristic view of human nature). 

        AB: his background is far more superficial than his status would suggest. He had brilliant insights, often was ahead of his time, but in my Foundations book I critique his writing---it's not really very good at all. Gems are buried here and there, but also fool's gold (iron pyrites) 

  KM    The claim that personalities are developed merely through taking on a bunch of roles even goes against simple observations. For example, we all see how babies, humans as well as other kinds of animals, have distinct personalities the moment they are born. There are inherent differences in the personalities and temperaments of babies (which perhaps influence the types of roles that they are drawn toward playing as they age). I could make the argument that personalities are further developed beyond what is inherent, not according to the roles played, but according to one's perceptions and experiences in life, especially since many people feel that they have to play roles in life that are not authentic, (i.e. not part of their real personality) but are required by society.
       AB: yes, I agree and write about factors in individuality on a paper on my website. Temperament, interests, peculiar quirks, and also abilities, relative no-talent spheres, etc.
        Not really in defending Moreno, though, I find that these elements can be added to a lively role theory (my own extension of Moreno's) in the following way. The role: A boy, age 6. Add not a social role or its definition, but some innate quality: A boy who is very tall or very nearsighted or very sensitive to loud sounds.   So in a sense, a character or picture can be built up that includes innate non-social-role elements. Moreno hadn't thought out his taxonomy very fully, in other words. 
        Similar deepening and broadening and revision of zoological or biological taxonomies have happened as technology and knowledge have grown in various fields, too.

KM Also, what about people who hide major parts of themselves from the world because those parts don't fit into the world, meaning that there are no roles associated with those parts; does that mean those parts are not thought of as part of those persons personalities because no roles are ever played to give expression and further development to those parts?

    AB: your objections remind me of one of the weaknesses of role theory: The idea that roles are primarily social. I don't think so. A role is anything that can be portrayed, and many sub-types of roles are by no means social. They can be very subtle, even spiritual, and as mentioned, also intrapsychic. My interest in this or that subject is a role between me and my writing tablet or computer keyboard, a role that gets expanded when you read my words, and expanded further if you are interested, willing to argue and develop those ideas, etc. This is like a role may be hinted at in scene one of a play and then deepened and elaborated as the role becomes played out with various others in later scenes---one who understands, one who distorts, one who fails to see any significance, etc. 

  AB: continues, anyway, welcome to grouptalk and let's see what others might say, too. I thought it was a nice introduction, though your points seem fair as an expansion of the subtlety of role theory.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20091220/05d8f02f/attachment.html>