psychodrama, action methods, Morenianism et al

[Peter Howie]

Hi Adam,

Here is my point from a different perspective.

'Different strokes for different folks at different times and different 
contexts for different reasons.'

Rather than having an answer and trying to fit everyone into it, how about 
finding out the questions and seeing if we can supply some of the answer or 
interest people in other things altogether.

I think most definitions of psychodrama relate to the teller not the 
listener. Usually I have noticed I tell people what I think they "ought" to 
hear rather than really taking the time to find out what they actually are 
after.

Remember that this is not about needs but about wants. The need base is 
very specific and some of psychodrama practice goes to meeting those needs. 
But in affluent countries mostly it about wants. So what does the person 
asking the question want? Not existentially but what do they want? I fmy 
answer meets some of what they want then they will be interested further. 
If it doesn't interest them then I must consider 1) Maybe they didn't get 
it and perhaps I expressed myself in-adequately and 2) Do I really know 
what they want or 3) Maybe they did get it and don't want it 4) Maybe they 
did get it but consider someone else can give it to them 
better/cheaper/richer etc.

I am not so worried about those who have had a bum steer about psychodrama. 
I mean I've had a bum steer about every type of psychology, religion, 
political system, relational system. And Adam you often point out the bum 
steers in psychodrama and with Moreno and various psychodramatic 
communities as do others on this list. Its all good stuff up to a point. 
Those reflections are not definitive and don't completely frame my 
understanding of these other modalities or Moreno or anything much. I am 
much more interested in those who haven't heard about psychodrama. If most 
people heard about it through the wider therapy community then almost no 
one has heard about it because the wider therapy community is a very narrow 
community.

The consensus idea sounds like fun but personally I have no need and it 
actually highlights that the whole things is a great post-modernist social 
constructivist game.

Anyway you and I talk with lots of overlaps and you keep me on my toes 
often. So thanks a lot for that and cheers for now

Peter in Brisbane


At 08:52 PM 12/9/2007 -0600, Adam Blatner wrote:
>What is psychodrama?
>    1. It would be worthwhile for there to be a combination of symposia of 
> major trainers at the major conferences of major organizations (ANZPA, 
> ASGPP, BPA, FEPTO), plus a sharing and a delegation of responsibility to 
> hammer out an international consensus. This would take more 
> back-and-forth and more input from at least five trainers on each 
> continent. This input would be woven into the IAGP and other contexts for 
> more input, incubating there. (I'm thinking of a parallel general process 
> that went on about what diagnoses and criteria go into a revision of the 
> latest psychiatric diagnostic manual.)
>
>           Your point about adapting it for different audiences is, I 
> think, important, because the real answer is or should be aimed at 
> "outsiders" who want and need to hear a succinct answer that will attract 
> them to learn more.
>
>    2. For starters, what do you think of:
>          A complex of techniques and principles for types of active, 
> improvsiational role playing that are useful not only in therapy, but 
> also education and other contexts.
>
>     3. Peter, I think your analogy to chewing gum is amusing and has some 
> advantages. I envision our colleagues in management, education, and 
> therapists who have hardly heard about psychodrama---and in the wider 
> therapy community, the chances are fair that those who have heard about 
> our method may have encountered misleading second-hand information (e.g., 
> there are many therapists who are against psychodrama because of what 
> they've heard third-hand, and for other reasons). (See my papers on 
> historical distortions of psychodrama.)
>
>      4. Well, that's enough for now. Warmly, Adam
>----- Original Message -----
>From: <mailto:peterhowie at macquariehouse.com.au>Peter Howie
>To: <mailto:list at grouptalkweb.org>list at grouptalkweb.org
>Cc: <mailto:dianaj at orgdev.co.nz>Diana Jones
>Sent: Friday, December 07, 2007 5:54 PM
>Subject: psychodrama, action methods, Morenianism et al
>
>Hi All,
>
>Changing the name has many problem elements. As some of us have 
>experienced this with the tele discussion - some recently wanted to 
>replace it with rapport and some thought otherwise. A name is only what we 
>make it out to be - of course this is a social contructivist approach to 
>knowledge formation - that is: we jointly come to a loose (sometimes very 
>loose) agreement about what knowledge is, and we arrive at it thourgh 
>discussions that use the term, discussions about the term, referring to it 
>in other ways and eventually that is what the knowledge becomes 
>irrespective of what anyone else thinks it is - it has no external 'truth' 
>- unless of course we all decide that it does have some external truth in 
>which case it then does:)
>
>No, the psychodrama one is what I am on about. Many people have no idea 
>about psychodrama the word, the method, what it is, what it is not - so 
>often the response is "What is that". In todays marketing oriented world 
>this would be seen as an invitation - and what every modern marketer is 
>after is an invitation from a potential client. How you or I answer that 
>question is what I am trying to work out.
>
>Answering the question "What is psychodrama?" is quite tricky and depends 
>to a great extent on why the person who is asking the question is doing 
>so. Have you ever heard or ever found yourself, when asked that question: 
>pausing, looking slightly glazed, internally picturing the vastness of 
>psychodrama, experiences, teaching, applications etc etc, and then saying 
>something like "It is a method...." or "It is a form of drama that..." or 
>"it is a type of theory" or "It is something developed by..." or "It is 
>done by trained...." or "The training requires ten gazillion hours of 
>...."  or "Its a bit like (something else - role play, story et al)   :)
>
>If anyone asked me what chewing gum was I would say "Something you stick 
>in your mouth and chew on."
>
>I wouldn't talk about how it was discovered, how it improves gums, how it 
>reduces plaque causing bacteria, what it is made of, the different 
>flavours available, how it is cheap.
>
>I could also say "Something you can blow bubbles with"
>
>I wouldn't be likely to talk about the companies that produce it and how 
>the US companies produce the best chewing gum (I would save that for the 
>chewing gum convention), nor would I talk about the corporate takeovers 
>and how Mars confections rules the world, nor about three three differrent 
>roots of the gum, nor the difference between natural gum from trees and 
>natural gum from oil and gum made as a byproduct of other things.
>
>I could say something like "It tastes great! Here try some."
>
>I wouldn't be so interested in talking about the social advantages of 
>chewing gum, not chewing gum, the rituals around gum, what the gum is 
>doing under that table, how rich people only chew gum in private.
>
>I might say "Sorry I just ate my last piece."
>
>A rather long winded allegory I think. But it captures something about how 
>I respond when asked about psychodrama. One thing I am really conscious of 
>is that when I talk about psychodrama I am more conscious of what I think 
>a person ought to hear, should hear, needs to hear, must hear about it. I 
>am less conscious about the world view of the person asking the question 
>and phrasing the answer in terms that make sense to that person. I am 
>mostly conscious of my world view and how much I love it. My world view 
>and my love for the method has developed over many years.
>
>Anyway this email is a belated response to creating new words. Creating 
>new words is good if there is something new that is created that has few 
>or no antecedents. Psychodrama, sociodrama, sociometry, role training are 
>some og these words - including tele amongst these.
>
>I am still trying to find my versions of "Something you stick in your 
>mouth and chew on" for describing psychodrama - and not in a dumbing down 
>manner.
>
>Cheers
>
>Peter in Brisbane
>
>
>----------
>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: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.16.17/1179 - Release Date: 
>12/9/2007 11:06 AM
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20071210/5420f2ec/attachment.html