selfexpress730

[Adam Blatner]

Hi Erica, a reply this morning to your questions after my comments. (smile). 
<ericahollander at comcast.net> to adam
 July 29, 2007 9:46 PM  Subject: Re: selfexpress2


   1. EH So, Adam, are you saying that there is some other thing you work toward in 
psychodrama, not self expression?
            AB: Yes, I work towards a score or more of things, depending. On my website I 
have papers on the Art of Case Formulation, and other papers on Factors in Human 
Development. I use the best of a medical model, which recognizes that there are thousands 
of ways things can go wrong. There's an old joke in dermatology: If it's dry, wet it. If 
it's wet, dry it. Aim for balance, strengthen areas of weakness; sometimes work on 
containment for the overly and pathologically spontaneous; etc.

   EH Or are you saying there is no such thing at all and that psychodrama or other 
therapy is not aimed at any one thing but shifts depending on what the therapist perceives 
is needed?
           AB: Ideally, yes, psychodrama as I see it (when applied as a form of therapy) 
is thus subject to the good judgment of the therapist / director. Different approaches may 
be striking depending on the type of client, group, setting.

       EH  And what constrains that, then?
   AB: Certainly no doctrine nor dogma. Only the good judgment of the therapist, which is 
one reason there were efforts towards certification in the 1970s.

    EH That might  bring us back to Rosalie's idea that transference may play a role in 
what gets expressed and what does not get expressed, I guess, among other things.
    AB: Yes, transference by the client, counter-transference by the therapist, the whole 
mess. These are inevitable in any case, and ideally will be dealt with. Holding to any 
specific goal at the expense of others will not protect anyone.

   EH  Closer, but still an open question to me.  I recall after Carl's death that 
painting seemed like a lifeline to me, even though I had not done it at all before.
    AB: Yes, there are some forms of expression that are neither rational nor strictly 
cognitive. Yet they tell a story, write a poem, paint a picture, do a dance, affirm 
imagery, anchor feelings, give form to the amorphous cloud of impulses within. Painting is 
a sublimation, allows people to live on many levels simultaneously, responds to the 
challenge: Now that I'm in charge, what do I do about the fact that I am not in control?

  EH  When I researched survivors of the loss of a loved one to suicide, I found that 
support groups for such  survivors were tremendously important to them, some members 
continuing for many years in the groups.  Clearly they were
 communicating their experiences to one another, and getting returns for that.  It seemed 
to me that the members were forging new identities for  themselves which incorporated the 
tragedies which they had lived through.  Maybe I was painting to create a new identity 
piece for myself, too, though I am not sure I see that.
        AB: The groups served all the functions Yalom speaks of, and self-expression is 
synergistic with all of them. The opposite of bottling up. But your point about there 
being some contexts and types of self expression that may be excessive or mis-directed is 
important.
        As for painting, as said above, it has many, many functions. Identity is closer to 
the surface, that part of the mind that says, "I am (this or that quality or role)..).. 
and may be useful; but there are also unconscious currents of soul-making that go with 
channeling colors, preferences, symbols, intuitions, and also the re-connection with the 
deeper sources in the soul that happen through, well, self-expression.

      Hope we're getting closer. Warmly, Adam
>
>
> -- 
     Erica's response was to a back-channeled email (because I didn't have grouptalk's 
address last night---I was writing from a college library)...
Adam 2 Erica, July 29, Sunday night, 9 pm central time:
    Okay, interesting... Let's answer thus:

1. EHAs to what I had in mind when mentioning that some self expression can be 
destructive, I was thinking of the horrible shooting at the Governor's mansion in CO last 
week. A young man walked in in a tux, declared himself Emperor, and threatened the use of 
a gun several times. He was killed by security officers. Just an example.
        ab: Well, what it illustrates to me is that the phrase "self-expression," like 
self-esteem, is far too general. More below.

    2. EH  Adam, I do not disagree with anything you say, but do not find it answers my 
query. Do you agree that self expression is generally a good thing in therapy?
        ab: generally ... okay, sure. but does that mean 51% of the time, or what?

     3. I think most of us would. But I am not at all sure that affirmation from others is 
all that that is about. ab: I didn't say affirmation is what it's about. Just validating 
that others have heard what is said can help penetrate the inner confusion.  Affirmation, 
too, now that we're talking, might mean several things...

     4. Clearly it is about that sometimes. I don't know quite what I am looking for by 
way of an answer, but something seems lacking still.
      I guess you could also say that helping others is therapeutic or behaving well is 
therapeutic or doing good is therapeutic, or that prayer is therapeutic, or meditation, 
and maybe all those things are, but isn't self expression the very basic idea that we work 
toward in psychodrama all the time?
       ab: this is the crux of the discussion, as we warm up to it. I'm not sure that 
anything is or should be a BASIC idea or goal, meaning that it has unquestioning priority. 
Situations differ, and many a time free or deep expressions are used by the histrionic to 
dominate the group, for example, or angry expressions to intimidate. So Rebecca's point 
about working with what's up is relevant.

   e h And it has its limits, in evil, in maladaptive behaviors, as we are saying.
         yes

eh  But is self expression not what we are after when we say "stay a half step behind the
protagonist"? We are looking to the process to free the person inside the problem from the 
problem in a sense. So we have some faith in the notion that the person within will be 
healthy if expressed.
      ab: yes, and in general, conventional approaches to therapy work better with more 
adult, more mature, more neurotic rather than characterological clients. (the former is 
more uncomfortable with the way he is, the latter makes others uncomfortable).
        So when dealing with criminals, teenagers, children, etc., this dimension must be 
adjusted and may not have the same weight as a therapeutic goal.

   eh  That isn't always the case, as Georgia points out. Yet I have found in my work with 
sex offenders that I have no more reason to worry about their self expression in the group 
than in any other groups I work with. Perhaps I am not articulating this well.
Muddling through. erica
      ab... aha, yes. well, if you've structured the group and have more of a treatment 
alliance, it should go the way many other groups do, but on occasion you may have more 
manipulative and destructive group members where some of the norms may not apply so 
readily...

       So, to summarize, I question the idea of basic. I think we need to be comfortable 
with generally and recognize exceptions.

       Are we getting closer?  Warmly, Adam

>