Fw: the purpose of certification

[Adam Blatner]

Ah, Patti, this should go to grouptalk, and I thought it would. Thanks for your replies. 
      What I meant by the first weird sentence is that I want to encourage people to articulate the reasons or deeper concerns behind their feelings. Sorry.
        So, the next three emails are relevant to y'all as a reader: 
----- Original Message ----- 
From: PATRICIA DESERT 
To: Adam Blatner 
Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: the purpose of certification


Dear Adam--You almost lost me with your first sentence.  I had to read it a few times to understand what you meant.  I still may not have gotten it but the rest of your email I totally got.  You made some important points and are posing provocative and timely questions.  I encourage you to send them out to grouptalk.  I don't think any feathers would be terribly ruffled.

You see Adam, I don't know about others but what gets my dander up is when someone tells me, without my invitation, what I should or should not do, even if they are right.  That got triggered by your direction to Eric.  No doubt this has historical origins (smiling}.   

But in your email below you did not declare your way of thinking should be the right way.  The inference was there but you did not impose it on me.  In a beautifully Socratic way which I have seen you do before, you presented your thoughts below reflectively--outlining a personal position and inviting thoughtful discourse.  That invited me to stay open to your ideas, not go on the defensive, think more clearly about what you are saying, and perhaps consider changing my thinking.  

No ruffled feathers here and I doubt there would be any on grouptalk.  And if there are then I would suspect some other agenda has gotten triggered.  Socrates, himself, couldn't alter that though, could he?  If you do post your email to grouptalk feel free to copy this one to it or quote anything I have said.  Warmly, Patti 
Warmly, Patti  
  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Adam Blatner 
  To: PATRICIA DESERT 
  Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:03 PM
  Subject: the purpose of certification


  Dear Patti and all, 
     Perhaps you're right... but we shouldn't always think everything we feel, nor feel everything we think; we should refrain from believing everything we think or feel, nor should we think what we believe. Always there's the responsibility for the higher self, critical thinking, reflection, etc., to operate. In ambiguous situations, I try to think it through.
        What does it mean to have training? The Board of Examiners through the years has wrestled with this. Part of me doesn't want to ruffle anyone's feathers, and would prefer to retreat with no comment. Part of me thinks---and feels---that the whole conversation that evolved over a decade (around 1977-1987, when the Board was formed and began to function), involving scores of people should not be too easily forgotten.
       In the 1970s, there were many people who claimed to be doing psychodrama whose work would be viewed as problematic by many if not most directors today. Stated more bluntly, psychodrama is a powerful modality that can hurt people. I liken it to a carpenter's electric power tools: While these tools make the job faster and easier in some respects, they cannot substitute for good planning, judgment, choice of materials, measurement, systematic approach, meticulous finishing, and so forth. Eric may be a fine psychodramatist. I haven't seen him work. But if we don't stand up for the whole point of certification, what has all that been for?
        Maybe I'm missing some other perspectives, so I welcome further discussion.  Warmly, Adam
    ----- Original Message ----- 
    From: PATRICIA DESERT 
    To: Adam Blatner ; list at grouptalkweb.org 
    Sent: Thursday, May 10, 2007 7:42 PM
    Subject: Re: teaching psychodrama at Harvard


    I think referring to oneself as a psychodramatist does not necessarily depend on being certified.  Perhaps it has more to do with whether or not one identifies as a psychodramatist, has had extensive training, and uses the method fairly consistently in h/her work.  But then how do we define "extensive," "using the method," etc.  

    But there is also the matter about dictating to a person how they should describe themselves.  I have met people over the years who referred to themselves as psychodramatists and they were not certified.  I hadn't thought then to correct them.  Thinking now about it I still wouldn't.   Something about that feels inappropriate, for me.  I would guess there are different opinions about this.  Thoughts anyone?       

    Patti    
     ... and this was in response to Eric's email saying that I had suggested to him in an even earlier interchange privately that when he said he'd be teaching psychodrama, I suggested that he not put himself forward as a "psychodramatist," and explained why---i.e., the whole point I make above about the ABE, the board.  But that he didn't say, implying that I had just... well, it sounded as if I had scolded him or told him what he could and couldn't do.. 
      Warmly, adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: /pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20070510/5849f41a/attachment.html