sociatry
Adam Blatner
adam at blatner.com
Wed Nov 8 11:49:07 CST 2006
Dear Jorge,
I appreciate your comments. they further illustrate the complexity of using
sociometry along with many other approaches in the service of promoting an optimal level
of group cohesion, democracy, exploration of differences, and so forth.
There are some matters that I can see no way around doing voting and "majority rule,"
and other matters where it is not necessary for there to be any group decision--there is
room for people enjoying their differences.
So part of the problem is deciding on which is which.
For example, is it really necessary for government to interfere with the
private life of gays and lesbians? I think not, but I am interested in a plausible
argument that might change my mind. I haven't encountered one yet.
There are other decisions about all manner of political decisions that do require
some kind of vote.
Even so, further developments may generate a change of mind in the vote, as I am
happy to report just happened in the USA.
Jorge's point about exploring strengths and commonalities being sometimes a wise
move before proceeding on to explore differences is good. In therapy, I often spend time
doing this for an individual, the maxim being, "before putting a patient in touch with his
negative voices, first put him in touch with his positive voices."
--- more later. For now, I'm trying to re-educate my spam filter to allow email to
adam at blatner.com so please email me some test messages and we'll see what can be done to
get by this unexpected glitch in my system.
----- Original Message -----
From: <bulmonte21 at bluewin.ch>
To: <adam at blatner.com>; <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Wednesday, November 08, 2006 4:57 AM
Subject: AW: sociatry
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
More information about the List
mailing list