situated social power

[HV Psychodrama]

Dear Adam and Reg,
Your comments bring to mind the issue of the power of group culture...for 
example, the cultural conserves in the psychodrama community that strong 
expression of feeling is good, or that people should disclose their inner 
and intimate life in a 'public' setting...all these things that we sort of 
take for granted. Not only do we need to be cognizant of power as an issue 
of class and status, but also the power of the group itself to oppress. 
Nothing new here, but something to also be considered.

Rebecca

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Adam Blatner" <adam at blatner.com>
To: "REGINA SEWELL" <sewell.2 at osu.edu>
Cc: <list at grouptalkweb.org>
Sent: Saturday, November 24, 2007 12:25 AM
Subject: Re: situated social power


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...


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