Question

[Adam Blatner]

Responding to this other part of Bernard's response, about his therapeutic community:
     
        There needs to be a philosophical conversation about the obligations of therapy-- i.e., in which kinds of groups are there relatively more commitments (implicit or explicit) to bring along, and foster the optimal development of those with varying disabilities, disorders, diseases, handicaps, illnesses, addictions, etc?  In the USA, there is a strongly hypocritical program sponsored by the present Republican Administration called "No Child Left Behind."  (I tend to agree with one interpretation that suggests that as increasing number of schools from inner cities and high immigrant areas fail, these manufactured failures will be ammunition to promote the business interests of those who want to substitute charter schools and private schools for public schools--not that such schools have been actually demonstrated to do better.)
       Anyway, the other possibility that is being ignored seems somewhat elitist, perhaps, but I think it needs to be considered: For normal and healthy and bright kids, are the resources being diverted into "rehabilitation" so there's nothing left to help the gifted, the healthy thrive with enrichment programs? Programs of drama, the arts, and many others are being cancelled so that money can be spent on bringing the slower-to-learn kids, the behavioral disordered kids, the near-drop-out kids, the non-motivated kids back into the fold.
        I've found that it takes ten times as much energy, perhaps a hundred times as much, to bring someone who is significantly problematic up to bare normality as it might take to encourage a healthy person to move from bare normality into flourishing.  In an era of limited resources, how shall we allocate them?

       Anyway, your experience was noble, that whole R.D.Laing type of half-way house. But there is a big, big difference between a community dedicated to no one left behind and a training group. There might even be differences between therapy groups that involve more and less problematical clients--though I haven't seen this written about. 
      
        So I'm very wary about efforts that would extend our efforts to be "inclusive" (as if that were a good thing) in training groups. Instead, I suspect we should have certain kinds of higher education that more actively exclude, wash out, refuse to graduate at least 20-80% of people who might want to enter such programs--depending on the actual needs of the final role. (For example, certain high-demand jobs, special military forces, firemen, etc., routinely wash out a fair number of those who enter. I respect the act of therapy as requiring sharp diagnostic skills and a remarkable capacity for complexity-thinking, among other qualities, to challenge those who think that the prime quality is empathy and nice-ness.
        I love those softer qualities--don't get me wrong--and if I could, I'd make the cultivation of such qualities perhaps the first class in a training curriculum for psychiatry residents, for example: First, learn to be nice. (It's a take-off from Hippocrates' first aphorism some 2400 years ago... "First, do no harm."  Alas, much of modern medicine intrudes and does more harm than help.)
          But my view of therapy, in keeping with the pressure for short-term work and rising fees, is that the therapist must be much smarter and more flexible than whatever dear ol' Carl Rogers suggested. His principles were valid as far as that goes, but that's like saying that surgeons should wash their hands. Okay, no argument there, but you need a whole lot more skill than hand-washing to do surgery.

      Well, that's my response. Warmly, Adam
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: bernard widlake 
  To: list at grouptalkweb.org 
  Sent: Tuesday, September 26, 2006 11:24 PM
  Subject: Re: Question


  I think I would like to come in to the general debate here. I am just reading Moreno's "Soonteneity Theory anof Child Development" which he wrote with Florence His first wife, and which is published by the xford Psychodrama Grop as a Monograph (2002)

  I came to the memtal health field from a pastoral background, and a course offered by The Richmond Fellowship. The oeverall background of this group was strongly rooted in the anti-psychiatry movement, with such people as RDLang, and Maxwell Jones.  
  I had few previous ideas about mental health issues, but some strong feelings about  sharing peoples lives in community, and anghancing their potential, which was limited by their experience of breakdown, but very powerful in other areas. Out approach to mental health issues in the community I managed (for many years as sole staff) was largely practical. Minimal rules apprlied, around essentail support of the community functions.We had a lot of laughs, powerful struggles, and, at best, a wonderful sense of commaderie, as people spent many years (for a few, the whole twelve years I was there) regaining the confidence needed to live as independent members of the community.  
  I mention all this because the model used diagnosis sparringly, and focussed on sympotoms and functioning. Boundaries WERE maintained, but they were flexible, and practical, not rigid and pre-concieved.   For instance, I struggled with the community to maintain the presence of a woman who had learning dissabilities, and, strictly speaking, did not fit out group. She refused absolutely and indignantly to do any washing up - s big issue for the communitiy. She complained continuously, but somehow managed to relate to the community, and survivve for a period of time which gave her some respite.  
  Which brings me to the point of boundaries, which has been disucussed a lot in recent emails.
  I   alwasy think of boundaries as lilke membranes in the body, firm, strong, but flexible, and adaptible to a wide range of differing situations and needs. So, for example, in
  the community I have mentioned a woman with what I would now describe as personality dissorder, refused to come to the community meetings. Knwoing she was just looking to be rejected, I begged the community to make an exception, and tollerate her beyond the norm (which allowed people to miss two meetings, before being asked to leave the comnunity).  She had survived a long time in the community, complaining all the time, but doing what she had to to remain.  Sadly, in the end, she upped the ante, and forced us to ask her to leave.  
  Boundaries are not always, then, as clear as we are tempted to make them. They finction best around a few clear and general rules, and a lot of spontaneous action. The most therapeutic moments seem to me (and to others) to be around the edges of rules and boundaries. Treating people as individuals, valuing who they are, managing their symtoms while trying to understand their meaning for the individual. I argued almost daily, that the residents were not so different from me, even though their experience of mental breakdown made them seem so (i;e; to them, not always to me).  
  And, of course, there were exceptions. We could not help those recoving from drug taking problems, or from drink problems. They needed much stronger boundaries, and amdmitted as much sometimes. So we excluded them or they excluded themslves.. What does that say about boundaries?               
  The theory which best reflects this approach is chaos theory, and the new science. A few basic rules, unlimite iteration, and wonderful patterns emerge, which have resemblances, but are never quite the same. 
  Best wishes,
  Bernard.
  Peter Howie 
    To: connie at souldrama.com ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
    Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 4:49 AM
    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
      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



----------------------------------------------------------------------------


    Internal Virus Database is out-of-date.
    Checked by AVG Free Edition.
    Version: 7.1.394 / Virus Database: 268.10.7/410 - Release Date: 05.08.2006



------------------------------------------------------------------------------


  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: 7.1.407 / Virus Database: 268.12.9/457 - Release Date: 9/26/2006
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20060927/81ebdab1/attachment.html