transference and tele

Mon Jan 18 03:18:25 CST 2010

Hullo again Adam.

My wife's name is Johanna Perfect, mine is Hamish Brown.  She wanted to keep
hers when we married which I thought was a good idea.  When we had children
we resolved that the girls would take her name and the boys my name (not
liking the implications of double-barreled names in two or three generations
time).  The problem was that then both our children where born girls and
when the second was born I felt bereft at not having a child with my name,
so our older girl is Kate Perfect and our younger Emma Brown.  We are in New
Zealand although I am traveling to Sydney for the Australian and New Zealand
Psychodrama Association Conference on Wednesday; it's not far away.

I appreciate your responding to emails in detail and sometimes don't find
anything further to say however I had a few thoughts about your responses
here.

I liked the idea of exploring topics like this as a kind of unfolding
conversation - this seems to make room for me to find myself somewhere in
it.

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. 

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. 

HB to me these two comments show a preference for a certain approach.  That
may be because it is better, I'm not sure,  I am quite fresh at all this :-)
I agree introspection in isolation may well be based on fear and denial,
however encounter as you say can be another kind of avoidance.  While
sitting with tension can potentially destabilize someone, jumping in to
encounter them can be a kind of rescuing.  all these things done without
awareness are potentially dangerous.

What I have found necessary in my own process is to enter fully into
different things, so that I get to see and experience the world through the
lens of what ever thing tele or transference etc.  I used to hope it would
all converge at some point but so far I've found that each highlights
different aspects.  Like shining a torch in a room from different
directions.  Which is I suppose what your paper is attempting to do. 

Warmly H

Hamish Brown

57 Wharf Rd

Te Atatu Peninsular

Auckland

021 275 4757

  _____  

From: Adam Blatner [mailto:ablatner at verizon.net] 
Sent: Monday, January 18, 2010 2:44 PM
To: Johanna Perfect; list at grouptalkweb.org; iagp-psychodrama at yahoogroups.com
Subject: transference and tele

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://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@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/20100118/dc8e1934/attachment.html>