psychodrama theory

Wed Jan 14 11:16:31 CST 2009

I couldn't have said better than you, of course, Adam. It's exactly what
I've meant.

So, from this "agreement platform", how should we proceed dialectically from
the current dynamic of the "establishment" or the current thesis (or today's
cultural conserve) of the so called Psychodrama Movement?

Ivo

On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 4:28 PM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

>  Dear Ivo, introducing the dialectical process suggested by the philospher
> G. Hegel is interesting as a way to think about the evolution of theory. I
> used a similar angle about 17 years ago in describing the history of
> psychotherapy, noting how many different offshoots offered an antithesis to
> certain aspects of Freudian theory. Indeed, psychoanalysis itself has
> engaged in its own evolution and the generation of antitheses and syntheses.
> In my Foundations of Psychodrama 4th edition 2000 I speak of ways that
> psychoanalysis and psychodrama may be theoretically synthesized. "Ways"
> doesn't mean that all the aspects are so managed, but some.
>          What you're hinting at, as I read it, is a process that all fields
> need to pursue: That dialectic operates on many levels, seeking to find
> underlying principles that account for both differences and yet certain
> forms of unity.
>
>       Certainly, I don't think we should stay with the mid-20th century
> status in which different approaches were relating to each other in a "I'm
> right you're wrong" fashion, competitively. There have been many efforts
> moving towards integration, and I support this idea of seeking to identify
> and integrate the best insights of each approach.
>
>       Warmly, Adam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> *From:* Ivo Banaco <ibanaco at gmail.com>
> *To:* Adam Blatner <adam at blatner.com>
> *Cc:* Grouptalk <list at grouptalkweb.org>
> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2009 9:29 AM
> *Subject:* Re: psychodrama theory
>
>
>
> 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.)
> Ivo: I couldn't agree more!
>
> "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."
>
> Ivo: I'm speaking from the outside of the psychodrama movement, ready and
> available to get in, but still an outsider, so I don't know the "real inside
> machine" at work. What I do have is my "feelings" to share about it. And
> that's what I am gonna to do:
>
> When I am playing around, going to conferences, workshops, reading books,
> with some detachment with all the different movements (although I'm starting
> to have some bias in favour of psychodrama) I try to separate the experience
> from the rational analysis. But We can't really separate them can we? My
> line of thought is more complex about the meta view  I have about all
> psychology field, but I will simplify here the arguments.
>
> Let's say that psychology is divided in two fields - Psychodrama and
> Psychoanalysis (far from reality I know I know...). What I feel, using the
> thesis vs antithesis scheme is that Psychodrama have a fundamental bias
> toward action and that became a cultural conserve in itself, became the
> thesis. From the Psychodrama point of view, Psychoanalysis is the
> antithesis, which have a fundamental bias, namely the use and abuse of
> diagnosis, rational/philosophical mode of discourses, reductionism (all
> problems are pre-ego stuff), etc.
>
> The problem (if there is one...) is in the emphasis for action methods
> (again I refer the fact that it's a view from the outside). But that was why
> Psychodrama exists after all, as antithesis from the thesis of the dominant
> Freudian epoch. Maybe these reflections are trying to push Psychodrama for a
> new level, one who makes a synthesis which is much more than the simple
> sum of the parts (thesis and antithesis).
>
> Best,
> Ivo
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>  On Wed, Jan 14, 2009 at 12:26 AM, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net>wrote:
>
>>  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?
>>
>> Grouptalk mailing list
>> List at grouptalkweb.org
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>>
>>
>  ------------------------------
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com
> Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.7/1893 - Release Date: 1/14/2009
> 6:59 AM
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090114/a6e59626/attachment.html>