sociometry

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Grouptalk

Some morning reflections on sociometry.
       Reflecting on my life here in my community, where I can be both extroverted in some 
roles and introverted in others, I become aware of a number of variables, if that's the 
right word:
     Read on if you are interested in sociometry, and erase and go on if not.

   1. In a number of roles, there's an implicit agreement not to discuss politics or 
religion... or sex.  We have fun together square dancing, singing in a 100 person chorus, 
working out in the fitness center, and engaging in various other activities. We become 
neighbors who share help and concerns. It takes time, and builds gradually.

       There is a loss of a certain level of depth or heart-to-heart, of full 
psychological encounter. Happily I have a few people in my social network with whom I can 
be far more honest in terms of discussing these more loaded topics. This makes for a 
different kind of relationship, it is a different role or role cluster.

    2. My own highest preference or calling is to be passionately, critically, mentally 
engaged in contemplating a variety of relevant issues in the world, for me, regarding 
spirituality, philosophy, psychology, cultural trends, some history, and so forth. I've 
come to realize this is a sociotelic and psychetelic criterion shared by only a few folks, 
as it requires a capacity to entertain both complexity and a lively humility that seeks to 
question one's own assumptions in order to stretch and penetrate more effectively the 
mysteries in which we are embedded.

     This is okay, and one thing I've been learning is not to bring this "calling" to 
others who don't want to engage the world and each other in this fashion.

    3. One of the distortions generated by analytically-oriented group therapy and then 
the encounter groups in the 1970s is the illusion that this is more authentic, this 
heart-to-heart level. But it isn't, because such groups were constituted of people who 
were in other roles relative strangers. These aren't the people you will be living with in 
an ongoing fashion.  So we should hesitate to privilege such modes of communication, 
implying that they're somehow more true or better. My current thinking is that they are 
better only subjectively for those who enjoy interacting at this more multi-role, 
multi-dimensional, vigorous, re-evaluative fashion. It's not an objective judgment for 
everyone.

   4. Indeed, it may be that a measure of reserve is optimal for being in larger groups in 
which members have a wide diversity of values and interest.

     5. A corollary is that sociometry as a method may involve a range of techniques that 
may be applied to groups according to degrees of role-complementarity.
     The classical method perhaps should be reserved for those groups with remarkably high 
levels of cohesion and with people with fairly high degrees of resilience. What's being 
proposed is a frank discussion of interpersonal preferences, which as I've noted 
elsewhere, is for most people a highly sensitive topic. Perhaps Moreno in his somewhat 
narcissistic and hypomanic approach could engage to a degree at this level, even in his 
own mind (though one wonders if he could engage as an equal), his temperament might blind 
him from recognizing the profound vulnerability of most folks in considering this dynamic 
in their interpersonal field. I suspect people may repress this more deeply and strongly 
than their sexuality!
      On the other hand, there are a number of near-sociometric techniques that have 
emerged that can be applied more readily. Indeed, I envision many if not most beginning 
groups, classrooms at every level from kindergarten on, using a number of carefully 
designed sociometric exercises to help group members discover certain areas of 
commonality. For example, using circle sociometry for a beginning 8th grade class, the 
teacher might explore some different and non-emotionally-loaded hobbies: Who has been 
interested in stamp collecting? Coin collecting? Reptiles or amphibians? Who has cats at 
home? Dogs?
     Perhaps some spectrograms might be fun: Number of pets in the home, etc.
          I doubt that these students would want to bring up political affiliations, 
religious affiliations. Some would, interestingly, but they might be naive in thinking 
they can handle the mixed feelings, low grade prejudices, and degrees of judgment that get 
evoked by such topics.

     The key point to be emphasized is the importance of maintaining freedom not to 
disclose those interests, inclinations, opinions, and such that one feels might well be 
judged by others.

     So I start to wonder if it would be useful to re-think sociometry in a very basic 
fashion; recognize that it is far from a single package or method; and begin to consider 
how different forms of sociometry might be used in different situations, perhaps far more 
widely than before. (For example, is it a good idea idea to introduce near-sociometry to 
most teachers to foster group cohesion and interactions in most classes?)

   Good wishes for a happy summer to you all. Warmly, Adam