Role theory 6 June

[Peter Howie]

I sent this to Jenny when I meant it to go to all.

Dear Jenny,

It is good to see you struggling with roles and role theory. I have  
been doing so for some time as well. However I think I am struggling  
at a different edge of the "theory" to you. As I read about your  
struggles I seem able to perceive different elements that you are  
struggling with and I am not sure that 'answers', if such exist, are  
likely to be all that useful.

However, by way of an answer as I perceive your motivation during this  
discussion, I have been most effected by role theory when I am  
applying it to others. The main reasons being that it stimulates my  
imagination, and when they are involved it stimulates their  
imagination and usefully leads to further considerations and areas of  
focus. I yak on about this in my blog which I titled "The value of  
using role thoery" and it is at:http://www.morenocollegium.com.au/blog

I guess this means that this is somewhat of a practitioners model or  
maybe even a well developed heuristic-type model - a 'rule of thumb'  
type approach. That isn't quite right but I don't think it is required  
that role theory have an internal psychological framework as well as  
an external one that is being applied. I like it because the internal  
psychological theories neither confirm or deny it (role theory) and  
can be incorporated peripherally. As I write this I wonder if,  
philosophically, this may be many people's dilemma though I am not  
sure if it is yours: that role theory has no great generating motives,  
no implicit underlying parts of a person's psyche, no implications  
about how a person works or how a person's mind, non-mind,  
consciousness, non-consciousness, pre-conscious, personality and other  
similar idea and things function. It is in one sense highly  
superficial and descriptive. Perhaps because the descriptions are not  
fully formed and pre-defined (such as with a taxonomy) there is an  
unwillingness in me and others to enter into such an open landscape. I  
get the shivers in such an open landscape. I find it reminiscent of  
being asked to develop phrases off the top of my head in playback  
theatre, the creative emergent process. Especially zen-moments where  
three members of the troupe summarise a story into three very short  
lines and sculptures - and often nailed it wonderfully. But was it  
very tricky, hard and creative. Something haiku-ish like "Adam wrote  
and lead the way; Jenny prised the rocks of ignorance aside; together  
they, with the vicarious onlookers, enjoyed the squirmy creatures  
beneath."

I am still thinking visually of the picture of philosophically, role  
theory being thin at the top but deep in its penetration of me and  
others. While thinking that many other descriptive and taxonomic  
models are deeper philosophically but may not be able to penetrate to  
any depth in how it effects people. Depth here I guess is about depth  
of affect of the client and myself as we enter a process. To  
illustrate: I am just back from 4 days with 21 people where we used  
two models - Myers-Briggs Typology personality theories and the Adult  
experiential Learning Styles of David Kolb. These are both  
sophisticated forms of stereotyping and some people love them and some  
people hate them and while it is about putting people in boxes it does  
create an argument about there being different boxes than what many  
people believed they might have been. It validates difference. However  
it is still a form of stereotyping and does actually narrow a person  
down quite a bit. It also narrows down how I look at that person. I  
find it quite tricky stuff. And there are books, and books and  
research on this stiff and it has a large conserve around it. Yet when  
I do role analyses of and with others I find that with only a few role  
names to start with, I begin to imagine much greater things that what  
is present. That is what I mean by depth. And as I read this again I  
reckon that it is also similar in this aspect with a psychodrama in  
that it has elements of surprise, intrigue, an aesthetic and others

Cheers for the moment. I'll go and keep chewing. I also read Adam's  
chapters in the last week - weren't they good!

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 06/06/2009, at 6:19 PM, Jenny Wilson wrote:

> 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?>>
>>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090611/574dd6a2/attachment.html>