sociometry and sociatry thoughts

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Ed, Responding to your recent email: ES: I just returned from seeing Michael Moore's 
movie: Capitalism, A Love Affair.  (AB: I'll try to get it when it comes out in DVD at 
Blockbuster or somewhere. I rarely go to the movies.)
    ES   I kept thinking jeez, this is a great presentation about the sociodynamic effect, 
that which sociometry reveals, and the social-organic unity that Moreno realized to be 
underneath the SDE. (AB: this sentence may be true, but I confess that I don't understand 
it, and explain why a little further on.)   ES  If you have the time and inclination, it's 
a great movie about the underlying elements of our method.  -- ES.

AB: I'm trying to make the bridge between the movie and "underlying elements of our 
method," and I just fail to see it.

       Perhaps what you mean is the fact that society contains hundreds of overlapping 
systems. (I would like to see more of an argument that there is a social-organic unity of 
any kind, other than the fact that certain social and psychological dynamics are common. I 
don't know that I'm ready to concede that any are universal. Jung more than Moreno spoke 
about some background themes.
           That all groups have dynamics of rapport I certainly would concede, just as I 
would concede that all groups have, say, sexual mores or food and feces management 
customs...

         I would also say that there are systems in which there are more and less 
privileged persons in certain role areas, and that these have evolved over time; but very 
often the more privileged in certain ways also have more demands or obligations in other 
ways. So how does the sociodynamic effect deal with this?

    Third, I am playing with the idea that oppression arises as complex systems arise. 
Oppression may be defined as the combination of a gradient of privilege mixed with a sense 
by most of the parties in the system that this is just the way reality is and must be. The 
idea has not yet become widespread that the system can be organized differently.

      Another point of agreement in spirit with Ed is that no clear boundary can be drawn 
between social, sociological, interpersonal, psychological, economic, political, and even 
to some significant degree artistic, academic, and scientific institutions. (This harkens 
back to the concept of world-view.).  But I hesitate to say that all this is significantly 
addressed by Moreno; only that some of Moreno's insights do add more depth or texture to 
our understanding.

     What I also question is whether there is any value to the concept of the sociodynamic 
effect: Under what circumstances is it useful to consider any organization that doesn't 
have this dynamic?  Or what we should do about it?
      Socially, perhaps it implies that more popular people might give a bit of their 
energy and time to including less popular people?
            Or should people with more money give any extra money to people with less 
money so that everyone has the same amount of money?
      I get confused and am willing to be instructed.

                Warmly, Adam