Moreno's role theory questions

[Grace]

Kia ora Jenny and all,

I enjoyed the previous exploration of role theory and am yet again
appreciating people's responses to Katherine.  I hope this adds something to
the conversation and is not going off on a bit of a tangent...

I am no expert in the role theory, nor of other theories of personality.
However, I do believe that there is much more that could be added to the
written body of knowledge about Role than what was left to us by Moreno
himself.  This would seem to be true from the anecdotal information shared
with us over the course of this discussion. 


The thing I really appreciate about the practical use of Role Theory is its
immediacy and its strength-based focus.  

I find using a somewhat simplified version of a role analysis (an analysis
of the functioning in a role... well developed, over developed,
under-developed, embryonic, conflicted etc, such as you would use in a role
training session)is a very useful tool even with folk who have no
psychodrama background.  It immediately shifts people from a place of seeing
ONLY the hole in the doughnut (the thing they did badly- and HOW VERY BADLY
THEY DID IT) to a strength-based perspective.  Typically they immediately
warm up to recognising that MOST of what they did was good and often only a
very small adjustment is required for it all to be useful to them.  Much
more hope that way!  It also is very useful to assist them to see that the
person with whom they are struggling is also a system of roles and the
particular role they struggle with is not ALL of that person; much more
hopeful. 

Cheers
Grace
-----Original Message-----
From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org]
On Behalf Of Jenny Wilson
Sent: Monday, 21 December 2009 8:01 p.m.
To: Katherine Morris
Cc: grouptalk
Subject: Re: Moreno's role theory questions

Hi Katherine
Welcome to grouptalk and trying to find out more about roles. I'm sure
there is a link somewhere to a recent and lengthy conversation I had
with Adam, Peter Howie and others although I am unsure how you access
the old conversations.

I found Adam's books useful also this article by Max Clayton:
Clayton, M.  (1994)   Chapter 6:  Role theory and its application in
clinical practice,  in Holmes, P., Karp, M.,  and Watson, M. (Eds.)
(1994) Psychodrama since Moreno: Inovations in theory and practice.
Florence: Routledge-Taylor and Frances.

Also the response (copied below) from Peter Howie that I kept because it
contained a bit of an aha moment for me... (hope you don't mind Peter).
It helped me see the difference between role theory and the
psychological theories I was more familiar with.

Kind regards
Jenny Wilson
(Clinical Psychologist)




Dear Jenny,

It is good to see you struggling with roles and role theory. I have been
doing so for some time as well. However I think I am struggling at a
different edge of the "theory" to you. As I read about your struggles I
seem able to perceive different elements that you are struggling with
and I am not sure that 'answers', if such exist, are likely to be all
that useful.

However, by way of an answer as I perceive your motivation during this
discussion, I have been most effected by role theory when I am applying
it to others. The main reasons being that it stimulates my imagination,
and when they are involved it stimulates their imagination and usefully
leads to further considerations and areas of focus. I yak on about this
in my blog which I titled "The value of using role thoery" and it is
at:http://www.morenocollegium.com.au/blog

I guess this means that this is somewhat of a practitioners model or
maybe even a well developed heuristic-type model - a 'rule of thumb'
type approach. That isn't quite right but I don't think it is required
that role theory have an internal psychological framework as well as an
external one that is being applied. I like it because the internal
psychological theories neither confirm or deny it (role theory) and can
be incorporated peripherally. As I write this I wonder if,
philosophically, this may be many people's dilemma though I am not sure
if it is yours: that role theory has no great generating motives, no
implicit underlying parts of a person's psyche, no implications about
how a person works or how a person's mind, non-mind, consciousness,
non-consciousness, pre-conscious, personality and other similar idea and
things function. It is in one sense highly superficial and descriptive.
Perhaps because the descriptions are not fully formed and pre-defined
(such as with a taxonomy) there is an unwillingness in me and others to
enter into such an open landscape. I get the shivers in such an open
landscape. I find it reminiscent of being asked to develop phrases off
the top of my head in playback theatre, the creative emergent process.
Especially zen-moments where three members of the troupe summarise a
story into three very short lines and sculptures - and often nailed it
wonderfully. But was it very tricky, hard and creative. Something
haiku-ish like "Adam wrote and lead the way; Jenny prised the rocks of
ignorance aside; together they, with the vicarious onlookers, enjoyed
the squirmy creatures beneath."

I am still thinking visually of the picture of philosophically, role
theory being thin at the top but deep in its penetration of me and
others. While thinking that many other descriptive and taxonomic models
are deeper philosophically but may not be able to penetrate to any depth
in how it effects people. Depth here I guess is about depth of affect of
the client and myself as we enter a process. To illustrate: I am just
back from 4 days with 21 people where we used two models - Myers-Briggs
Typology personality theories and the Adult experiential Learning Styles
of David Kolb. These are both sophisticated forms of stereotyping and
some people love them and some people hate them and while it is about
putting people in boxes it does create an argument about there being
different boxes than what many people believed they might have been. It
validates difference. However it is still a form of stereotyping and
does actually narrow a person down quite a bit. It also narrows down how
I look at that person. I find it quite tricky stuff. And there are
books, and books and research on this stiff and it has a large conserve
around it. Yet when I do role analyses of and with others I find that
with only a few role names to start with, I begin to imagine much
greater things that what is present. That is what I mean by depth. And
as I read this again I reckon that it is also similar in this aspect
with a psychodrama in that it has elements of surprise, intrigue, an
aesthetic and others

Cheers for the moment. I'll go and keep chewing. I also read Adam's
chapters in the last week - weren't they good!

Peter




Katherine Morris wrote:
> 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
> <mailto: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 <mailto:morris.katherine at gmail.com>* 
>     responding to the graphic sent **To:* List at grouptalkweb.org
>     <mailto:List at grouptalkweb.org>*  **Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009
>     12:36 PM *Subject:* Re: fun graphic           by Eric
>     Rutberg <ericrutberg at yahoo.com
>     <mailto: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.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

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