AW: sociatry

[bulmonte21 at bluewin.ch]

Dear Adam and Regina, 

just a few thoughts on the topic:

I agree that there is a need of a consensus/convalidaton on basic 
rules/perception and values in every group as in human communication 
at large. I agree that this goes back in its basic sense to doubling 
and the mutual afirmation/convaldation by the other of my existence 
etc. (not being seen and not being listened to is denial of existence 
also in the very communicative/interpersonal sense).  I think it is 
also a basic aspect of communication that we can afford best 
differences when there are a lot of similarities already established 
(reassuring the desire to belong to) and when we or the person(s) 
involved do not need a high degree of social affirmation(being self 
confident enough; this is a criteria to distinguish different group 
leaders). 

One question is: when and how do we treat voice and vote of 
minorities/out-sinders/ different opinions?  In Psychodrama one would 
say only after a good warming-up which exactly means in my eyes to 
build up and to foster mutual experiences of convalidation and 
effectiveness between the members of a group (in this sense and at 
this stage I agree with Regina that there is a "need" or better a 
drive towards conformity). So starting with "conflictive" sociometry 
in the sense of revealing differences might be a challenge which 
especially poeple with low self esteem (to which usually out siders 
belong to) will not take easily. Thus the danger to be identified as 
"different" and to be excluded will drive people towards conformity 
like Regina says. This early phase of group work has been compared to 
the first universe of Moreno which explains also the need of doubling 
and the need of a caring person like the leader which is a model of 
inclusiveness but not of all inclusiveness (see above). Nevertheless 
the need or drive of conformity/being identical slows down and turn 
when the group is well established/nurtured because then it is much 
easier to explore and deal with differences. So talking about 
sociatry: does this mean that we have to try to faciliate first self-
reassuring or nurturing experiences for groups before we deal with 
conflicts? Isn`t that the sense of existencial or universal (Connie 
may say also spiritual) features for multi-ethnic groups ? I remember 
for example the large group in Brazil where it was only possible to 
share the mortal thread israelian members (minority) expressed when 
they themselves were able to acknowledge the same thread for 
brazilians (majority) and others. Also in other large group events, 
especially on inter-cultural topics, I became aware that only when 
people were able to mourn or to pray together (in the sense of 
remembering and directing the feelings to a shared place) they could 
deal also with all the differences in a tolerant (!) and interested 
way afterwards.

But still the other maybe even more difficult question is: how do 
we achieve the consensus about the ideas/things and values which 
require conformity at the first stage? This is a question about 
majorities and leadership/authority. How do we deal with our 
authority: in a democratic sense: the majority decides? How does the 
majority decide, aren`t there alpha leaders as well? Is the majority 
always right?  My own model of leadership implies an open and 
transparent communication about my own values but also about my own 
limitations just in the beginning of the group. I remember a group in 
another country with a very violent atmosphere attacking each other 
continuously wihout giving sharing at all (they called it sharing but 
it was only direct and devastating critic of the protagonist). I felt 
terrible and I tried to explain again and again the meaning of 
sharing: no result. In the end I picked up an iron stick that was put 
on the floor and I directed myself to the group saying: do you know 
how I feel in this moment inside? And I made some movements with the 
stick in the air. Then I continued saying: but I don`t want to feel 
like this and I am not ready to stand that more time. So please 
decide: or you are able to change giving each other respect and 
mutual support or to my regret I have to quit the leadership of this 
group due to the (cultural) differences between us.  After that 
intervention the whole group work changed  leading to very profound 
and even spiritual experiences. I was only the last trainer of a 
serious of trainers from abroad working there but in the end the 
local leader of the group told me: you were the first one which 
really understood us. My critical comment on this experience is: I 
identified with the victim and treated the whole group as the 
aggressor which allowed the role change while I was putting limits to 
aggression with my own agression. In this sense  I became part of the 
system "understanding" the system but without allowing a new 
perspective from outside.  Still the important intervention was to 
clarify my values and my limits.

So it is not always possible to follow majorities because they can 
behave cruel and non respectful with others as well. Another point is 
that the leader is not neutral even if he tries to behave as such 
because his or her perception is always cultural bond . This is for 
example a very strong experience we have gone through all these years 
in the international summer academy in Granada. But to finalize I 
just want to cite another example of dealing with differences in a 
country like Switzerland (famous for chocalate, cheese and banks). In 
the swiss culture for example it is a traditional habit not only to 
respect minorities but to help them actively to have their own place, 
their own voice and their own power (for example the swiss government 
is a group of seven persons including all relevant parties; one of 
the four official languages is only spoken by 300.000 people, but it 
is powerful enough - being made so and accepted as by the majority 
cultures - to receive all official documents in their language as 
well). I feel that this model could be one of the possible models for 
western groups? But I am interested  after all to know how do you 
deal with differences  regarding your own leadership, especially on 
sociatric means?

All the best and thanks for this excellent forum

Jorge



----Ursprüngliche Nachricht----
Von: adam at blatner.com
Datum: 08.11.2006 04:50
An: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Betreff: sociatry

Regina's point is wonderful! It points out that doubling is only a 
small part of the 
infrastructure of elements that must be established in group 
functioning for it to become 
optimal. Some other elements might include:
      A norm valuing creativity and novelty, the ideals of 
spontaneity
      A discussion and warm-up to problem-solving that addresses 
sub-grouping..

      She mentions a "need" to conform. That's a problematic term, 
conflating both 
tendency and absolute requirement. We need to distinguish between 
tendencies, which are 
optimally overcome by means of an exercise of higher thought 
processes mixed with higher 
values, and requirements, that which really cannot be changed. 
(Just as we need to 
distinguish between the impossible and the merely very difficult.)

    I think doubling, plus the activity of asking for someone to 
double, or the leader 
doing so, plus a lot of instruction and support from not only the 
leader but a core group 
who share in the core values, and so forth. What would be enough?

   I'm reminded of how much of an infrastructure is needed to 
develop true democracy in a 
country, including the relative weakness of violent religious 
fanatics, a core norm of 
non-corruption, some transcendence of tribalism, a lack of 
bureaucratic-driven regulation 
that paralyzes free commerce (and leads to bribery as a necessity 
to get anything done), 
religion-driven suppression of free exchange of information, 
opposition parties, adequate 
police support to counter local warlords or gang leaders, and on 
and on...

      Similar accumulation of components may need to happen to the 
point of reaching a 
threshold.

      How this relates is the subtle implication that Morenian 
methods alone might be 
sufficient to do more than make a tiny dent in the full challenge 
of sociatry. I believe 
in these as powerful tools, but I want to keep some perspective on 
the enormity of the 
challenge.

       Warmly, Adam
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "REGINA SEWELL" <sewell.2 at osu.edu>
To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Tuesday, November 07, 2006 6:48 PM
Subject: Re: Sociodynamic Effect


>
> In Response to Adam's comments re: Jurgen Habermas's ideal of 
creating a context where 
> there are no externally imposed barriers to communication.  I 
love this as an ideal and 
> yet am aware of the reality of the need to conform in group 
situations.  Many of us tend 
> to conform to the opinions and attitudes of the group, even under 
very weak group 
> situations.  And there is good reason for this.  Those who don't 
conform are subject to 
> rejection.  (recall the Asch and Schracter experiments on 
conformity).  As I understand 
> it, one of the healing potentials of sociometry is to help people 
understand what 
> patterns, habits, characteristics.. etc they may have that lead 
others to push them away 
> or avoid them.  Armed with this information, they can either 
chose to change groups to 
> one that might be more accepting, change, or at least be aware of 
what the blocks to 
> connection are.
>
> So I'm intrigued by Adam's proposal of doubling as a way to give 
voice to those who may 
> deviate from the group.  Would this sort of empathy be enough to 
challenge the drive to 
> conform and/or push conformity on deviants?
>
> regina sewell
>
>
>>       I would add to this the power of the double technique in
>> helping those who are less
>> articulate, less able to find the words to express their needs.
>>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: list-request at grouptalkweb.org
> Date: Tuesday, November 7, 2006 1:00 pm
> Subject: List Digest, Vol 5, Issue 6
>
>> Send List mailing list submissions to
>> list at grouptalkweb.org
>>
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>> list-request at grouptalkweb.org
>>
>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>> list-owner at grouptalkweb.org
>>
>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more 
specific
>> than "Re: Contents of List digest..."
>>
>>
>> Today's Topics:
>>
>>   1. Sociodynamic Effect (Adam Blatner)
>>
>>
>> 
-------------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---
>>
>> Message: 1
>> Date: Tue, 7 Nov 2006 09:01:59 -0600
>> From: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
>> Subject: Sociodynamic Effect
>> To: "T.Treadwell" <ttreadwe at grouptalkweb.org>
>> Cc: list at grouptalkweb.org
>> Message-ID: <003401c7027d$aedf8440$2f01a8c0 at dell>
>> Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed; charset="iso-8859-1";
>> reply-type=original
>>
>> Dear Tom & Grouptalk,
>>
>>     Tom's response was helpful to me in thinking about this 
vast
>> phenomenon. It connects
>> also with the philosophical approach of Jurgen Habermas, in
>> Frankfurt: Among his many
>> rather dense writings he proposed, if not the "answer," or the
>> "truth," at least a better
>> way to approach truth: Generate a context in which all
>> participants have a voice, where
>> there are no status or other barriers that interfere with the
>> sharing of this voice, no
>> fear of retaliation or exclusion for daring to express a 
contrary
>> or different opinion.
>>       I would add to this the power of the double technique in
>> helping those who are less
>> articulate, less able to find the words to express their needs.
>>
>>    My concern is that of more specifically envisioning 
situations
>> in which principles or
>> methods of sociometry may be applied. I am skeptical of the
>> unspoken idea that
>> generalities and abstractions in fact work. I think the hidden
>> belief is that if the
>> details could be worked out, these general ideals would work, 
but
>> I question that: It is
>> precisely in the articulation of the details and the challenges
>> encountered that raise the
>> question as to whether the generalities are in fact valid or 
useful.
>>    There is a category of generality that is intuitively true,
>> but so general as to be
>> relatively useless. Such generalities are called "platitudes,"
>> such as the Beatle's song,
>> "All you need is Love."        --Warmly, Adam Blatner
>>
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.409 / Virus Database: 268.13.32/523 - Release Date: 
11/7/2006
> 


Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org