VS: group dynamics and role effectiveness

Sun Feb 4 01:18:20 CST 2007

I assume :-) that Adam and I were thinking about groups without
interventions, what happens in a group normally outside psychodrama context.
Warm-up and our methods changes all that. I have myself directed alone a
sociodrama of 70 people and it worked out nicely. :-)  That is the power of
our methods and spontaniety! 

jarmo

  _____  

Lähettäjä: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org
[mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org] Puolesta BARNETT WEISS
Lähetetty: 3. helmikuuta 2007 22:22
Vastaanottaja: Adam Blatner; list at grouptalkweb.org
Aihe: Re: group dynamics and role effectiveness

I'm really not sure I get it. Perhaps I am missing the points being made
here.

I have run PD's of an evening with over 50 people and the group coalesced
into a community that nearly to a person did not want to leave at the end of
the evening. They actually asked to arrange for another day that they could
meet to pursue other protagonists issues which they had voted on and which I
was unable to get to in that evening. There were multiple roles played by
folks who were strangers to eachother at the beginning of the evening. The
sharing led into mini dramas and brief highly charged empty chairs as
everyone was super warmed up at the end of both the first and second
psychodrama.  While there were a few of my regulars there who were more in
tune with how I worked as well as Bonnie Weisss who was and is a superb
auxilliary and one of the best doubles I have ever seen, the vast majority
of the people in the session were new to psychodrama let alone new to the
Moreno Theater there in New York City. 

Community building ala Peck is done over 2 and a half days and at the end of
the time, there is such an incredible feeling of openess and dropping of
judgement and just being with one another that is really impossible to
describe; you literally have to be in one to get it.

In the work that I am participating in around Family Constellations, there
are often so many roles that you need a group of around 18 to 20 to
adequately represent all that comes up and when you do, everyone is taking
roles on without direction going into the roles very deeply to the extent
that they are crying, or vicious at first or drop to the floor feeling so
devestated by something that becomes clear as they go along. All this
without any direction from the facilitator other being asked from time to
time what is going on with them now.  To begin the constellation, the
protagonist who mainly watches the constellation from the sidelines until
near the end, simply begins by placing people in a scene very little if any
story and no role reversal to show them or correct them in the protagonists
"Story."  Then when that scene is over, another begins and over the weekend
of approximately 20 hours spent together, doing upwards of 15
constellations, people have assumed many different roles deeply with often
profound changes and growth occuring both in the protagonists and in the
people who assume the roles.
So, I guess I am missing something here based on the discussion so far. I
think it is the way the work is done rather than any particular individual
limitations. 
My 2 cents. Blessings, Bud

Adam Blatner <adam at blatner.com> wrote: 

Dear Jarmo, thank you for thinking along with me. I had almost forgotten
this question to the group.
    Your points are interesting. About role rigidity, well, tendencies are
worth noting, but not as a definte expectation. Perhaps the implication here
is one of the points in working with groups, to remind them of these
tendencies and invite them not to give in. Edward de Bono, who writes about
creativity, talks about 6 thinking hats, which I can re-frame as roles, such
as the one who
, faced with a problem, 
    -- sees the advantages,   sunny yellow
    -- sees the disadvantages   black
    -- comments on the group process     green
    -- just analyzes the elements dispassionately, thinking, blue
           and I forget the other two right now, one, maybe red, emotional,
gut reaction... 

   Anyway, the implication is to know these different perspectives and
cultivate the capacity to role shift. So that's a good point.

  Your second point, somewhere around 8 people .. for certain kinds of group
work, a certain type of intimacy is lost at 9... and a it more at 12-15. 
    Working with these larger numbers, you need more time to do more
warm-ups.
           Possibly, one-person-protagonist-centered work needs less than 12
within a weekend, and less than 20.. if everyone is to obtain optimal
participation...    
       At what point does the leader shift over and emphasize smaller group
exercises, dyadic experiences, etc., in order to maximize participation and
personal learning?   So you raise a good point.

     Warmly, Adam

----- Original Message ----- 
From: Carpe  <mailto:Carpe.Diem at welho.net> Diem 
To: 'Adam Blatner' <mailto:adam at blatner.com>  ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
Sent: Saturday, February 03, 2007 9:33 AM
Subject: VS: group dynamics

Dear Colleagues,
thanks for Adam for though provoking suggestions. I could think adding two
viewpoints. When the groups size grows over seven or eight, role rigidity
may emergence. When the group is smaller, it's easier for an individual to
take multiple roles, when the size grows, it's easier to be locked into one
permanent role. What do you think.

Another transforming point might be 12. One professor of social psychologdy
claimed, that we get a cognitive overflow here and in large groups. We are
not any more able to comprehend all the social relations in these large
groups. This means that we really begin to feel losing our identity to the
group and in some cases start struggling to keep it. This means, that we'll
see escalating group processes to emerge and negative behaviours to emerge.

So, I'll add to hunches:

at 8 role rigidity
at 12 social overflow and the struggle for identity

Cheers,
Jarmo 

  _____  

Lähettäjä: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org
[mailto:list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org] Puolesta Adam Blatner
Lähetetty: 28. tammikuuta 2007 21:59
Vastaanottaja: list at grouptalkweb.org
Aihe: group dynamics

Dear Colleagues,
    I've been contemplating group dynamics and warming up to an idea. Would
any of you who were interested in thinking about what different size groups
offer or can provide be willing to discuss the following contemplation with
me, adding your own hunches and suggestions?

Different properties emerge as systems become more complex. Molecules are
different from atoms, cells from molecules, etc. When one is alone, the
variable is to be more or less awake and engaged, or curious. When two are
present, a host of interactive possibilities, fighting/competing, supporting
helping.
When three are present, the possibility of alliances or inclusion, jealousy.
(This is the basis for the Oedipal complex, I think---that is, this is the
dynamic that is universal. The sexualization of the Oedipal triangle
occasionally occurs, and it generates certain complicating fixations. But I
don't agree with Freudians who think that this sexualized triangle is almost
ubiquitous.)
In the next section I could use your help. The following are only
preliminary brainstormings:
 When four are present, teams emerge. (The seeds for these potentials may
emerge at simpler levels, but at each level, it is almost difficult for
certain properties not to be operating.)
When five are present, leadership happens
When six are present, drama happens, or taking turns, focus on one, and the
dynamic of shyness versus self-presentation, of taking a stand, taking a
risk, standing up to be counted, and also in drama, one person becomes for a
moment the spokesperson or mythic questor for all. 
When seven are present the potential of schism becomes more manifest, the
subtle tension for unity, to avoid breaking into sub-groups, and to work
with the subtle subgroupings that almost can’t help occurring.
And so forth. I haven’t figured out the others, and the above ideas are
still nascent, tentative, and open to your suggestions.
Adam Blatner, M.D.
(please reply to adam at blatner.com)
website: www.blatner.com/adam/   
  _____  

No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.432 / Virus Database: 268.17.21/665 - Release Date: 2/2/2007
11:39 PM

Grouptalk mailing list
List at grouptalkweb.org
http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org

Barnett J. Weiss, MA, LCSW
7410 Ridge Blvd 2D
Brooklyn, NY 11209
PREFERRED Contact Budweiss at verizon.net or Cell (917)-751-3395
Home/office: 718-680-4919
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070204/fa73e5ad/attachment.html 