transference and tele

[Adam Blatner]

Thank you, Hamish, for giving the matter thought. It took time and reflection. What I especially liked was that certain words or models tended to support tendencies for certain kinds of action. In your mind, tele suggests further encounter. 
       I don't see your last two paragraphs as either-or, though. I think that we have a moral obligation to raise our consciousness, however slightly; to turn towards the light, however slightly; and to develop responsibility---and your response reminds me that this, too, operates in the interpersonal and social spheres as well as just for me alone. 

     I found your discourse was useful in reminding me that even though I asked for a rational discussion, it is near-impossible to respond so, because there are deep currents of semantic association with any word used. 

    So my response is not definitive, but should be seen rather as a type of conversation---one in which I had enough time to frame my thoughts, but flowing enough to edge into the spontaneous and thereby risk making mistakes. All I can say is that if I err, please feel free to correct me. 
. 1. H (is Perfect your last name or what? You're in New Zealand or Australia, right? )   I used to like to say that tele included transference phnomema and was also more that this.  When I said this I ment that tele included experience of relationship that is based on my inner world projected out as well as including my experience of the other person as they actually are.  AB: yes, key is "included" 
             Even though i like this explanation of tele im not sure it does justice to tranference.   ab: no
      2. H So im not so sure that this wasn't just my subsuming transference phonomena under the heading tele, and making tele that plus some other stuff.  Now I think it more helpful for me to get into the world view that arises when i think of relationship these different ways.  Perhaps this is my grappling with the epistomologies (ways of knowing) behind these different concepts and the ontologies (ways of being) these give rise to.   I think this is what i am responding to positivly in what you are trying to do.    ab: don't know I understand at all , but let's see where you're going with this:

            H: It is a really different experience for me to consider that my relationship to someone is a function of my inner world, for the psychoanalytic folk this seems to give rise to a huge range of ways of knowing and thinking about health and healing, which i dont really get to understand unless im willing to enter into experiencing the world that way.
             AB;  A function of... key--- doesn't mean there's no objective reality, but that there are ALSO projections, etc. 

      H This may all be a little obscure im not sure - what i have noticed as one difference is that if i am basing my relationships on a notion of tele i am more inclined to want to encounter the other. 
                AB: semantics, other things. I like the idea of being alert to what words and concepts tend to support our testing our reality in dialogue. 

         h:  In your description Mary goes and encounters (asks) Sue about her frown and relationship developes as a result.  If I am basing my relationships on considerations of transference i may find I am more inclined to reflect on and feel into my experience until it makes sense to me perhaps getting to the notion that weather Sue frowns or not I can still be friendly with her if i want to - perhaps realising that weather Sue feels that her frowning is to do with me or not its still mostly to do with her and perhaps becomming able to allow her to have what ever experience (including gas) without it having to mean anything about me.
             AB: while I support a measure of introspection, i think that many people deceive themselves that they are being noble in doing so, but they're in denial of their own fear of encountering and discovering something from the other's response that might challenge their own inner schema of 
         as Adler put it,  who I am, who others are, what the world's about, and what is the best way to cope with it.   Encounter does this, of course, the ol' I-thou relationship. Remember that a Thou is one to whom one is willing to grant spontaneity and therefore the potential to be surprising.
          Though many people call God "Thou," they really feel entitled to the Other responding according to plan, to expectation, to respond appropriately to the right kinds of prayerful blandishments..  It's not at all an I-Thou relationship. 

           H   When i think about transference as i have described just above then i notice that my tele (felt sense) may change towards Sue at the same time as my transference is staying the same.  That is, i might not like recognising that weather i like Sue or not says more about me than her and I might like her less even though i am committed to the notion that my likeing of her is about me.  At some point i might get to the bottom of my tranference toward Sue and at that point it might become easyer to like her.  But getting to the bottom of my transference might or might not be facilitated by my encountering Sue about my experience of her.
                AB: I'm confused here, but as I said to begin with, we need to do both, not either-or. Look at our own hang-ups, and encounter openly. Often doing both in tandem makes both challenges more successful

      H  If i go for encounter perhaps my transference retreats and waits for another likley person to express its self too while my felt relationship with the person concerned improves.  As a therapist I have found sitting and waiting in the tension of relationship helpful and different to encounter, which is helpful in a differnt way and perhaps helpful for different things....  Im not sure. 
           AB: I think the therapeutic waiting in the tension is okay if and only if the other person knows the underlying rules of the transaction, is equally skilled in interpersonal maneuvers, is equally aware---etc.---and this never obtains. It's confusing, because most clients are in tension in silence only partly dealing with their transferences; they're also in tension about the sheer ambiguity of the situation; Who ever met a human being who wouldn't interact and who defined this as proper interpersonal behavior. I am very, very much against the use of silence as a therapeutic maneuver because it imposes a classical double bind on the client. 
            One may listen, even err on the quiet side, but there should be a certain amount of talk to orient the client to the nature of the process about to be undertaken. 
                  Sorry, this is a bit off the subject of transference vs. Tele, but it does speak to the illusion that provoking a transference is useful. 

      H Warmly  Hamish   ab: warmly, back and thanks again. Adam 

        . 


        --- On Mon, 18/1/10, Adam Blatner <ablatner at verizon.net> wrote:

              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 

          Grouptalk mailing list
          List at grouptalkweb.org
          http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
       
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20100117/ee81da35/attachment.html>