Moreno's role theory questions
Jenny Wilson
jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz
Mon Dec 21 22:29:06 CST 2009
I think it is Karen Horney who was one of the first to categorise the
roles or coping strategies as moving towards, against or away as a way
to manage basic anxiety. I find this framework a useful way for making
sense of various responses in social situations both in myself and in
others.
I am curious where the idea of fragmenting, coping and progressive
originated. Does anyone know and have a reference?
Jenny
Johanna Perfect wrote:
> I have been engaged by the thread also - and reflective about my own use
> of Role Theory.
>
> Congruent with a move in this part of the world I see roles as 'whole
> ways of being' - containing thinking, feeling and action components
> including motivation and values. Perhaps this is not much of a change
> in some ways but it warms me up to appreciating the psychological
> complexity of what I might name as role. I can at once appreciate the
> social function and effect of the role as it is enacted in a group and
> can come to appreciate the formation of the role in the persons history
> and personality (for example in a psychodrama).
>
> I guess in saying this i don't much hold with Moreno's original
> categories of somatic, psychodramatic and social. I think of Moreno as
> creating an idea and a context and the many people who have come later
> as filling this idea out and integrating it more with related
> developments in social sciences and psychology. I really like his
> notions of the Matrix of all identity, doubling, mirrioring and role
> reversal as developmental stages. The gem to me is that, for example,
> doubling is both a developmental stage and a way of being I can adopt
> with my client or produce in a drama. Similarly role is both personal
> and specific to the client and an element of the life of the group in
> the present. To me this linking of social and personal is a valued
> aspect of Moreno's genius.
>
> As a psychotherapist I find value in the notion that roles can be
> categorised as fragmenting, coping or progressive / generative. I am
> sorry i do not remember the author that first created these categories
> however Max Clayton took them up and developed them. Coping roles seem
> to me to be related to what psychoanalytic psychotherapists call
> defences, i.e. ways of being that are defensive or self protective in
> orientation... On the other hand when Grace speaks of being Strength
> Based I warm up to the functioning form and working to strengthen
> progressive functioning....
>
> Warmly
> Hamish
> Psychodramatist
>
>
>
>
>
> --- On *Tue, 22/12/09, Grace /<grace at graceworks.co.nz>/* wrote:
>
>
> From: Grace <grace at graceworks.co.nz>
> Subject: RE: Moreno's role theory questions
> To: "'grouptalk'" <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> Date: Tuesday, 22 December, 2009, 11:05 AM
>
> 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
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org>
> [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=list-bounces@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
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablatner@verizon.net>
> > <mailto:ablatner at verizon.net
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablatner@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
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=morris.katherine@gmail.com>>*
>
> > responding to the graphic sent **To:* List at grouptalkweb.org
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org>
> > <mailto:List at grouptalkweb.org
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org>>*
> **Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009
> > 12:36 PM *Subject:* Re: fun graphic by Eric
> > Rutberg <ericrutberg at yahoo.com
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ericrutberg@yahoo.com>
> > <mailto:ericrutberg at yahoo.com
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ericrutberg@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://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org>
> > http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb...org
> <http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org>
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> <http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@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
More information about the List
mailing list