situated social power

[Adam Blatner]

Hi, all, Good for you Regina! Yes, differences in status and class are part of a much 
broader definition of oppression. The situated power sometimes is built in to whoever is 
the seeming majority---e.g., a man or a couple of them in a group of assertive women; an 
older man in a group of younger people at a dance class, etc.
         This is why sociometry, however important, is only one of many components 
involved in group dynamics. Moreno's work offered valuable contributions, but should not 
begin to be thought of as comprehensive or the final word. No matter how much sociometry 
you may know---and I think it's still a young field, and learning more how telic dynamics 
interact with these other status dynamics for example, is one of many frontiers---you 
still need to continue to learn about other frontiers of social psychology.
          Dan Wiener is doing work on status issues in relationships, and Leticia Nieto 
has presented on aspects of oppression and ways action methods may be used in dealing with 
them more openly.

     An illustration of Regina's (and Coontz') point. As a young psychiatrist---oh, around 
1973--I had taken up smoking a pipe. It was a common affectation and a most delicious 
pastime. "Do you mind if I smoke?" was a naive question that I asked my patients, and only 
rarely was told, "Yes, I do mind." Once I realized how stinky the activity was I slap my 
forehead in embarrassment---this is several years later.
      Another example---as a young man, having had a visit by my mother, who protested 
that I should definitely, absolutely not walk her to the airplane---so, okay, I 
didn't---and afterwards heard from my aunt that she was hurt. This was before I learned 
about the idea of the cultural expectation that you are expected to really argue with 
protests, that no meant yes. This was in the 1950s and 60s. If a host offered more food 
and was told no, she was to offer it again more insistently, two more times. Not one more, 
not four more, two more. This is how it is in some cultures---and guests are supposed to 
decline at least once and better, twice, for appearances sake.
       Now this also was a bit true in teenage sexual relations---she was supposed to say 
no and he was supposed to say sure, yes, let's---stuff that would be considered harassment 
today!

      Indeed, the duplicity of politeness confused me---without the kind of parent or 
sibling who would be a coach about these unspoken rules, a kid could get 
bewildered!---that really pushed me into depth psychology and ultimately psychiatry! What 
is going on out there that people aren't admitting? Is everyone phoney? (That was a 
fashionable word in the just-before-encounter-group culture of the late 1950s).

       I still think I get caught in the mixed messages people send: Level 1: "I am 
mature, independent, forthright, and should be treated thus" and level 2: "... yet you 
should know that I'm really vulnerable. You should be sensitive enough to read my 
nonverbal cues." Indeed, these may be obvious to the trained observer, or they may be very 
subtle, mainly in the fantasy of the person who thinks he's communicating.

     One of the good things about psychodrama is that at least it talks about non-verbal 
communications, and enacts them.

     Finally, this situated power problem also gives a word to the critique of the open 
session! Can our clients really give mature informed consent to a method that is a lot 
more powerful than they might realize?

             Warmly, Adam
responding to:

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "REGINA SEWELL" <sewell.2 at osu.edu>
To: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Friday, November 23, 2007 7:19 PM
Subject: situated social power



I’ve been prepping for the family section in my intro to sociology class and in the 
process came across the concept of “situated social power” when reviewing some of 
Stephanie Coontz's work.  It reminded me of a discussion on grouptalk a number of months 
ago about personal responsibility and will  and the legacy of oppression.  I thought this 
concept added some insight into the impact of social inequality on social interaction and 
relationships in many settings.

According to Coontz, "Situated power means that various groups in society have unequal 
access to economic resources, political power, and social status, and these social 
differences limit how fair or equal a personal relationship between two individuals from 
different groups can really be.  Such social imbalances affect personal behavior 
regardless of sincere intentions of both parties to ‘not let it make a difference.'" ... 
etc. see previous email...