transference and tele

[Adam Blatner]

I have had correspondence with some colleagues and am impressed with the continuing 
ambiguity of the concepts of transference and tele even among somewhat knowledgeable 
members of our field. I'm sharing some of my responses in hopes that others will feel free 
to respond, correct me---but if you do, please offer me plausible arguments or 
explanations for your corrections. I am revising my paper on tele on my website and am 
open to re-thinking my views.

     I wrote to my colleague, with whom I have had some friendly exchanges:

   1. I'm pretty clear on the following. We---you and I---have some positive tele based on 
(1) sociotelic common interests professionally; and (2) psychetelic appreciations not only 
of our shared experiences in certain roles, but more, of the tone and style of our 
correspondences. You seem to me to be a thoughtful person.
    Is there any transference from me to you?  For me, introspecting, scanning my inner 
sense of what expectations do I have of you? (That's how I'm warming up to this!), I don't 
think there are any significant ones. How about transference from you to me? Maybe, but so 
far in our correspondence it hasn't emerged. It may be worth considering if we begin to 
have friction.

2.  Transference to me is a psychological, interpersonal extension of the tendency  to 
generalize in the mind: plus, based on other factors, to either idealize or subtly 
devalue. For example, because you play certain roles, and because I don't know you in 
those roles, I can't judge how competent, liberal, inclusive, or other qualities you bring 
to those roles. I do tend to expect people whose correspondence I enjoy to be more 
competent in various ways, but in fact that
may be not called for... (ha ha.). Still, this isn't a heavy emotional issue. Were we to 
engage in a collaboration that would require qualities or levels of skill that you don't 
possess, then I would be mistaken to simply expect this without at least checking out the 
issue.

3 As for Moreno's discussion of tele and transference. I have studied Moreno a fair amount 
and it seems to me that his definitions were inconsistent. He was intuitive, brilliant, 
but by no means systematic. I know of no occasion that he gave evidence in writing or 
speaking of seriously trying to align his thinking about one effort with his thinking or 
writing in another text. (He may well have done so less formally, or perhaps I missed it, 
or failed to see the evidence of serious reflection at the level of considering doubts or 
objections.)  Not that he couldn't be permitted to grow or change his mind, but he never 
to my knowledged acknowledged doing so, or showing that kind of reflectivity or concern. 
He was driven enough, inflamed enough with his vision, that such nit-picky concerns were 
beyond his vision field.  (Is this fair to say? It doesn't detract one whit from the 
brilliance of his innovations or insights.)

 4 So anyway, I'm quite clear in my paper on tele that I'm re-working (that's on my 
website) that tele is an extension into the interpersonal field of the basic psychological 
or even sentient phenomenon of preference---noted even by one-cell animals. (Moreno 
published articles on this in his journals.)
     In that sense, for example, we can have more or less tele for various of our 
roles---not only which ones we as egos think we prefer, but which roles call to us even if 
we don't prefer them? Thus, I think it possible to have mixed tele with one's own 
sexuality and id?
      The general use of tele, though, within the field, is in that interpersonal realm in 
which positive or negative tele, or being ignored, and reciprocity, and our perceptions 
about how others feel towards us--- that these often mini-nonverbal cues plus our tendency 
to bias our perceptions this way or that--- lead to our experience of attraction; or some 
outsider assessing us both, to another way of thinking about tele.

   4  Example. Mary says: At a family gathering, I sort of like my cousin Sue. But she 
scowled at me. So I don't like her any more. Our tele has shifted from positive to 
negative. Outside viewer who bothered to check out how Sue feels: Gee, Sue sort of likes 
Mary. What about the scowl. What scowl? (play video.) Oh, that scowl. Gas pain! It wasn't 
aimed at Mary.  Observer: You mean, she thought you didn't like her and didn't check it 
out? Sue. Alas, I guess so.
      Outside observer. Alas, also, this all-too-common interaction happens, lack of 
really reality-testing.
     Anyway, tele is a lively, fluctuating dynamic.

5 Now, transference. It may be that Mary has a mildly positive tele and transference with 
Sue. But because of her transferential relationship with her mother, whose scowls were 
followed by beatings, she is unconsciously allergic to that nonverbal communication. In 
the spirit of shoot first and ask questions later, Mary galvanized a transferential 
reaction from mother to cousin without realizing it. She became predisposed to assume that 
Sue's scowl was (1) aimed at her and (2) intentional; and the idea that there could be 
another reason for a shift in facial expression was obscured.

 6  Some further comments: Tele should not be thought of as something that happens only 
between 2 people. Both tele and transference can be operative in dynamics among 
individuals, sub-groups, larger groups, institutions, nations, government, etc. Groups can 
experience and indulge in transference and tele. Example, a group can believe it is 
favored by a political party, and/or it can later feel betrayed or neglected by that same 
politician or party.
     Tele and transference can work at all levels, intrapsychically, interpersonally, 
small group, large group, etc.

7  One can have irrational transferences to all (name of group), overgeneralizing on 
certain more vocal or extreme or prominent sub-groups within that group. (e.g., Not every 
Christian believes in much less promotes the ideas of some who call themselves 
Christians.)

 8  Tele can happen with groups, too. Say, you're sort of neutral, and several groups are 
available to join, of about equal interest. One has some folks that are clearly more 
welcoming. You gravitate to that group.

  9   The morale of a group is to some significant degree an expression of the tele among 
its members, and/or with its leadership---notice that it may be more or than and--- so 
tele is a big factor in groups of all sizes, from families to nations or international 
organizations.

  10  A question came up about whether Moreno thought about systems thinking. Hm. First, 
that term can mean different things to different people.
.     I don't think he considered this direction, although his vision was broad enough so 
that I suspect some precursors, some compatible ideas,  might
 be found in his writings.  It's like asking what Einstein thought about Chaos 
theory----the theory emerged a generation after Einstein's death.
      I strongly feel that we should free ourselves from any expectation that Moreno was 
prescient or comprehensive in all ways. He was prescient in many, continues to have 20 or 
more brilliant insights that most folks hardly fully appreciate, even within psychodrama; 
I'm not even sure Moreno himself appreciated the full implication of a few of his own 
ideas---but this happens with many innovators. It's no big deal.

    11 Another friend raised a question about Yvonne Agazarian's approach to working with 
sub-groups. I wonder if it might be fair to say that some of its value aso overlaps 
wMoreno's sociometric technique of the "loco-gram," in which people in one subgroup 
identify themselves by positioning themselves physically, standing in this or that corner. 
The key is to make explicit that which is implicit. Simply discovering a common 
denominator, giving a name to it, finding a "role," itself is a way of raising 
consciousness.
    The associate key---and I wonder if Agazarian deals with this---is that while I may be 
affiliated with group A on criteron a' --- to a varying degree, 10%, 30% , 45% -- I'm also 
feeling affiliated with Group be because in certain ways criterion b" appeals to me and 
seems to be not entirely incompatible with criterion a'.  In other words, our subgroupings 
shift, fluctuate, according to many variables, including tele.

   Example: I'm in Group A, and someone joins my subgroup who is far more strident than I 
prefer; plus I don't like her. Others do like her. My sense of allegiance with Group A is 
weakened mildly or significantly.  Etc.

     Feedback is welcome. I'd rather learn something new than wallow in the illusion of 
"being right."   Warmly, Adam