Role theory 22 July

[Adam Blatner]

Further reflections.

    I was just talking to a friend about role theory, and his emphasis was on the stories 
we tell. This reminded me that if roles are to drama or psychology what notes are to 
music, then stories weave a number of roles in dynamic interaction over time. They would 
be analogous then to the form of music, the sonata or march or some other pattern for 
organizing a series of notes.  Thus, role theory in its more expanded form blends into 
narrative psychology, and vice versa: Narratives or stories might then be illuminated best 
by a dramaturgical metaphor or thinking about situations as if they were scenes in drama 
being played out by folks in different roles, instead of, for example, peppering the 
description with various abstract generalizations about dynamics or status.
    The key is whether as you describe the situation I can visualize it. If it's too full 
of abstractions, I find myself faced with too much ambiguity in visualizing the situation. 
I have to get a sense of who and what and where and through the activities of the roles 
played, to some degree a plausible why.

    Thinking about individuals as possessing often internally competing roles or voices or 
types of motivation, and noting that these can be in a sense dissociated, accounts for 
hypocrisy, internal inconsistencies of values and behavior, non-"integrity," etc. Such 
situations are common, and perhaps even the the most common in human relations---that is, 
the presence and often unconscious activity of other parts of the self that sabotage or 
give mixed messages into the interpersonal field. This is to say, then, that it is often 
useful for purposes of true understanding that what people pretend to themselves as well 
as others may only be part of the truth, and other elements include what qualities or 
motivations they pretend to themselves  not to possess or be expressed in their actions.

In other words, most often it is more authentic to be observing and noting that while 
consciously deciding to favor certain thoughts or values, there are "parts of me" that may 
be wishing to preserve or pursue contrary thoughts or values. Learning to watch for and 
more effectively discern these minority roles is part of what has been called "shadow 
work," the "shadow complex" being defined by Jung and others as those parts of the 
personality that  one might tend to disown or deny, since they contrast with the ideals 
one consciously affirms.

   My friend also noted something else interesting: When doing psychodrama, and especially 
psychodrama that includes a re-evaluation of some past event, that process of the re-done 
event, perhaps what is called, for example, the "reformed auxiliary ego technique (in 
which a past event is replayed but the oppressor or abuser or antagonist plays the role 
instead in a benign and perhaps even nurturuing way), there should be a fore-warning: The 
memory of the event may become contaminated or healed by the memory of the re-worked 
event. The structure of memory is changed. Even though the overall intent is positive, 
therapeutic, unless the protagonist knows that deep emotional patterns may shift, it can 
feel a bit like, "Hey, you've messed with my mind. I didn't expect it, nor did I sign up 
for it."

    Well, the point here is that there is room for development of role theory, and your 
thoughts are welcome. Warmly, Adam


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Blatner" <ablatner at verizon.net>
To: "Jenny Wilson" <jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz>
Cc: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Saturday, June 06, 2009 10:18 AM
Subject: Re: Role theory 6 June


> Hi Jenny, getting ready to go out for errands, so this may be in two parts.
>
> JW. My strongly stubborn tendency to try and understand things over-riding a more 
> peaceful
> existence! Not a question this time but more of a reflection.   ab: good, I appreciate a
> probing mind.
>
> JW From our conversations so far I am thinking that a sociologist might be talking about 
> a
> different construct than a clinical psychologist when  he/she talks about roles.
>    AB: Sociology tends to attempt more description. I find that okay but not 
> particularly
> useful or interesting.
>            Not just clinical, but applied---that's the point---any people worker---
> manager, teacher, parent, spouse, etc.  how to work creatively with psychology in real
> life, and sure, also therapy
>      Point I like to make is that role is a particularly useful verbal and conceptual
> tool for this...
>
> JW My understanding about roles initially come from studying a particular line of the
> role construct.  My understanding (and I'm happy to be corrected) is that Moreno
> influenced the thinking of Kelly...
>         (AB: I'm not sure that this influence might not have been quite minor... )
>
> JW ...and that  Beck was strongly influenced by Kelly's role theory when he started
> writing about schema and schema modes (even using the term role if I recall correctly in
> his early writing).
>         AB: again, we may be wrongly over-weighting the degrees of influence here... 
> much
> less the continuity of ideas...
>
> JW Beck writes that "modes are conceived of as a structural and operational units of
> personality that serve to adapt an individual to changing circumstances. The modes 
> consist
> of a composite of cognitive, affective, motivational and behavioural systems (Beck 
> 1996).
> This to me this sounded a lot like the roles described by Moreno.
>         AB: agree, not a bad definition, but I'm wary about the usefulness of
> definitions...
>
> JW   So I started off thinking of roles as similar to schema modes.    AB   some
> similarities, but let's see how far this takes us.
>
> JW  Reading your books and from our e-mail conversations Adam I understand "role" - as 
> you
> use the term - is much wider. And you have challenged me to notice how much we really
> don't know even as we define and label.
>           I'm now thinking that the where the term "role" is clearest to me is when a
> person or group of people is actually on the stage - at that point many different
> perspectives and different takes on reality clearly and unarguably become roles - 
> linking
> in with the drama origins of psychodrama.
>         AB: it is clearer because on stage the action is stopped, framed, as it were, 
> and
> it is clear that any facet can be worked with in surplus reality. What if the role were
> played more strongly or weakly? Or played by someone who was older, younger, or a
> different gender? And so forth.
>         But just because it is a little clearer on stage doesn't mean that we can't 
> bring
> the virtual stage to everyday life. Just saying something like "let's take that over"
> creates a small mini-drama, a bit of tentativeness to an action, frames it, to say 
> again,
> as a kind of play or as-if. This is the key: All life is open to being approached with
> this set of "how might this scene be played even more effectively?"
>      This practical application of role thus requires a willingness of people to think 
> of
> events as potentially improve-able, rather than the old way where folks generally 
> thought,
> well that's just the way I am, or that's just the way I do things.
>
>    Is this helpful? Gotta go. More later. Warmly, Adam
>
>
> Haven't commented or thought about the following yet: JW:
> The roles can be intrapsychic, interpersonal, cultural etc
>> but once fully and richly bought to life on the stage the term role fits
>> very well.
>>
>> I'm still less sure about how useful the term "role" is off the stage
>> unless it is defined in some way (even loosely in the manner of "it is
>> useful to think of a role in this context as" ... sort of way). Without
>> any definition to accompany it the term "role" it seems likely to
>> contribute to confusion. Personally it has confused me greatly. In
>> trying to write about roles (I have fairly recently completed a social
>> and cultural atom paper as part of training) I have found myself tied in
>> knots, misunderstanding my trainers and being misunderstood by them in
>> spite of strong relationships and good intent. Once we got beneath the
>> icons (borrowing Adam's metaphor about the computer icons on the screen)
>> I found I was talking a completely different language about this construct.
>>
>> Anyway - my greetings to you and others on group talk - thanks for
>> reading and responding if you feel moved to do so.
>>
>> Warm regards
>> Jenny
>>
>>