responses41507

[Adam Blatner]

A number of comments to grouptalk and to the last three correspondents:

     1. First, to Patti... your email for Zerka is out of date.  it is no longer TMCeline at aol.com   but rather  tmceline at comcast.net

     2. you wrote to her...though I don't know if she has seen it yet, "I understand from Kate's email that you do not believe ASGPP is holding to these ideals."
            I am not doubting dear Kate, but I've found in such group networks that, as in the parlor game, "Telephone," what Kate heard may not have been what Zerka actually said or perhaps meant. So my approach is to be very questioning. I tend to ask, did you say something like this? What did you mean? And then think and check it out more with questionings. And of course you kinda said that..PD: ... would like to hear more about your thoughts on this." 

   3... when you said, "...as Grouptalk is a listserve that reaches throughout the world, I imagine there are many besides me who read Kate's email and   I have always experienced Grouptalk as a community of folks who offer openness in talking about ideas and sharing opinions given with respect and an interest in understanding group and individual concerns. In this manner can you say more about why you think ASGPP is a dying organization with thoughts on any changes you would like to see? And please, would other grouptalkers join in who would like to comment." -- the following occurs to me:
     ab: I am concerned that most of the executive committee is either not on grouptalk or if they are, they rarely show themselves. Remember, Grouptalk was excluded as an ASGPP-affiliated operation about a year ago, for reasons such as its international scope. Nor are there all that many ASGPP members on this listserve.
      I have spoken up at conferences and witnessed to this listserve being perhaps the most dynamic, "living" interactive process in the ASGPP, if not the world, in the sense of its interactivity, openness, dynamism. Yet many are "too busy" to be involved. 
      
  Then, to Kate: 
         you said:"asgpp needs to stop marginalizing folks and share the sociometric wealth."
              ab: While we agree on so many things, I'm not sure this is either an accurate or a useful diagnosis. I'm not sure what it even means. 
      Your example isn't bad--- the idea that being told only 1 of a person's submission would be accepted and then seeing folks with more than one does deserve some explaining. 
      
    You may be right about not being fully accepted because of some past concerns, and if so, you're right to challenge those concerns. On the other hand, maybe something else is going on. However, even if you're mistaken as to the actual issues involved, what does come across is the apparent lack of transparency. It's the opposite of encounter. We are left to wonder. (I remember Dorothy Satten's line: "If you don't disclose yourself, others will make up their own ideas about who you are.")

.  It is a loss for aagpp and american psychodramatists that i am marginalized because some people do not presonally like me or are still holding a ten year old ethics complaint against me.
    kh: Zerka oftens talks to me that asgpp is a dying organizations for not sharing sociometric wealth, competitipn and other reasons. 
       ab if this is so, let's hear her reasons. 
    "Dying" is such a strong term. But I agree there's trouble, because the field has been marginalized---yes, that's the term, chosen correctly---in some of the major recent psychiatric texts and psychotherapy texts. And membership and conference attendance is marginal. 

Then to Ed Schreiber

   4. I know some of us have feelings about our professioonal organization; I know I do.
           ab: I've had "feelings" for over thirty years, buffeted by the winds of sometimes appreciation, sometimes feeling ignored or snubbed... but I am more interested in thoughts, specific ideas. What do you think the problems are, and how might they be formulated so that they can be remedied.
     Over the years I've been free with many suggestions, such as in promoting recognition on the website for award winners. (Now they've got the names up, and I'm suggesting that we do more---put also the reasons for the awards. I think recognition is an important function, and it must be attended to carefully.
     For example: This next year, please tell all in your professional psychodrama networks --- those who are in the ASGPP -- to think about who might merit an award and try to submit some kind of nomination.
     And I'm always noodging about writing for the journal, as does Tom and a number of others.
             So, Ed, let's hear what you think can be improved.

     5. It's interesting that you say, "As someone who has felt on the outside of things with the ASGPP, somewhat marginalized..."  because you've moved toward center stage. Have you realized that yet? What's important is that it's quite possible for people who are sociometric at least semi-stars to not know it. How do we diagnose this element in the system?

       6. As to why people are reticent... well, it needs ongoing encouragement like you're doing, but from people who can be contacted, open to email reply. Look what I'm doing. Does anyone know I'm here? that sort of thing. It's this interactivity, the resonance of back-forth-and-around that raises morale.

   ab continues:  I acknowledge that in todays economy folks are often struggling to make ends meet. I suspect there is little surplus time and energy, volunteer energy to help with committees, etc. 
    
 ES: It's time for we as participant leaders to step up and be present in a kind of presence that respects one another and has but one criteria:  inclusion.
      ab: This is a most intriguing theme, because there are different kinds of inclusive behavior. Many acquaintances, friends and relatives are very inclusive if I show up, and I believe they're happy to see me and have me there.
     There's another level, though: fewer --just some---seem to be willing to go out of their way to get together. Now we're talking reciprocity. Do they email me, telephone me, answer my emails? Do they initiate emails to me?  A few do. Not many. Do they extend their hospitality to me, offer to take me to a meal once in a while? Now we're getting down to it. 

     There are other dynamics. If three people clearly resonate with positive tele and one expresses negative tele, it remains ambiguous: Will anyone support me? Does anyone notice? I'm reminded of the guy in the hospital visited by a member of his temple board, expressing sympathy, "...not only from me, but the whole Board expresses its desire that you should get well, by a vote of twelve to seven!"   (ha ha... get it? who are those seven?)

     In summary, Ed, Kate, and Patti have raise interesting issues. My suggestion is that council members be encouraged to join grouptalk, respond, make their email addresses available to the membership, let people know what committees they're on and ask for feedback regarding various issues. I would like there to be a far more vigorous invitation from ASGPP higher-ups to encourage and support grouptalk.

       What about the ASGPP forum? I've chatted with Mike Traynor, and might be intrigued that that could be a place for discussion, but as yet I'm not aware that there are a minimum of 10 people who regularly go there and are willing to discuss ideas back and forth.  

    Well, those are some thoughts. Warmly, Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070415/71ea11a0/attachment.html