Thoughts About Step-In Sociometry

[ABE Psychodrama]

Dear All, 
My experience with step-in
sociometry is that can be quite revealing and often deepens the intimacy in a
group.  However, I do step-in
sociometry somewhat differently than I have witnessed from other directors.

 

I start by saying that
step-in sociometry reveals the hidden connections in a group, and that one of
the goals in a group is to make the covert connections overt.  I explain that most gay people have
“gaydar” and most people who aren’t gay don’t have “gaydar.”  This is also true about many other issues.  Any heroin addict can enter a strange
city and find a hit within a few hours. 
That is because the addict seeks cues and notices cues about drugs.  The same is true if we are a person in
recovery, or a survivor of abuse. 
Our antennae are up and we are looking to see how others react to those
topics that are sensitive for us.  

 

My instructions are that
only those persons who are willing to share about themselves can ask a question
in step-in sociometry.  I don’t do
voyeuristic step-in sociometry.  When
a person steps into the circle I ask them to say, “Who like me?”  I instruct the other group members that
if they are willing to disclose and connect that they should step-in and join
hands with the person in the inner circle.  I also instruct the group members that f they haven’t
experienced the issue or don’t want to self-disclose at this time they should
stay in the outer circle.  I remind
the folks in the group that we are certain that those in the inner circle have
experienced this issue, but we don’t know for certain that those in the outer
circle have not also experienced this issue.

 

I then explain to the
group members that the persons in the inner circle know what they know
experientially, and those in the outer circle  only understand cognitively.  I remind the folks in the inner circle that those with them
in the inner circle really get this issue and understand how this issue or
circumstance affects their lives.   


 

I usually demonstrate the
first step-in and I only do one step-in. 


I do not step-in for the
other questions.  I ask that each
group member ask one step-in so that everyone gets a turn.    If it is a new group and
lots of newcomers then I focus on low risk things but things that would be
important for the group to know about one another. Some examples of my low risk
step-in questions are (and those are true for me): “Who like me is an only
child?”;  “Who like me lost a
parent when I was young?”;  “Who
like me struggles to balance work and play?”  

 

If the group is seasoned,
safe and has developed trust with one another then I demonstrate a (one) higher
risk questions:  “Who like me had a
parent who was an alcoholic?”; 
‘Who like me has ever been depressed?”; and “Who like me pay so little
attention to my physical body that it causes me physical problems?”  

 

When people choose to
step-in with a criteria that is limiting I ask them if they are open to making
the circle bigger.  For example, a
person may step in and say, “Who like me was repeatedly physically, emotionally
and sexually abused by a parent.” or a person may say, “Who like me lost a
parent by suicide when they were five years old.”  I teach them that by broadening statements they can still
speak their truth while gaining connections to others.  I might suggest they ask, “Who like me
was abused by a parent?”  or “Who
like my has lost a loved one through suicide?’  If the person doesn’t want to make the issue broader so that
others can join with him/her it tells me a lot about that person.  

 

Frankly, my only problem
with step-in sociometry is too much disclosure.  I try to limit step-in sociometry to one round.  Usually my groups spend a lot of time discussing
their sharing, the impact their sharing has on them, and the issues that arise
when they share intimately with others. 


 

Certainly I have
experienced persons say things like “Who like me wears contact lenses?”  When I hear those kinds of things I
know that the safety and trust that I had thought had been developed in the
group has not.  As a director, that
means that I must return to issues of safety and confidentiality and trust
building.  As we could say “It’s
all good information for the group leader.”  

 




Dale Richard Buchanan




      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20090629/dfd01d98/attachment.html>