Change and removing self from self and role theory - longish

[Peter Howie]

Dear Adam and colleagues,

I want to address one elements of our discussion and alert you and  
remind me about one element that I thought Moreno was up to which I  
heartily support. Your qeury about "is it possible to eliminate"....

I think that we are mixing metaphors or mental models or philosophical  
tenets or ideas (all of which I consider synonyms for the same  
structures) when discussing roles, sub-personalities, ego and other  
such things. Firstly they are one and all, conjectural ideas of human  
functioning. However none of them are psychodramatic ideas. Now  
psychodrama is a broad church, as they say, and accepts and find space  
for just about any situationally useful idea or conjecture. Moreno was  
a pretty good polymath in pulling in ideas and philosophy from many  
quarters and knowing them well enough to work out extensions and  
applications. One area of Moreno's work I particularly like is the  
idea of roles. Now roles are not roles as played by an actor who has a  
large repertoire of roles. So a person does not contain or have within  
them a large number of "roles" from a Morenian perspective. However  
this perspective - of have a number of internal roles can be useful  
and makes sense to many/some people. However the idea of internal  
roles is yet another conjecture about the functioning of the human  
psyche, its shape, structure. Even as a metaphor for human functioning  
it has its problems.

Anyway - this takes quite a bit of effort. Phew!

The idea of role, as I see it, is the functional form a person takes  
in response to a situation or other person. I think that is JL's  
definition or close to it. Now that response has an entirely  
observable form.  And when viewing that entirely observable form we  
can certainly hypothesise internal goings on, world views and such  
like from an inductive and abductive reasoning methodology but what we  
still only have and are left with is the observable form and some  
hypotheres. That observable form must be only seen in terms of the  
context and the the system surrounding them and not as an internal  
only response. When it is seen as an internal response we return to  
the land of conjecture and supposition and untestable attributions.  
And often to the narrowing down of a person to a few very small  
elements. When a person's behaviour can be seen as a role within a  
system of roles and named in a colourful, creative and recognisable  
manner then our thinking can open up in a different manner. A person  
still does not have a "role inside them" but they are seen as part of  
a system of relationships within which they are responding and this  
response can be viewed as a role. Thinking this ways means that a  
person does not need to be divided, it means they are always  
themselves, fully and completely and are part of a larger world of  
relationships to which they are constantly responding.

So far I have not yet got to my point. So my point is this -  
eliminating part of a person is not any part of role theory. Role  
theory suggests that a person can expand their roles - that is through  
being creative a person can find new ways of behaving in response to  
old or novel situations. As a person does this we can say their role  
repertoire is expanding - not internally - but their choices of how  
they respond are increasing. As a person's choices expand then the  
overdeveloped roles - that is the ones that get over-relied on  
situationally do not arise so often. So as a person expands their  
range of responses so their is a diminution of certain less functional  
roles responses. This does not mean the roles are excised, eliminated  
or abandoned. It simply means that a person has more choices and  
ability to exercise choices in how they respond. The reading I have  
done supports this contention. The reading I have done does not  
support any notion of getting rid of or eliminating parts of self. An  
example of a role response that perhaps have diminished usage as we  
grow but can reoccur easily - whatever role response you are having to  
me as you read this - how would that shift if your mother or your  
father walked into the room where you are at present. Many of us find  
it easy to respond in old ways to our parents, despite years of  
maturing and getting wisdom.

There, I've done it. These points require some decent papers which I  
will produce over the next year or so. I'll respond to the  
spirituality thread separately.

Cheers adam and colleagues


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 10/01/2009, at 9:08 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:

> Responding to your comments of January 7    Campbell also notes that  
> perhaps the problem with religions today is that they myths have not  
> caught up with the economic and social realities of the world in  
> which we live.
>        1. I am all for a re-thinking about new myths, and wrote  
> about this on my website : http://www.blatner.com/adam/psyntbk/creatmythmk.htm
>
>    2. RS  Perhaps what we need are new myths.  Oddly enough, some of  
> the new science and new religion is backing up what the Mary Baker  
> Eddy prosletyzed to her masses -- the power of prayer, of "energy"  
> and intention.
>       AB: You may be right, and I sort of wish you were, but I am  
> not sure that much good science has indeed backed up the power of  
> prayer. There's lots of not-so-good science going around, too.
>     3. youtube video   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pTb2kp9Y4Is    
> Shows Andrew Cohen and Ken Wilber, two new-age "teachers" responding  
> to an emotional woman who is speaking about her inner conflicts.
>     Regina wrote: I forced myself to watch it.  and I had to force  
> myself to watch it. I know that place of what Cynthia dubbed  
> spiritual hunger.  I know that place of resistance.  But we've  
> reframed resistance in our psychodrama world, no?  Haven't we  
> decided perhaps that resistance is just lack of warm up.  and might  
> there be valid reasons for lack of warm up?  Like we, or someone  
> else, is pushing us into a role that we don't want or that we don't  
> have adequate skills or tools to occupy, or we think we don't have  
> adequate skills or tools, but we try to do it anyway because we  
> think we "should" and then - to steal for Ellis - we end up  
> "shoulding all over ourselves."
>          AB: I agree and would add a few other comments:
>      a. Is it possible to eliminate sub-personalities, parts of self  
> that are regressive? I remember Ram Das saying that after 20 years  
> of meditation and spiritual effort (following his psychedelic  
> experiments), he hadn't "cured" a single neurotic complex. But, he  
> conceded, they were "smaller."
>           I might have answered that a person can have parts of  
> oneself that are little-kid I don't want to feelings and that  
> doesn't disqualify the more grown-up parts. I think it was Desmond  
> Tutu or someone famous noting that courage doesn't mean you're not  
> afraid; rather, it means that you are afraid and you go ahead anyway.
>
>      b. But what bothered me is the answer-giving behavior. I will  
> confess that these guys---more Andrew Cohen, but a bit of Ken  
> Wilber, too---though I like many aspects of his philosophical work,  
> but not all--- annoy me. Perhaps this helped explain it. (And I  
> admit there may be shadow elements here.) I might have refrain from  
> being so ready with answers, but engaged instead in something that  
> was more psychodramatic, or at least an inquiry. This doesn't fit so  
> neatly into a large class context, but this level of learning  
> perhaps should not be subject to that format.
>        For example, I can't speak for this person in the video, but  
> I have found that symptoms of self-hate often relate to a variety of  
> other issues not brought out into the open, and possibly not even  
> consciously related to the things at hand.
>       This woman was locating the distress in the dissonance between  
> her dedication to doing good in social action and the parts of her  
> that don't want to do good for others, or even be very grown-up.  
> Perhaps, but unless we deal with a general life review, we can't  
> know if this is really what the issue is. It may be unfinished  
> issues with a lover, guilt and shame over gullibility and sexuality  
> (quite common), lack of clarity in identity and vocational  
> commitment (also very common), lack of general map of faith, and so  
> on---many possibilities.
>        So I felt annoyed at what seemed to me to be grossly  
> unsophisticated psychological pseudo-therapy, with glib answers.
>
>      c. The other problem with Cohen, and to some degree Wilber,  
> too, in these videos, is the new age babble. It used to be called  
> psychobabble, but now it's spiritual-babble. Those are statements  
> that are essentially platitudes, cleverly disguised. Many recognized  
> teachers and televangelists and others are quite glib, perhaps quite  
> sincere, it all fits in their mind, an answer to every questions.
>
>  (Am I this way and projecting my annoyance on Cohen? Maybe, but  
> I'll be open to exploration of words, point by point. I don't think  
> he makes himself vulnerable in this way.)
>
>      Cohen and many other new age gurus make sweeping statements  
> that cannot be disproven. They're too vague. As you think, so your  
> life will be. Not really so obvious, because we all think so many  
> internally contradictory things. Make your mind pure?  Who has done  
> this, and where is the evidence that except for building a new-age  
> following, those who are designated by followers and by self as  
> enlightened actually lead more exemplary lives?
>
>        RS: So the political consequences of spirituality - or lack  
> there of - I think are dependent on the tenets or myths or  
> misunderstandings that one subscribes to.  Not just the leaders -  
> though they certainly have incredible power to shape social rhetoric  
> - but the peeps as well...  I personally lost at least $10,000 in a  
> break-up because a majority of people in Ohio felt moved by their  
> spiritual convictions to deny the rights of marriage to unmarried  
> people and denied marriage to same sex couples.
>        AB: This brings up the whole problem of spirituality and  
> religion, and the possibility that many people who pursue a variety  
> of current religious agendas (such as anti-homosexual political  
> policies) are bothering much with any personal spiritual endeavors.
>
>
>      So, back to trying to clean up email. Warmly, Adam
> 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/20090110/ce40d9cc/attachment.html>