client or trainee

[Johanna and Hamish]

I have been interested in this thread however I am not really qualified to
respond to original question.

 

Here is my situation:      I am a certified psychodramatist (just) not a
TEP.  However I have been training people experientially in group work for
ten years.

 

Because the people that attend my training workshops are mostly from an
organisational setting (i.e. not coming to train as therapists) a central
issue in the early training process is the realisation that the training
process is experiential and therefore going to involve some personal
development.  In fact one of the key challenges in this phase is to create
openness (including emotional openness) in the training group as without
this effective training cannot really begin.  This openness is often
experienced as scary, shocking or unusual to participants who may have been
expecting a lecture process or what ever.

 

In many ways this is no different to the therapeutic process in groups
except that participants signing up for a therapeutic group are probably
warming up to a personal process.

 

Some participants find that when they become open in this way many things
open up for them and some realise that there is quite a lot of personal work
to do if they want to pursue the original desire of becoming a group worker/
group facilitator.  Some don't want to go down this road and so take what
they have gained and leave.  Others want to pursue the personal process that
has opened up for them.  Of cause for other people there is no major issue
and they progress through the training process.

 

We have a number of trainers running a series of 9 consecutive five day
modules.  We find that the personal process is bell shaped with the deepest
part of the training journey in the middle and so we have evolved the
training process around this natural process.  I use experiential
psychodrama in this middle part of the training process.        

 

Some participants take some years out in the middle to do personal work and
then return to finish training with us.  Of cause some (who where perhaps
motivated by the personal element anyway) do not return rather focusing on
the therapeutic once this emerges.

 

So ethical questions:  Should I do the therapeutic work with people who
decide they want to do this in the middle of the training process?
Generally they ask me because they feel comfortable with me.

 

If I do:  should I then run any future training programme they might return
to?  Or should one of my colleagues do this.

 

Thanks

Hamish

 

 

Hamish Brown

Director

 

Zenergy

Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world

119 Mt Eden Rd,

Auckland

www.zenergyglobal.com 

 

  _____  

From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org]
On Behalf Of Adam Blatner
Sent: Wednesday, 30 mmmm 2006 6:12
To: list at grouptalkweb.org
Subject: client or trainee

 

Hello All, Responding to an excellent professional question: Can a group
member join a training group: And responding further to Bud's response
(attached after this below):

 

Bud's attitude is understandable and somewhat compatible with many directors
and perhaps even Moreno's generous spirit, but it is also I think mistaken
for the following reasons. Part of this emerged with the difficulties
emerging with the encounter group fad of the 1970s:

      There are many people who are clearly mentally ill and just want to
get better, have no aspirations to being a therapists.

     Some people, on the other hand, are vibrantly healthy and
self-sufficient, and while they have some mild issues that need to be worked
on, they basically have the character to train and be therapeutic for
others, should they be interested in taking on that task.

       A significant number fall between the two, and their problems are
associated more with their interpersonal style. In the APA's Diagnostic and
Statistical Manual, the problems they encounter are noted in the category
called personality disorders, also known as "Axis 2" disorders. 

        Many people who have depression, anxiety, and other Axis I diagnoses
are also co-morbid, meaning they have more than one problem--not just their
anxiety, but also character or personality tendencies that set them up for
the defeats that then eventuate in depression and/or anxiety, or other
symptoms.  (Another example of co-morbidity is the way people with mild
PTSD--perhaps not fulfilling all the criteria for full diagnoses-- and/or
addiction problems may also come crashing into more clearly Axis I types of
symptom clusters.)

        The second and most important thing that wasn't much recognized
before the mid-1960s is the pervasiveness of varying degrees of Axis II
tendencies, which can be mild, moderate, or severe, and more, the key here
is that these folks don't have primary anxiety--i.e., feeling ego-alien or
uncomfortable with their own symptoms; rather they are ego-syntonic with
their life style, whether it be passive-aggressive, obsessive-compulsive,
hypomanic, hystrionic, borderline, narcissistic, etc. What this means is
that they become upset when people get tired of their behaviors, abandon
them, divorce them, fire them from their jobs, but they don't see what they
did that got people so riled up!  Folks with character problems tend to deny
it, minimize it, and so forth. Now we're getting closer to the games people
play in wanting to become "therapists."

      It doesn't matter if you buy the diagnostic categories I've
mentioned--they're just tools, and I'm not all that attached to them in
their specifics. What we're talking about is, in Eric Berne's Transactional
Analysis language, the "games people play."

       I will confess that I have some mild characterological tendencies,
and I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't have a bit, so we're talking about
how much, and whether a person is really committed to cleaning up his or her
act. Lots of folks don't really get down.

      

     Perhaps another factor here is whether much significant therapy can
happen in a group--especially a training group. The problem is that there is
a dual relationship: On one hand, there is the deal with my problems goal;
on the other hand, there's a bit of do you respect me as a therapist, can
you? I confess, there are people with patterns of behavior that are intense
enough, and lack of insight deep enough, and a kind of resistance to really
looking just thick enough, or lack of mental agility, so that while I might
find them okay to work with as clients, I would never ever consider them
capable of actually helping others. We have to really get clear about this. 

      I am afraid that there is a kind of humanistic egalitarianism-- in
California it used to be called "woo woo," that is post-Hippie "whatever"
"it's all good" blind to the actual range of issues in people. It would be
nice to assume that all can be wonderful, but there is absolutely no
evidence that supports this assumption. 

 

    So back to the problem: I've been in groups, sometimes with people who
were in counseling programs, and it was clear to me that they were not only
miles from being ready to help others, or even begin to; but were fairly
blind to the deficits in their personalities that would be problematical:
Some were painfully inhibited, passive, reticent, highly defended; others
were "drama queens," seeking emotional catharses and tending to dominate and
exhaust the group. And so forth. Experienced group leaders could make a list
of their most trying group members. 

 

     We must also remember that the desire to graduate, to be seen as being
good as the group leader, to be a trainer, is a common desire of people
whether or not they have the talent, ability, experience, maturity, or other
role requirements for the job. To accede to such desires is only one step
away from letting any teenager do brain surgery without having to go to
medical school, much less residency. 

 

         So, yes, trainees who have more than the mildest of problems should
indeed have as their primary therapist someone who is out of the stream of
their own vocational guidance, someone who can confront their manipulations,
and someone to whom they don't have to hide those manipulations. They also
need someone outside the group to whom they can complain about the group
leader. (This observation is a variation on the saying, "No man is a hero to
his wife's psychotherapist.")

 

        So it's not the "rules," that are the problem, but the actual
principles that acknowledge the reality that transferential problems will
emerge, they are common, and they are made almost impossible to address if
the group has any other agenda than the commitment to explore the
interactions themselves, with a view to clearing up blocks and blind spots.
A secondary hope to be appreciated, admired, respected, to prove competence,
to gain final approval for vocational advancement, is a significant dual
relationship. Add the financial element: What is the group member paying
for, therapy or training? This further muddies the water. 

 

    Well, sorry, but I want to indicate to the group members that the more
conservative practitioners aren't just defending their guild status, but
trying to address actual complexities in dual relationships.      I'm open
to your thoughts. Warmly, Adam Blatner

 

 

----- Original Message ----- 

From: BARNETT WEISS <mailto:budweiss at verizon.net>  

To: connie at souldrama.com ; list at grouptalkweb.org 

Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:52 AM

Subject: Re: Question

 

Of course, I am not a TEP so I can only answer from my perspective having
trained many persons in the past in some of the work in many venues.  I
really don't see what the problem is in welcoming a person from one of your
groups into a training program. If there is to be a distinction drawn about
this, I am not at all clear as to why there should be. 

 

Psychoanalysis to begin with and many other psychotherapeutic approaches
have implicit rules about the relationship of the therapist to the client
that exclude such conversions and even those are somewhat murky decisions.
In most of the training programs, you have to go through the therapy
yourself to be more completely aware of what your clients are going to be
experiencing when you work. So the trainee has to find someone else to do
the therapy with them.  

 

In the training groups that I have lead, I was doing the therapy for
everyone at first and then working with the more advanced students
co-directing the psychodrama's of other members of the group as we went
along with greater and greater hands off as they built their skills and
confidence. I really don't quite see the distinction here. I also made
myself vulnerable at times and became a protagonist briefly choosing my
director and working with it.  

 

I remember a time at Beacon when Zerka asked me to direct her in her own
psychodrama as she needed to get some clarity about some things. I was happy
to do so while others in the group were quite fearful and actually reacted
very intensely when Zerka was working as it brought up a great deal for
them. While dealing with the group became quite a challenge, I was quite
confident in working with this protagonist since I knew that I had one of
the best co-directors ever...Zerka!! 

 

In fact, I see everyone's psychodrama as being co-directed by the so called
designated Director and the protagonist themselves. If you are not following
the direction of the protagonist, in my estimation, you are moving in the
wrong direction. Words similar to those from Zerka are emblazoned in my
memory. 

 

So again, I don't get why a client couldn't become a trainee at any time. 

 

Blessings, all, Bud

Connie Miller <connie at souldrama.com> wrote:

Dear Adam: 

 

 Muddy?? This is a swamp!  

 

Ultimately it is the decsion of the trainer.  My groups are for "Training in
Aciton Methods"  and they also comprise those wanting psychodrama
certification.  This in fact stimulates those in training to want to get
certification later in psychodrama.  Otherwise I feel like we will never
have those certified to do psychodrama increase and  psychodramatists will
then become a special and exclusive group and will die.  Also this is why I
agree with you about teaching different parts of psychodrama separately to
help spread psychodrama.  And of course I would never allow anyone in the
group who was not using the group methods in thier own work but only wanted
to use the group for therapy.

 

I however am studying for the written part of the tep exam where it asks
under the ethics part,,, what do you do if someone in your therapy group
wants to join your training group?  Technically I guess the right anser is
not allowing duel relationships but is this what the all the traianers are
actually doing?? Right now, I have only met one.  this is why I am looking
for group feedback. 

 

Thanks Connie

 

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Adam Blatner [mailto:adam at blatner.com]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 08:39 AM
To: list at grouptalkweb.org
Subject: Re: Question

Dear Peter, Connie, and group.

       Peter, your open-hearted attitude is commendable, but I wonder if you
have considered the potential for less-than-worthy motivations. There are
people who want the status of professionalism, but are yet unwilling to take
on the full responsibility for self-management that this implies. What I'm
referring to is the role of "patient" or "client," in which the therapist
has a more non-judgmental attitude of "I'll try to help you at the level
that you are functioning." Some of these levels can be quite immature,
entitled, un-self-modulated, dependent, passive-aggressive, and so forth.
Many people are not willing to live up to the simplest requirements of being
responsible enough to pay regularly and in good faith, to show up regularly
and on time, of refusing to be civil under the excuse of victimhood or the
right to emotional expressiveness, and so forth. 

       To move to a training group is a kind of graduation into a
recognition by peers and group leader that one has moved into a full process
of taking charge of one's life. Not all issues are resolved--I quite agree
with Peter about this-- but there has been a graduation of sorts that is the
equivalent of finishing therapy in the sick or dysfunctional role. 

 

     The problem is tricky, and it is a dual role-- clients wish for
unconditional regard, but this term is misleading. It confuses the
archetypal maternal unconditionality--I'll draw you forth however you may
be, age 1, age 3, age 8, age 80...

          and the archetypal paternal conditionality: You are recognized as
being qualified to swim, do brain surgery, take 2nd level geometry, only
when you have clearly demonstrated your mastery of the first level or other
realistic requirements.

 

   Alas, the actual requirements for training as a counselor have become
hopelessly muddy, and it is quite possible to be excessively immature and
still get into a training program somewhere, and even graduate. This is
because there are significant financial incentives to accept all comers, to
keep people in rather than wash them out, to blur and overlook deficiencies.
Arguments that the number of training programs and trainers should be
limited evokes counter-accusations of being elitist and guild-like.
Arguments that call on the belief in the innate goodness of people confuse
the reality of people being a nexus of hundreds of roles and role
components, some of which are more talented, and the ways strengths often
compensate for, and not infrequently disguise weaknesses. So significant
discrimination is needed.

 

    In some universities, this graduation - acceptance into a graduate
school - problem of transference, dependence, and approval is circumvented
by a general policy that there be a period in which graduates must travel
elsewhere and perform for supervisors who have not been in the nurturing
role, the object of parental transference.  Perhaps later, having
demonstrated clear competence and maturity, they may be re-considered for a
position in the upper graduate or even lower faculty level.  It's an
interesting challenge--perhaps one that requires a hard look at the limits
of good feeling, tele, etc.

 

      I hope I haven't muddied the issues too much. Warmly, Adam

----- Original Message ----- 

From: Peter Howie <mailto:peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>  

To: connie at souldrama.com ; list at grouptalkweb.org 

Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:49 PM

Subject: Re: Question

 

Hi Connie,

It is often a natural step. The psychodrama groups are developmental. The
training is developmental. Not all work can be done in a training groups and
hence experiential groups are required as well for trainees. Not all
development can be done in experiential groups and hence training is
available. What does the training do? It expands a persons functioning,
their capacity for warming themselves in a spontaneous fashion, their
capacity to role reverse with others and creates mental models for the
process of doing so. While I run the groups differently the larger purpose
is the same - a more spontaneous world.

Cheers

Peter Howie
Brisbane, Australia




At 12:19 PM 24/08/2006, you wrote:



I was wondering what other trainers do when  a group member wants to join
the psychodrama training group. what are your feelings on them being in
both?
Connie

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20060901/f88a39d4/attachment.html