Role Theory - Question 1

[Jenny Wilson]

hi Adam
Okay this sounds like a good game! I hope others will join in.
Reflecting on the questions I might ask I realize I have made some
attempts to answer them myself by drawing on ideas from other theory so
I'll add that,  but am very keen to  see what you make of these
questions particularly being able to draw on a broad psychodrama knowledge.

QUESTION 1:
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?


In trying to answer this question myself I am drawn to Aaron Beck's
theory about cognition and patterns of cognition, recognising the
evolutionary advantage of narrowing of thinking at times of danger and
high stress, of having different lenses to view reality in times of
danger versus times of mate selection!  I delight in this linking of
current function to our evolutionary past somehow it makes "problems"
like anxiety reassuringly normal. Those writing about positive
psychology make a start on valuing the evolutionary advantage of the 
the "positive" emotions but I have a sense that potentially
psychodramatists could enrich this perspective. (maybe Moreno or other
psychodramatists have written about this?)


Regards
Jenny



Adam Blatner wrote:
> Dear "Jenny Wilson" <jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz>
>     Your last email poses an interesting challenge, which involves the
> use and understanding of the term, "theory." Your intuitive overview
> touches on some of the fragilities of not just psychodrama theory, but
> all theory---because many theories in, say, basic cosmology and
> physics are being challenged by new problems, such as the nature of
> "dark matter" or "dark energy." The key point in your message below,
> as I interpret it, is this:  JW: "I do want to learn more about making
> psychodrama work and understand some of the reasons when it does not."
>
>   AB: So, my challenge to you (and others reading this) is to allow me
> to play the game of pretending that I'm the master theoretician. The
> game is that I can explain all things. (I not-so-secretly expect that
> I shall not always win! But that's what makes it a game. Questions I
> can't answer easily become food for thought, and maybe I'll come up
> with something days or weeks or years from now; and maybe not.) Your
> challenge, if you want to play this game, is to figuratively pitch me
> the ball. That would require that you articulate some examples of
> situations in which it seems that psychodrama or its theory "does not"
> work.
>
>    (Another disclaimer: I am far from claiming that all healing or
> therapy or fixing will arise only from Moreno's ideas, or those of
> others people in this field. I think that in fact the field of
> psychodrama has much to learn from and be complemented by the creative
> contributions of many other fields.) Still, your question does invite
> me to think about things---especially my suggestion that role theory
> is an especially useful language for understanding theory and dynamics
> in psychology and social psychology---and maybe even to some degree
> somato-psychic dynamics. Warmly, Adam
>
>
>
>> Hi Adam
>> Continuing our conversation from some weeks ago about roles and role
>> theory.  Reading and puzzling I think that the word "theory" trips me
>> up.  Mostly finding this word used in psychology to mean assertions
>> about an underlying reality or something to explain observations. And
>> usually finding theory useful to guide me where to look or what to look
>> for including identifying omissions and the things that are not
>> immediately apparent. Pointing out reliable patterns and a rationale for
>> those patterns and clear definitions are part of that.  Finding answers
>> to my questions about clients and suggestions of how to work with them
>> has been relatively easy for me within a  CBT context I can find out
>> plenty from books and when I consult with fellow psychologists we seem
>> to be speaking the same language and thinking in similar ways - the
>> answers are not always "right" but they provide me with a clear
>> framework to start from . Psychodrama, role theory and communicating
>> with psychodramatists has me working much harder  - which I accept is a
>> good thing.
>>
>> As a user friendly language and metaphor roles seem to work extremely
>> well - easy to relate to, easy to understand and very useful for that
>> purpose. But...borrowing your metaphor of the icon-based computer system
>> with the little pictures that indicate more complex operations: The
>> icons are fantastic when they work  but when they stop working?  When
>> that file in the little file icon refuses to open, when the  document in
>> it has disappeared..... The icons will not tell me why and they don't
>> guide me to solutions. At that point  I call in the  IT people to help
>> and they know the underlying workings of the icons. They can not fix the
>> computer by just using the icons. Although I know people are not
>> computers and psychodrama is definitely not about "fixing" people I do
>> get curious about what is beneath the icons (and yes I do tend to get
>> much too focused on solutions!!!). I do want to learn more about making
>> psychodrama work and understand some of the reasons when it does not.
>> It's good to be reminded in your writing about drawing on other theory
>> and integrating other ideas because I definitely feel like I need it.
>>
>> Now I'm starting to think "role heuristics" might work better for me
>> than "role theory".
>>
>> Anyway - thanks for your earlier responses to my ideas and questions.
>> Getting on to grouptalk has been a good move for me, great to see lots
>> of others communicating about psychodrama ideas.
>>
>> kind regards
>> Jenny
>>
>>
>> Adam Blatner wrote:
>>> no time pressure from this end
>>>
>>> ----- Original Message ----- From: "Jenny Wilson"
>>> <jenny at blennerhassett.gen.nz>
>>> To: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
>>> Sent: Sunday, April 19, 2009 3:33 PM
>>> Subject: Re: roles2
>>>
>>>
>>>> Hi Adam
>>>> just a quick response before I go to work - thanks for this. I have
>>>> read
>>>> both your books and do want to re-read them, now with different
>>>> questions in mind. We have them at our psychodrama library - I just
>>>> need
>>>> a few days before I can get there as busy with other stuff in the
>>>> daytime.
>>>> Jenny
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Adam Blatner wrote:
>>>>> Hi Jenny, should this go to grouptalk, too?
>>>>>   JW> I think I get it - a role /is/ a theory.
>>>>>   AB: No, role is an abstract construct. Perhaps it might be a
>>>>> theoretical statement to say that the complexes in the mind and in
>>>>> social situations can more effectively be described as operating as
>>>>> roles, close to the roles one sees played in drama, than as some
>>>>> abstract term, such as "ego"---which then requires endless
>>>>> definition---and in fact is used in quite different ways.
>>>>>       Several theoretical statements make up role theory. (I haven't
>>>>> thought this through but will try:)
>>>>> -- the mind may be imagined to operate as a confederation of
>>>>> roles, in
>>>>> which the coordination varies from high levels of integration to near
>>>>> chaos (e.g., in dementia).
>>>>>   -- it is possible for a type of role, the inner director, the
>>>>> choosing
>>>>> self, the I as decider, to dominate, suppress the expression of
>>>>> certain
>>>>> sub-roles, attend to and support the expression of others, and
>>>>> manage a
>>>>> flexibility of these expressions in response to circumstance
>>>>>    -- maturation involves the development of this aforementioned
>>>>> choosing self or meta-role. Therapy should have as its goal the same
>>>>> aim
>>>>>      -- the ineffective managing by the choosing self can in part
>>>>> account for both immaturity and various kinds of neuroses
>>>>>     -- the sub-roles can seem to come to take a dominant part at
>>>>> times,
>>>>> as if no one were even considering whether or not it would be wise to
>>>>> play this role. This is acting-out.
>>>>>     -- roles are capable of being developed or can remain in a
>>>>> relatively under-developed state
>>>>>      -- new roles can be learned, developed, invented to
>>>>> compensate for
>>>>> the under-development of other roles, and for many other reasons
>>>>>      -- humans have a tendency towards a fair amount of role
>>>>> expansion
>>>>> in life
>>>>>     -- in later life, or under certain circumstances, it can become
>>>>> wiser to pull back in the adventure into new roles, and instead
>>>>> focus or
>>>>> develop in greater depth certain other roles (e.g., spirituality,
>>>>> contemplation)
>>>>>     -- some roles may involve relatively actions that are mainly
>>>>> happening within the mind, and they may not be observable in terms of
>>>>> gross outward behavior
>>>>>             and so forth. I probably could come up with many more.
>>>>>       These are statements about roles that go to make up applied
>>>>> role
>>>>> theory.
>>>>>
>>>>>    No reproach, but I gather that you cannot find or don't want to
>>>>> buy
>>>>> my Foundations of Psychodrama, with three chapters on applied role
>>>>> theory.
>>>>>          This might help answer many questions.
>>>>>>
>>>>> JW As in it is an idea a suggestion an abstraction and a very "leaky"
>>>>> abstraction at that. AB: this sentence is not at all clear to me.
>>>>>
>>>>> JW  For some reason I have spent a long, long time looking at role
>>>>> in a
>>>>> different way, something more concrete a noun, a thing, a
>>>>> collection of
>>>>> observations.... I think the definitions of role that I read have
>>>>> tripped me up (ie., it involves a thinking, acting and feeling
>>>>> component
>>>>> etc.......)
>>>>>        I now wonder if a better definition of role would include the
>>>>> words "it is a mini- theory that helps describe what the client may
>>>>>> be experiencing in a particular moment....". Even the term "role
>>>>>> theory" sort of implies that it is a theory about someTHING, and I
>>>>>> have been  searching for the thing....
>>>>>
>>>>>     AB: A role is a complex of attitudes, behaviors, expectations. A
>>>>> role can be portrayed in drama.
>>>>> Many words cannot be portrayed accurately: Aggression. At best you
>>>>> could
>>>>> show your interpretation of one out of scores of different types of
>>>>> aggression and also exhibited at different levels of intensity. Many
>>>>> other psychological terms are similarly vague. Role invites a
>>>>> "show us
>>>>> how you would do that" question.
>>>>>
>>>>>          Does this help?  I agree that some definitions are
>>>>> unhelpful or
>>>>> even confusing.
>>>>>
>>>>>   A problem with the role concept is that it is impossible to define
>>>>> precisely because it operates at and between many levels of
>>>>> organization:
>>>>>
>>>>>       Intra-psychic   (part of me versus another part of me);
>>>>> interpersonal; in small groups; in organizations or large groups; in
>>>>> culture.
>>>>>  another example: My cultural role as a woman in Afghanistan (in the
>>>>> eyes of men and the Law) may compete with my (personal) desire for an
>>>>> education.
>>>>>
>>>>>       I find, though, that the absence of a precise definition
>>>>> doesn't
>>>>> interfere with role theory as a practical endeavor. It does make it
>>>>> hard
>>>>> to satisfy the (foolishly narrow) requirements of some academics.
>>>>>       (What's foolishly narrow is the concept that things must be
>>>>> precisely definable for them to be useful)
>>>>>
>>>>>        JW What do you think? is this congruent with the what you have
>>>>> conveyed to me about role.
>>>>>  AB: You can see how I gently disagree from the outset.
>>>>>
>>>>>   JW Have read your chapter on Meta-role and will continue to
>>>>> think and
>>>>> ask questions... regards Jenny
>>>>>   AB: Hope this is encouraging you. I appreciate your efforts at
>>>>> trying
>>>>> to make sense out of it. You remind me that role theory is not
>>>>> immediately clear and indeed can easily be confusing! More work to
>>>>> do!  warmly, adam
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> No virus found in this incoming message.
>>> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com Version: 8.0.238 / Virus Database:
>>> 270.12.0/2066 - Release Date: 04/18/09 09:55:00
>>>
>>
>
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG - www.avg.com
> Version: 8.5.329 / Virus Database: 270.12.32/2118 - Release Date:
> 05/16/09 17:05:00
>