role theory 10 June-adam

Wed Jun 10 08:12:25 CDT 2009

Hi pals, I'll weigh in with comments.
        I think I agree with Peter's ideas on the whole, and certainly his general 
sensibility. I think I use the role concept more while I'm working, but in a general 
way---imagining scenarios and alternative ways people might be responding.

    Let's address Jenny's email first:  I believe I am caught in the middle of a 
philosophical dilemma: On one hand the spirit of psychodrama embraces all realities and a 
major part of the method (perhaps the major part therapeutically) is to fully enter into 
the world of the protagonist. In this context all realities seem to be accepted as valid 
and real. Reading the excepts from your blog and Adams comments 1/6/09 I am reminded of 
how rich and full of  possibilities this way of being is, and how much I love this aspect 
of psychodrama. The excitement and playfulness of psychodrama come alive in your writing.
         On the other hand psychodrama is moving towards a more clearly defined 
professional identity with writing assignments, thesis, and practical assessments becoming 
more important and marking transition from one level to the next and eventually resulting 
in a significant qualification. These assignments are assessed against some criteria - but 
the criteria are far from clear to me. Understanding role theory is a significant 
component of ANZPA requirements - present in the social and cultural atom paper and the 
presentation following practical assessment.My experience to date indicates to me that 
some realities regarding role theory are closer to what is required than others but are 
not clearly stated as such, and shift depending on who is doing the assessing and 
teaching. Not a problem in practice but anxiety provoking when heading off for assessment!

     AB: My reading is that Jenny is intuitively sensitive to the mixture of levels 
involved in a penetrating view of psychology: On one hand, a good psychology is broad, 
including even dimensions about which we barely understand. This is true also of science. 
On the other hand, like science, it also focuses at times, attempting to be more precise. 
In doing so, it must recognize that a number of frontiers are ignored or minimized because 
we lack the tools and techniques for assessing all edges of not just what we know, but 
also what we intuit as being present but not yet able to be investigated. Examples, deep 
consciousness, altered states of consciousness, spiritual experiences, psychic 
experiences, a fair amount of sociometry, etc.

     JW  I know that a great deal of my exploration of the question of role is driven by 
anxiety. To be assessed and found competent (or not) in an undefinable construct where all 
realities are valued seems to be an enormous paradox to me. Making the paradox clearer has 
been useful, reduces my anxiety even, as I realise that what is not known by me is also 
not clear in the minds of others. Overcoming some fantasy that somehow others understand 
how this all fits together but somehow I do not. Your haiku made me smile and reminded me 
to try and hold all this more lightly.
       AB: Words like assess and define seem to imply that a level of precision has been 
mastered by others, and this is not so.

Here's another way to think: Scene is a case conference of professionals. If X presents a 
case formulation, would X's teacher feel that presentation is plausible enough so that the 
teacher wouldn't feel humiliated?  This is the criteria I use for grading exams. I can say 
right now, Jenny, that your capacity to be articulate and coherent puts you well into the 
category of those who would pass. You may not get every concept perfectly, but you're 
evidently bright and conscientious, and you communicate this well---and all this stuff 
must be recognized as being relative to others with whom you are compared.

I recognize within my own mind that there is a great deal I don't know. My confidence has 
grown only in that I have become aware that compared to many others in my general age 
group and status, I do fine. In other words, there is a big category known as "good 
enough" that allows for less-than-perfect.

JS  So far I have got clearer that I can work with roles on the stage even if writing 
about roles is difficult. I agree with you about role theory having most effect when 
working with an individual or group. Thankfully I don't get so  bogged down with all this 
thinking while in action these days.
     The personal crucible of facing assessment has brought this paradox into sharp focus 
for me, however I imagine this paradox exists and will continue for the psychodrama 
community in any attempt to evaluate and write about the method. So all good grist for the 
mill.
         AB: That word assessment is very ambiguous. Think of it rather as having a 
working and somewhat plausible hypothesis. The grave secret in the general field of 
counseling is that it's my impression that over half of the practicing counselors today 
could not readily answer a question (even generally) about "what do you think is going on 
with this client?"   (See my paper on case formulation.   So answering that question 
perfectly is a fair distance from answering it in a somewhat plausible fashion.

    Like Peter (I think), when I work, I hold my formulations tentatively, and revise them 
as new information comes in. I question the semantic implication of the word 
"assessment"---whether it can be anywhere near complete or definitive. Rather, I imagine 
it to be more than just groping in the dark, a somewhat plausible strategy. But as it's 
tested, the assessment becomes more specific.

    Also, the mind is so vast that there cannot be a full assessment. A month's time spent 
doing interviews and psychological tests wouldn't suffice to capture the fullness of a 
person. The assessment then needs to be focused to a certain sphere of function and 
dysfunction. What's wrong here, and what strengths might be available to correct this 
problem?

         ... or am I not getting your point? That's possible too. Warmly, Adam

>>>

> Peter Howie wrote:
>> Hi Jenny,
>>
>> Thanks for this. I did mean to send it to grouptalk - I keep missing the
>> way it works. Maybe I will post it there anyway. You might have a
>> different response by then.
>>
>> My guess is that you have some well defined learning preferences and how
>> we teach and supervise with role theory hasn't suited this, so far.
>>
>> I am developing a very tentative hypothesis that you have an idea that
>> others (the great and glorious ones) are able to use role theory in the
>> moment, while they are working in dramas and other settings, able to
>> make stuff up off the top of their heads, see stories clearly and
>> immediately or near enough able to develop adequate role names and the
>> like. Is this correct? I think I make it clear in my blog that I find it
>> of most use after the fact. And if I talk about a person in a role in
>> supervision this is very much after the fact.
>>
>> Also on another point - and it might have been in your expression rather
>> than intent. I don't find that all realities need to be accepted as
>> valid or real. However I do need to accept the protagonist/client/other
>> person/colleague and accept that as far as they have presented that they
>> believe it is real and valid. So I am accepting them rather than their
>> reality. And this is also a pretty major aspect of the method. The
>> capacity to enter the other's world and re-enter my own.
>>
>> I am off to aikido - cheers for the moment
>>
>> Shall we go public?
>>
>> 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 08/06/2009, at 4:11 PM, Jenny Wilson wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Peter (I'm not sure whether to post this on grouptalk or not  - as
>>> you sent to me I will just respond to you)
>>>
>>> Thank you for your thoughtful response to my questions/reflections. I am
>>> really appreciating getting some different perspectives on this. >>> Anyway - thanks 
>>> for reading/responding. I will have a look at your blog
>>> shortly but not tonite as busy.
>>>
>>> Jenny
>>>
>>>
>>
>
> 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 - www.avg.com
Version: 8.5.339 / Virus Database: 270.12.60/2166 - Release Date: 06/09/09 18:08:00