role theory 10 June-adam

Wed Jun 10 10:29:46 CDT 2009

Hi Jenny,
Peter put it well.
While I can very neatly formulate what  and why I have done in any particular session,and require same  of my students-the truth is that it was my intuitive mind that guided me mostly,and the rational mind lagged behind,though not too far,At the end: the description of a  seemlessly run psychodrama ,how choices were made in split second etc- makes a novice feel:I can't  do it.Nor can we. ( nthe experienced ones)The description is after the fact. 
On a gentler note: 
"Do not fear perfection. You will never reach it"-Salvador Dali
warmly,
anath garber
> From: ablatner at verizon.net
> To: jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz; peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au; list at grouptalkweb.org
> Subject: role theory 10 June-adam
> Date: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 08:12:25 -0500
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail® has ever-growing storage! Don’t worry about storage limits. 
http://windowslive.com/Tutorial/Hotmail/Storage?ocid=TXT_TAGLM_WL_HM_Tutorial_Storage_062009
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090610/5f59ba02/attachment.html>