Moreno's role theory questions

[Katherine Morris]

Hello, my name is Katherine Morris and I'm currently studying for an MA in
clinical psychology. My undergraduate studies were in philosophy and
psychology. I have a strong interest in therapies that engage the whole
being rather than just the intellect, and am currently learning about as
many different whole-person therapies as I can find.

Thank you so much for your detailed response! Sorry for not introducing
myself (I thought I did, but I joined 3 lists at the same time and must have
forgotten to introduce myself on this one.) and also for what might
accidentally appear 'harsh and abrupt' or an 'attack' (I think my academic
training in philosophy gives me that, because philosophers learn to go
straight for logical inconsistencies, etc. without any extra 'niceties' ;)
and maybe that is not so good outside of philosophy.

I don't have time for a proper response at the moment, but for now I just
want to say that I learned more about the concept of 'roles' in this one
email than I did in my entire school quarter that I just finished in
dramatherapy! (hmmm...not sure what to think about that, especially after
what I paid for tuition!) I was never told that 'roles' is a technical term;
I thought it was being used in the common sense of the term. Actually, in
the class I just finished, the concept of roles was not discussed much,
almost not at all, even though the concept is fundamental to psychodrama and
dramatherapy. Now that I see its technical meaning, I see the concept in an
entirely different way now; so thank you Dr. Blatner for taking the time to
educate me.

Katherine

On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

>  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 <morris.katherine at gmail.com>*  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/20091220/0587fc17/attachment.html>