A problem with Sociometry?

[Adam Blatner]

Hi All, back from a conference, and stimulated by the following exchange of ideas 
including Hamish's question, Ann's and Anath's response, and more.
        On 8/1, Hamish Brown in New Zealand wrote: 1. HB   A problem with sociometry as an 
explanatory theory of human dynamics seems to appear in attempting to apply it to 
organisational systems - when I take it not just as an explanatory theory but also as a 
theory to guide my actions I find that I am put into a dilemma.

        Adam Blatner (AB). I don't see sociometry as an explanatory theory per se. Rather, 
I see it as a number of observations, general theoretical constructs, techniques, that in 
my thinking are not yet fully systematic.
        More important, I view social psychology, organizational systems, etc. as so 
complex that it requires a goodly number of component theories to adequately address the 
various problems.
       (We're talking meta-theory here, and I talk about meta-theory in the new book from 
Routledge on theory in psychodrama.)
    I use the analogy to medicine, for which, in fact, there is no single theory. There 
are millions of facts, and many of them are open ended, meaning that while we know x, we 
might not appreciate why x, or all the ways x operates, or all the influences on x..
       More, there are thousands of theories about how things work operating at various 
levels of organization, and the principles and dynamics of each theory (i.e., physiology) 
may be quite different in many or most respects from the theory of how a different organ 
or organ system works.

       So while I think sociometry points to some very important dynamics that are not 
addressed sufficiently by most other theories in sociology, and helping people to become 
sensitive to these dynamics of rapport is itself a major component of what folks really 
need to know about, that doesn't make it an "explanatory theory" in any grand sense.

      Ann's use of the term, including role theory, or subsuming role theory under 
sociometry, may have some historical validity, but it broadens sociometry then so that the 
word becomes closer to or indistinguishable from the more general field of social 
psychology, and it is questionable whether that broadening is really useful.

     Bringing in Moreno's theories of creativity and spontaneity, and his vision of its 
implementation in the world broadens the word and concept into philosophy, transcending 
any "-ology." This has value in our recognizing that our theories do have roots in certain 
philosophical attitudes, but that's different from trying to ascertain the actual meaning 
or boundaries of a given term.
    Thus, in Hamish's case, seeking to find some solution of a multi-system problem 
through sociometry might be misleading, as if an actual patient in medicine with some 
problems in breathing might seek to remedy that problem only through a study of the 
physiology of respiration. However, there are many other systems that more peripherally 
impact the breathing process, and the diagnosis of that problem requires a consideration 
of all kinds of dynamics other than the strictly respiratory, from nutrition to 
psychology.
        More comments in another email. Warmly, Adam