Client to trainee and Soiometrizing ASGPP

[BARNETT WEISS]

Well, Here I go again:

I think there is a real danger in all of this in terms of a kind of heirachy and the judgements that are made through this heirarchy which may not reflect the overall thoughts and values of the membership.  Of course there is really no avoiding this heirachy or judgement. The best at present would be a ruling coming out of a group decision by vote. Ultimately, I feel the need to address this and many other issues through an effort to sociometrise the ASGPP and to make the sociogram available to everyone.

With a straignt sociometric vote for a leadership council it would be a cold sociometric exercise since the likelyhood of being able to offer some working arrangement seems doubtful. 

One possible working one could be choosing who would you would like to work with as a partner in the next ASGPP meeting where there will be open sessions every evening with the public is invited and an appropriate fee charged for the public non member attendees. That might just do the trick. 

There would then be open sessions each night and the directors would be the top sociometric stars with mutual choices being elected in sociometric order to codirect with them.  People would give their reasons for choosing those persons in terms of the strengths they saw in the persons chosen and of course there would also be rejections honored with the reason for those being rejected posted as well.  The strengths and reasons for rejection could be handled as follows:
strengths could be made public and the reasons for rejection could simply be posted as a group without attributing them to any one in particular, however the sociogram would reflect the rejections. 

In this fashion, we could pursue the edict of Who Shall Survive and see just what the dynamics of the field are at that moment. 

Of course, the voting for the group to be in charge of the direction for the ASGPP for the year could be done the same way with that group of 10 ( I like the minion model, it has deep roots as does the 12 person committee.) The elected group would choose from their group, the president for the next 2 year term and the other offices could also be arrived at similarly.  Everyone would have the opportunity to turn down membership in the 10 or 12 being replaced by the next highest sociometric star with further voting possible in terms of a tie which is highly unlikely to be needed given the numbers involved. 

People would also upon voting establish their familiarity with all those in the society so that it would be clear about the size of their known social atom in the group. It would be best to have some kind of large group warmup at the yearly meeting through which some additional contact could be made to expand the known social network of all involved using some simple meeting techniques arrived at once again through a committee. 

I had apoken about this being done way back when I started in 1968; as far as I know, it was never acted upon.  It was to me the guiding principal of all the work and yet for whatever reason,  as I say, to my knowledge, its time had not and has not come. Once a leader has created themselves as a source, moving on to the next phase of sociometrizing the community is an awesome step to say the least and the timing of it is most difficult to arrive at. I don't think it has ever been done for any such community.  I think it is at least time to do so now.

Back to the original question regarding patient to trainee.  For me, at present, this remains an individual decision for each trainer or director with all the caveats included. There might also be a sociometric base used for the decision both from the therapy group as well as the trainee group with the person realizing before hand that this is the process that they must go through if they are in fact to train with their group therapist. Then, If a patient in a group asks to become a trainee with that director, the patient group should be able to vote as to the appropriateness of that status and a psychodrama evolve that would assay the correctness of that choice as well as geting into other issues that might not have surfaced without this request. Perhaps another qualified director might be called to conduct this session with an appropriate fee charged for this and with the original director/group therapist as a group participant for this specific psychodrama.

Blessings, Bud


Roberto de Inocencio <rdinocencio at mundivia.es> wrote: Dear Elaine:
I am in full agreement with your statement.
Roberto


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "elaine sachnoff" 
To: 

Sent: Wednesday, August 30, 2006 5:59 PM
Subject: Re: List Digest, Vol 2, Issue 30


> To allow a patient to become a trainee?
> the question is murky because the roles are not
> clearly defined. It has not been defined as clearly as
> above.  Probably because Moreno turned many of his
> private patients into the first psychodramatists.
> As I lamely explain to my trainees-"Yes, he breaks
> the rules, but he invented the rules.  we are not
> Moreno" And let's not gloss over the problems he had
> with his psychiatric confreres.
>  If the person wanting to join the Training group has
> been a therapy group member of which you, the Trainer,
> are the therapist, then the answer, to me, is clearly
> no.
> They can become part of another Trainer's Training
> group where they do not have a history or  built up
> reserves of roles and fantasies for both trainer and
> trainee to deal with.
> Our profession has been historically lax and vague
> about dealing with transferences-Bud's example is a
> perfect one.
> It encapsulates the 60s ,admirable in some ways,
> thinking of breaking down the hierarchy between
> patient and therapist while ignoring[possibly denying]
> the transferential elements.    For good or ill, we
> have been strugggling with it all these years in our
> various ways with our various theoretic frameworks to
> guide or impede us. why do you think the emphasis has
> been on looking to the AMA APA APsychoanalytic Assn
> codes?
> My thought is, when in doubt, don't do it.
> We have had 2 or 3 people come to several months of
> the open session sometimes participating as
> protagonist sometimes,not.  Then they join the
> Training but if they are in therapy, it is with
> someone outside the group. The training is not their
> therapy.
> Our Training group is not a therapy group per se, it
> can and has functioned as such, at times, but its
> primary focus is Training.  If somene needs therapywe
> refer them to a therap-ist.
> The Trainer is the Trainer not the therapist..
> If there is no other Training group in the area that
> is sad, but not really your problem-you are not
> Trainer to the world.
>   One of the benefits-albeit arguably at the moment,
> is the listing of workshops that other Trainers are
> doing.  Most of them can be travelled to for weekends
> if the person is motivated. You can make that
> available to them as you decline their participation
> in your current Training group.
> How long after shalll they wait? that is another long
> involved question. we have murky histories of dubious
> sexual relationships, unequal relationships, equivocal
> financial relationships all between trainer and
> student our profession is rife with opportunities for
> misuse.
> I feel like one of Macbeth's witches. BEWARE
>  again, if there is any doubt in your mind-do not do
> it.
> Elaine Ades Sachnoff PhD,TEP
> The Psychodrama Training Institute of Chicago
> 
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>


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

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20060904/6528b81c/attachment.html