issues in conflict resolution

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Cynthia,
    Your observations are astute.
         There are two different themes intersecting as if they were operating on the same 
level, and part of the challenge is to first recognize that the two themes operate on 
DIFFERENT levels.
    1. There is trouble (I hear the song from the Broadway 1950s musical, "The Music 
Man"---Trouble, right here in River City, Trouble, that starts with T and it rhymes with P 
and it stands for "Pool!")
              I do not disagree with Ed about this.

    Level 2: There seems to be a difference in an aesthetic tolerance for being told how 
bad the trouble is and how urgent it is that we must do something.
              2a. Unless there is a specific call for what we can do---it's clear Ed is 
doing a lot in his sector of the Cosmos--- being reminded of the urgency and severity of 
the danger only ups the worry level.

  Problem as I see it:
     If Ed does 1, and I respond with 2, and Ed repeats "But 1! But 1 is really really 
bad!" ---  then the problem is that we haven't yet "met."

    Possible resolution:
        What I want Ed to say is, "Okay, 1. and I can see that you're at 2. And I can 
accept your being at 2. And you're doing enough.
          If I think of something specific I want you to do, I'll tell you."

      And I say, "Good, and I acknowledge your intuition that there is overlap between 
Moreno's ideas about sociatry and an active social sensitivity and that which is generally 
needed and perhaps a variety of Moreno's contributions might be useful,"

... then maybe we might meet more effectively.

      Really, what this interaction reinforces is the idea that the press of an issue 
(content) can sometimes distract one from recognizing that the nonverbal or semantic way 
something is being addressed  (process) can distract from, undercut, or counter the first 
level. We need to recognize both levels and acknowledge them.
       This happens all the time in ordinary communications, with me and my wife, and we 
shift and adjust both process and content so we can try to meet.

        What do y'all think of this?  Warmly, Adam

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "CGayle" <cgayle at zipcon.com>
To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Friday, December 28, 2007 1:47 PM
Subject: Re: urgency & philosophy


> This is a similar dance that has appeared on this listserv many, many times.
> I suggest we look to bigger picture, the process, and what it may mean.
>
> There are repeating roles.  Usually, Ed brings up a social issue of great
> concern, Adam B. then counters the emotional intensity, if not questioning
> bringing up of the issue, in one form or another.  Some jump in supporting
> Ed's view, some supporting Adam's and some come in a mediating or reframing
> role, eg, Rebecca bringing in the question of applications in our field.
>
> We are playing out in micro-process what is happening in society in the
> larger macro-process.  This is a group drama....we are struggling with
> soical issues, even if a good number of people do not want to think about
> them or think that is appropriate for this listserv.  This group drama keeps
> emerging b/c we are facilitators of healing, and learned from our training
> that ultimately individual and family healing cannot be separated from
> societal healing...even if our work realistically can only be holding onto
> and healing one part of the elephant.
>
> What is interesting, and barrier of cyberspace, is this group drama is not
> changing...it keeps repeating, as it has online for at least 2 years, like
> the movie Groundhog Day.
>
> I envision a rich and powerful group drama if we could all be in a room at
> the same time...to play it out, struggle with it, expand the roles,
> encounter each other....and the issues and were we stand with them as
> psychodramatists, and with each other as healers.  I imagine a very rich and
> colorful cornucopia of human aliveness!
>
> Blessings
> Cynthia Gayle
> Seattle
>
>