Role theory 6 June

[Jenny Wilson]

Hi Adam and Regina
I seem to be rather compelled to keep thinking about the subject of
roles. 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.

>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.

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, 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) . 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. So I started off thinking of roles as similar
to schema modes.

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. 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






Adam Blatner wrote:
> back home from visiting kids...
>     Comments on  REGINA SEWELL <mailto:sewell.2 at osu.edu>  and her
> remarks to  Jenny Wilson <mailto:jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz> on, May
> 20, 2009 re role theory.
>     RS  My framework (as a sociologist) is that roles are social
> constructions. 
>              AB: I would say as a slight modifier that the term role has
> evolved from the realm of theatre to a more general social concept of
> function. It has gone beyond social, so that people now talk about, say,
> the role of the gas methane in the atmosphere in the ecology of global
> warming.
>  
>     RS  They are based on social interaction with others and become part
> of the conserve.
>  AB: I think sociologists are far too narrow. The term is useful also to
> speak of somato-psychic and intrapsychic dynamics, also.
>  
>       RS  Some aspects of roles are somewhat universal, in that most of
> us agree on the role expectations.  For example, the role of mother,
> most of us expect mothers to be nurturing, to be loving, to listen, to
> be good role models. 
>         AB: Actually, though, in a sense the opposite is true when it
> comes to the negotiations regarding ongoing issues: I mean that while
> society marks out very general boundaries: No killing your kids.
> (Reminding me of the sitcom Roseanne's line to her husband, "If you come
> home after work and the kids are still alive, I've done my job.")
>           But how much should a "good" parent demand of a child? How
> much frustration and challenge is appropriate? At what point does good
> parenting slip into spoiling or pampering. So this role is very much in
> a state of cultural and sub-group negotiations, though most of it goes
> not only unspoken, but unconscious.
>  
>      RS  And, at least in the U.S., the courts use this in their
> determination of penalties...  in that women are more severely punished
> for violating the expectations of motherhood than they are for the
> actual "deed" they have committed. 
>       AB: However, 98.3% of role expectations have nothing to do with
> actual laws. Most common example: Have you lived up sufficiently to your
> own expectations? Those expectations are role definitions!  A successful
> person...    A person who lives up to her potential would...   A truly
> enlightened person would...
>  
>    RS   As far as evolution...  here you are talking about genetics. 
> Robert Lipton, a cellular biologist has proposed the notion that
> although DNA is important, outcome is shaped by environment.  That is,
> the environment in which a cell lives determines how the DNA responds. 
> I have also been listening to Daniel J. Siegel's "Neurobiology of We"
> which focuses on attachment and relationships (this is essentially the
> environment) and it turns out that DNA, genetics, has no impact on
> attachment...  and attachment has an incredible impact on one's life
> narrative.  One's understanding of roles is based on one's narrative,
> one's story, one's understanding of roles and expectations about how one
> should be and how others should be.  And, significantly, one's life
> narrative is highly (incredibly highly) correlated with one's parent's
> narrative.  This suggest not evolutionary but learned social behavior.
>             AB: While I substantially agree, the attribution of
> personality traits to degrees of attachment (a recent theme in these
> interchanges) is problematical. Many psychotherapists learned about
> theories of psychology and psychotherapy that hardly take temperament
> (or genetic predispositions) into account.
>  
> Peace out, regina sewell, ph.d.   responding to Jenny's statement
> previously,   <<If we accept that human functioning is guided by/
> arranged somehow into roles (maybe this statement will be the first
> point of discussion/challenge) then I would assume some evolutionary
> advantage to having us wired this way (I guess this statement too could
> be debated!) Can you comment about roles from an evolutionary 
> perspective ? to put the question more bluntly:  How did we end up wired
> this way?>>
>