psychodrama theory

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Colleagues, sharing a dialogue with David Kipper: 

Adam to David (today): As I say, your points are good. May I share them in the form of the dialogue below with grouptalk and some of the ABE people? Awaiting your response. Warmly, AdamYes, Adam, by all means.  You may share this with others.  You know what?  AS I read our exchange e-mails, they look like a good read.  Good idea on your part, Adam.  Cheers.   David A. Kipper, Ph.D., ABPP
Research Professor of Psychology, Department of Psychology
Roosevelt University, 430 S. Michigan Ave., Chicago, IL 60605, USA
e-mail: dkipper at roosevelt.edu  ALSO:
 Executive Psychological Consulting, Ltd.
142 E. Ontario, Suite 550, Chicago, IL 60611, USA
T: 312-867-0200 F: 312-867-0400
E-mail: kipperda at aol.com Web: www.davidakipper.com
   -   -   -

        Here's a dialogue I've had with David Kipper about research and theory in psychodrama.

1. DK  Did we stop for a minute to think why European psychodramatists continue to be "philosophical" and what is the real reason(s) for such a difference among psychodrama practitioners?  
      AB: Warm me up here: Maybe in dialogue we can think why that is: Do you have some hunches?

  2. DK: Second, in the first issue (above) I wrote that "on the surface" it seems that Europeans tend to be more philosophically inclined. Actually, Anglo-American social scientists have been producing many theories in many disciplines.  In fact, you cannot start an empirical research without formulating a theory or a philosophical outlook that will justify the predictions and explain the outcomes  The problem for psychodramatists, is that no new theories have been developed since Moreno's great ideas of the 1930's.  It seems that we are stuck on a cultural conserve. So how can we extricate ourselves from this situation?

        AB: This is the key: How could you say that no new theories have been developed in psychodrama when you yourself have done so, and a fair number of others have done so, and I consider that at least part of what I've written in a variety of books and papers are new theories. Sure, I build on and extend a number of Moreno's ideas, but some is also fairly original. Anyway, what I've written, and your writings, and that of many others, should not be discounted as merely derivative. That would be like discounting much of Western philosophy because it comments on and builds on Plato! (Indeed, Whitehead said as much---not that we should discount these writers, but that much of philosophical discourse extends the fundamental issues raised in the dialectic between Plato and Aristotle.) 

     In the next exchange, David responded: Does any training institute tesch any of the new theories (yours, mine, Rory Remer's, or others)? Does the Board of Examiners' exams require knowledge of these theories? For too many they do not exist. 

       Adam in follow-up email: Ha ha! Good point! I don't know how much didactic training goes on, and I suspect that you think that it's not much. I think it's not much, too.

     David in next email exchange: Theories are great but in psychotherapy they need to be (a) validated---though other than by words of their creators, (b) taught by others (i.e., accepted by the members of the profession), and (c) contrasted with other, existing theories. I haven't seen any evidence that abc is followed in psychodrama, and psychodrama training.

       and as for Adam's use of the idea of "how much," David then responded:   I judge the value of didactic training by its quality and its breadth of coverage not by its quantity,

          Adam to Grouptalk: Comments? 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090113/8490a745/attachment.html>