sociometry and sociatry thoughts

[Edward Schreiber]

Thinking about Moreno's understanding of the sociodynamic effect as  
global, impacting all groups both formal and informal has given a  
lens with which to see the social reality of the world in which we  
are living.  Michael Moore's movie about the United States, this time  
in our lives, is in my experience a great demonstration of the  
sociodynamic effect.  Underneath it, the organic unity has to do with  
the Godhead, that we are manifestations of one presence and the  
returning to that is evolutionary.  E


On Oct 11, 2009, at 11:56 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:

> 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
>