sociatry82607

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Rollo, I hope you also forward this to Kevin. 
    Ann Hale says that your ANZPA Journal, no. 14 (December, 2005) includes "The Practical Science of Sociatry" by Dr. Kevin Franklin, psychodramatist,TEP and clinical psychologist from Perth, Australia. (pages 53-58). Rollo Brown, editor of the journal, edited an excerpt of the paper for the journal.
        Ann  says: My excitement is that Kevin describes in Morenian terms the debate between Adam and Ed, which caught our attention as it was descriptive of dis-unity we fell all around us as a society at war with itself. 

      adam: Okay, first, I'm a little confused: Perhaps the date is off--- December, 2005 ?   This is almost 2 years later...
            and which debate are we talking about here, one that I had a few weeks ago???   It doesn't seem possible that our recent dialogue would be able to be incorporated into an ANZPA journal so quickly, even if it is the current issue. 
.
   Also, I would prefer those who would presume to quote me or extract my words at least let me know, perhaps so I can review what folks say I said. Journalistic practice more often distorts the source than reports it accurately. 
      
   Ann in the recent email then describes the paper: "He calls us to Moreno;s vision of three universes, ending with describing the third universe as progressive which has at its heart loving oneself and other as oneself.   Regarding the issue of politics, Kevin writes "Through our governing mechanisms we can arrange to quarentine mental illness, delinquency, terrorism, criminality and other problematic groups from mainstream society to avoid the problem that IS society" .

        adam Blatner: Help, although these generalities seem pretty good on the surface, I confess that I'm not at all sure I understand what KF means. What should we do specifically, more of or less of? 

  AH continues:  "...And about sociatry specifically he writes: " Psychodrama and sociatry are practical sciences: they are alive social sciences. They use the psychodramatic paradigm whereas current social sciences use the psychological paradigm, It is psychodrama's practical, developmental and socially unifying ethic in this healing science that makes its young cousin sociatry a progressive cultural path of best practice.

      ABlatner: If those quotes are accurate, again, I confess my ignorance. Can psychodrama be considered a science? What is the argument for this assertion? If it is a science, is it not an art?  
         And where is there a clear description of sociatry not just as a general vision, but as a science? Is it available in any widely-accessible book? Might it be scanned on and posted? 

   AH, quoting KF, continues: ... This is a path from society's current confounding, its confusion, and its induction of dis-order in the populace. Sociatry is a way to systemic social unity and the stability of valued socio-diversity. 
      AB: Again, I am confused here: What is beyond sociatry? Does sociatry include all non-Morenean approaches to improving things, countering negative social influences?
        Are there any ways to clarify exactly what is and is not causative of dis-order? (It seems that there may be some policies that may have both numerous advantages and some disadvantages, and then a dialogue must ensue that addresses the proper weighting of these as ethical and political choices.)
     
     AH / KF : ...   If we do not trust our process of creative spontaneity learning then we are instead producing what Moreno called sociosis.
       AB:  Help, how much of "creative spontaneity learning" involves pausing and critically reflecting on what is being said?

   AH / KF ... That is where role taking mentalities dominate spontaneity learning and identity formation to a living death.

     AB: Again, I confess my ignorance. What is a role taking mentality? I have never encountered this phrase. From its context, it seems to be--- what-- role-locked?  a synonym for non-spontaneity?  Anyone with whom we disagree?
        And that this... apparent group / conspiracy  / generalization of all those who in every field "dominate" spontaneity learning... oops, again I'm confused. Where is there spontaneity learning even happening?
        Does KF mean the academics who lead in the field of curriculum? But surely this field, also, is highy diverse and it is unclear if members the same "groups" or "political orientation" or "educational theory" do in fact "dominate" in more than one district, region, country. 
        Or his he using generalities to say that fools develop policies that sabotage the mission of true education? 
  
   AH / KF  ....   And that end-state singularity is in service of a reductionist world view where there is one right way to live."
       AB: Aside from the use of surprising jargon (and questionably the right words), he seems to be saying, well, the sentence above. 

     AH writes further... It is such an inspiring and challening article.  If people want to order the journal (my favorite psychodrama read) or back copies contact rollo.browne at bigpond.com 

      AB: I'm reluctant to have to pay $30 or more to see this article, alas. But I would invite Kevin to dialogue with me directly, perhaps send me a file. I'm not sure if I understand the quotes. 
      Certainly, I agree with the general sentiment that there are fools and foolish policies, but I'm not always sure how we can best determine what is in fact foolish without engaging in a direct encounter about the issues with those whom we are inclined to criticize. It may be that our tendency to caricature those whose policies we don't agree with may itself sabotage the goal of coming up with more effective agreements and policies. More, it's important to pull away from generalities and thinking that generalities lead clearly to specifics. Very often the opposite happens, and interpretation is a most awkward process. 

     Once again, though, I'm wary of how Kevin interpreted whatever (and whenever) he perceived a disagreement involving me and Ed or anyone else. I would prefer him to encounter me directly, find out what I think, re-iterate what he thinks he understands as my thinking, find out if I agree with his understanding---chances are fair that it may require revision and a re-iteration of the process. 
      That's what encounter really means. Check out what you hear. See if that is in fact what the other person has meant. Make room for there to be corrections. Repeat and repeat again. (See my paper on my website on mutuality.) 
       In closing, a button from the 1970s when buttons were cute ways to make fashion statements:

   I know you believe you understand what you think I said, but I am not sure that what you heard is what I meant. 

       Warmly, Adam Blatner
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070826/9893fde5/attachment.html