sociometry2response

[Adam Blatner]

Part 2, response to Hamish's question: (In another email I commented on the problem of 
relying on sociometry as an adequate or sufficient explanatory theory).
       HB wrote: 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.
      AB: When anyone tries to apply any theory to one's own predicament, there's a subtle 
shift that's somewhat similar to the problem of differentiating between sociodrama and 
psychodrama. For sociodrama, there are the general underlying issues related to a specific 
role conflict, one shared by a number of participants (if not all) of a group.
       For psychodrama, there is the influence of certain issues in conjunction with a 
number of other issues not shared by the group, issues determined by the particularities 
of that individual, his histroy, present environment, and the nexus of different kinds of 
roles being played---again, in their particular form!
         This difference applies also to Hamish's situation. Ann Hale correctly notes that 
role theory may be useful here, and I would add that generalizations at the theoretical 
level may not be either relevant or useful.

  HB: On the one hand I have responses to the world that come about as a function of my 
role repertoire which cause me to move towards and away from others at different times - 
on the other hand I am self conscious of the responses others are having to me and their 
moving towards and away from me at different times often due to my speaking or actions. . 
. . etc.
        AB: in this and the following paragraph, HB presents through self-disclosure 
(though still at a slightly abstract level) some of the OTHER considerations, role 
conflicts, operating. These include more subtle issues of self-presentation, nonverbal 
communications, the mixed tele he may have with some folks, and then transcends the 
problem as he considers his own self-management. When is he being more politically 
expedient and when more authentic.
   Stated bluntly, must we like everyone we work with?
         HB:  I suppose I might call this a 'role conflict' and I might do a psychodrama 
to reconcile this conflict within myself.
> However...  Contemplating this has me value the work of Machiavelli the Italian 
> philosopher.  The thing is that I want to see the world and relationships as more than a 
> series of political games and maneuverings and yet it is obvious to me at some points 
> that letting my true feelings show would cause fragmentation in the system and result in 
> my not getting what I want.
      AB: Whoa! Let's not be too quick to label---and especially label negatively, which 
begs the question: What really is politics about? One person called it the "art of the 
possible."  Need it operate without ethics? no. Need it be ruthless? no. Is expedience 
bad? Perhaps if it is the only criterion, but often it is mixed with other criteria! 
That's essential.
     Being in a marriage, raising kids---especially teenagers---, being in any working 
group---these call for tact and diplomacy. It begs the question, as I said, to label such 
activities as "playing games."
       Within the mind, there are many feelings that may be thought of as "true self" or 
"authentic" that in fact are richly contaminated by sub-role-components that are childish, 
neurotic, transferentially loaded, and so forth. Just working these out can take a 
lifetime. Expressing "true self" at age 30 may be recognized at age 50 as an act of folly 
and actual inauthenticy, because one continues to discover layers upon layers of slightly 
to moderately more truth about one's own preferences. Discriminations become finer and 
more nuanced.

      Hamish:  If I am in the role of trainee or employee where there is little or no 
positional power associated with the role and a set of expectations regarding how I should 
best act, then there is quite some burden on me to 'fall into line', to do what others 
want so I can get what I want.  The problem I am pointing to is not this in its self 
(sociometry provides a
useful way to present this dilemma to all of you) the problem is that this is quite a 
simple (polar) way of seeing the issues contained in this situation.  While the 
description is accurate it does not seem to create a rich enough explanation to assist me 
to resolve my power issues sufficiently to experience relationship differently.
             AB: Yes, exactly! Sociometry may be an opening door to the situation, a 
bridge to our shared language, but it in itself cannot explain or describe the richness of 
many actual situations, which are often determined by many other factors!! Nor should it 
be expected to function in such a global way. Rather, I see it as a useful group of tools, 
both concepts and techniques. These in turn must be integrated by one who also learns many 
other types of tools and concepts.

   HB: Due to my tendency to avoid my power issues it leads me away from the therapeutic 
arena of experiencing myself and deepening my reflections on my inner experience and 
developing the capacity to relate to others through different criteria and towards my 
clever rational capacity to act in a Machiavellian manner to create what I want - the cost 
never seems very big at the time, but is in fact huge.  I find myself living in a 
Machiavellian world which I cannot escape because my projections and the rational response 
to these perfectly reasonable projections make me aware of how Machiavellian
every one else is.
   AB: Name-calling is a type of blaming, and it blinds the person in the predicament. 
Blaming offers a brief illusion of power but generally confuses the issue. Let's say that 
people are seeking to be political, and some are including more or less ethical, 
altruistic, and other values into their maneuvers. Often these are not thought out much 
ahead of time. Everyone manuevers, everyone adjusts, and the term Machiavellian is most 
misleading.
       In the aforementioned paragraph, Hamish seems to have projected his own confusion 
and decision to maneuver more consciously onto everyone else. I find that most people are 
bumbling along---far from Machiavellian! Their thinking may not be fully inclusive of 
everyone else, nor fully altruistic, but while some may be more egocentric and selfish 
than others, I suspect that there are some in his network who are also more kind and 
inclusive.
        Point is that even kind and inclusive people at times may be seen as maneuvering, 
they may fail in their attempts to be inclusive, and those who feel excluded may then see 
them as Machiavellian. But they're really not. Rather, the "victim" of these perceived 
manipulations may not know how to counter-maneuver to give voice to his concerns, to play 
the reciprocal role in negotiations; and thus, becomes the oppressed or the victim, at 
least in his own mind.
         So it's better to forget that word and to remember my point: Politics is the art 
of the possible. It is inescapable, but one can engage in this process with more or less 
consciousness and artfulness. Also, one can act with more or less co-intention of ethics 
and caring. But maneuvers, diplomacy, negotiations, etc.--are not game playing, they are 
necessary, because different folks inevitably have different preferences, priorities, 
values, concerns, ideas, etc.

    HB:  I guess I'm saying that while sociometric explanations sure are helpful to those 
observing the system I am not sure how helpful they are to those within it and of cause 
this separation is a problem in its self (as I don't believe it exists).
           ab: Actually, I think that including sociometric awareness can help, but it 
cannot in and of itself solve the problem. The seeking of any single explanation or 
formula may be misleading, though---the fallacy of grasping at only one type of 
interpretation within any situation. In other words, sociometry as a group of tools should 
not be thought of as being  explanatory in any final sense, but rather as providing 
temporary scaffolds for applying partial hypotheses in constructing a response---and then 
allowing these concepts to shift in the course of dialogue.

    In summary, what appealed to me about Hamish's question is again our collective 
appreciation of the proper scope of our tools. To me they're very useful, but not in 
themselves complete. Nor do I see any other system as being complete, nor should it be. 
Rather, in our postmodern era, we're learning to recognize the intrinsic actual complexity 
of life and learn an infrastructure of basic skills of mental flexibility for responding 
to this complexity. It's like learning to live in a different medium, to go from being a 
fish to walking on land.

          More soon. Warmly, Adam