client or trainee
Edward Schreiber
edwschreiber at earthlink.net
Fri Jan 18 06:30:53 CST 2008
Dear Hamish,
Are you certified as a CP through the American Board?
I assume so.
Suggestion - your concerns and your questions are all very important,
in my experience.
And they are all PAT questions (Practitioner Applicant for Trainer).
I feel this will be like
an public service announcement to you - but - the PAT process, a
mentored study of the
training process of the method - is something you might consider,
particularly if you are using
psychodrama to train people or training people in the method.
It's why there is a PAT process, wisely designed by the American Board.
Ed
On Jan 17, 2008, at 11:16 PM, Adam Blatner wrote:
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Johanna and Hamish
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Sent: Friday, September 01, 2006 2:55 AM
> Subject: RE: client or trainee
>
> I have been interested in this thread however I am not really
> qualified to respond to original question.
>
>
>
> Here is my situation: I am a certified psychodramatist (just)
> not a TEP. However I have been training people experientially in
> group work for ten years.
>
>
>
> Because the people that attend my training workshops are mostly
> from an organisational setting (i.e. not coming to train as
> therapists) a central issue in the early training process is the
> realisation that the training process is experiential and therefore
> going to involve some personal development. In fact one of the key
> challenges in this phase is to create openness (including emotional
> openness) in the training group as without this effective training
> cannot really begin. This openness is often experienced as scary,
> shocking or unusual to participants who may have been expecting a
> lecture process or what ever.
>
>
>
> In many ways this is no different to the therapeutic process in
> groups except that participants signing up for a therapeutic group
> are probably warming up to a personal process.
>
>
>
> Some participants find that when they become open in this way many
> things open up for them and some realise that there is quite a lot
> of personal work to do if they want to pursue the original desire
> of becoming a group worker/ group facilitator. Some don’t want to
> go down this road and so take what they have gained and leave.
> Others want to pursue the personal process that has opened up for
> them. Of cause for other people there is no major issue and they
> progress through the training process.
>
>
>
> We have a number of trainers running a series of 9 consecutive five
> day modules. We find that the personal process is bell shaped with
> the deepest part of the training journey in the middle and so we
> have evolved the training process around this natural process. I
> use experiential psychodrama in this middle part of the training
> process.
>
>
>
> Some participants take some years out in the middle to do personal
> work and then return to finish training with us. Of cause some
> (who where perhaps motivated by the personal element anyway) do not
> return rather focusing on the therapeutic once this emerges.
>
>
>
> So ethical questions: Should I do the therapeutic work with people
> who decide they want to do this in the middle of the training
> process? Generally they ask me because they feel comfortable with me.
>
>
>
> If I do: should I then run any future training programme they
> might return to? Or should one of my colleagues do this.
>
>
>
> Thanks
>
> Hamish
>
>
>
>
>
> Hamish Brown
>
> Director
>
>
>
> Zenergy
>
> Whole People Co-operating in a Sustainable world
>
> 119 Mt Eden Rd,
>
> Auckland
>
> www.zenergyglobal.com
>
>
>
> From: list-bounces at grouptalkweb.org [mailto:list-
> bounces at grouptalkweb.org] On Behalf Of Adam Blatner
> Sent: Wednesday, 30 mmmm 2006 6:12
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Subject: client or trainee
>
>
>
> Hello All, Responding to an excellent professional question: Can a
> group member join a training group: And responding further to Bud's
> response (attached after this below):
>
>
>
> Bud's attitude is understandable and somewhat compatible with many
> directors and perhaps even Moreno's generous spirit, but it is also
> I think mistaken for the following reasons. Part of this emerged
> with the difficulties emerging with the encounter group fad of the
> 1970s:
>
> There are many people who are clearly mentally ill and just
> want to get better, have no aspirations to being a therapists.
>
> Some people, on the other hand, are vibrantly healthy and self-
> sufficient, and while they have some mild issues that need to be
> worked on, they basically have the character to train and be
> therapeutic for others, should they be interested in taking on that
> task.
>
> A significant number fall between the two, and their
> problems are associated more with their interpersonal style. In the
> APA's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, the problems they
> encounter are noted in the category called personality disorders,
> also known as "Axis 2" disorders.
>
> Many people who have depression, anxiety, and other Axis I
> diagnoses are also co-morbid, meaning they have more than one
> problem--not just their anxiety, but also character or personality
> tendencies that set them up for the defeats that then eventuate in
> depression and/or anxiety, or other symptoms. (Another example of
> co-morbidity is the way people with mild PTSD--perhaps not
> fulfilling all the criteria for full diagnoses-- and/or addiction
> problems may also come crashing into more clearly Axis I types of
> symptom clusters.)
>
> The second and most important thing that wasn't much
> recognized before the mid-1960s is the pervasiveness of varying
> degrees of Axis II tendencies, which can be mild, moderate, or
> severe, and more, the key here is that these folks don't have
> primary anxiety--i.e., feeling ego-alien or uncomfortable with
> their own symptoms; rather they are ego-syntonic with their life
> style, whether it be passive-aggressive, obsessive-compulsive,
> hypomanic, hystrionic, borderline, narcissistic, etc. What this
> means is that they become upset when people get tired of their
> behaviors, abandon them, divorce them, fire them from their jobs,
> but they don't see what they did that got people so riled up!
> Folks with character problems tend to deny it, minimize it, and so
> forth. Now we're getting closer to the games people play in wanting
> to become "therapists."
>
> It doesn't matter if you buy the diagnostic categories I've
> mentioned--they're just tools, and I'm not all that attached to
> them in their specifics. What we're talking about is, in Eric
> Berne's Transactional Analysis language, the "games people play."
>
> I will confess that I have some mild characterological
> tendencies, and I haven't met anyone yet who doesn't have a bit, so
> we're talking about how much, and whether a person is really
> committed to cleaning up his or her act. Lots of folks don't really
> get down.
>
>
>
> Perhaps another factor here is whether much significant
> therapy can happen in a group--especially a training group. The
> problem is that there is a dual relationship: On one hand, there is
> the deal with my problems goal; on the other hand, there's a bit of
> do you respect me as a therapist, can you? I confess, there are
> people with patterns of behavior that are intense enough, and lack
> of insight deep enough, and a kind of resistance to really looking
> just thick enough, or lack of mental agility, so that while I might
> find them okay to work with as clients, I would never ever consider
> them capable of actually helping others. We have to really get
> clear about this.
>
> I am afraid that there is a kind of humanistic
> egalitarianism-- in California it used to be called "woo woo," that
> is post-Hippie "whatever" "it's all good" blind to the actual range
> of issues in people. It would be nice to assume that all can be
> wonderful, but there is absolutely no evidence that supports this
> assumption.
>
>
>
> So back to the problem: I've been in groups, sometimes with
> people who were in counseling programs, and it was clear to me that
> they were not only miles from being ready to help others, or even
> begin to; but were fairly blind to the deficits in their
> personalities that would be problematical: Some were painfully
> inhibited, passive, reticent, highly defended; others were "drama
> queens," seeking emotional catharses and tending to dominate and
> exhaust the group. And so forth. Experienced group leaders could
> make a list of their most trying group members.
>
>
>
> We must also remember that the desire to graduate, to be seen
> as being good as the group leader, to be a trainer, is a common
> desire of people whether or not they have the talent, ability,
> experience, maturity, or other role requirements for the job. To
> accede to such desires is only one step away from letting any
> teenager do brain surgery without having to go to medical school,
> much less residency.
>
>
>
> So, yes, trainees who have more than the mildest of
> problems should indeed have as their primary therapist someone who
> is out of the stream of their own vocational guidance, someone who
> can confront their manipulations, and someone to whom they don't
> have to hide those manipulations. They also need someone outside
> the group to whom they can complain about the group leader. (This
> observation is a variation on the saying, "No man is a hero to his
> wife's psychotherapist.")
>
>
>
> So it's not the "rules," that are the problem, but the
> actual principles that acknowledge the reality that transferential
> problems will emerge, they are common, and they are made almost
> impossible to address if the group has any other agenda than the
> commitment to explore the interactions themselves, with a view to
> clearing up blocks and blind spots. A secondary hope to be
> appreciated, admired, respected, to prove competence, to gain final
> approval for vocational advancement, is a significant dual
> relationship. Add the financial element: What is the group member
> paying for, therapy or training? This further muddies the water.
>
>
>
> Well, sorry, but I want to indicate to the group members that
> the more conservative practitioners aren't just defending their
> guild status, but trying to address actual complexities in dual
> relationships. I'm open to your thoughts. Warmly, Adam Blatner
>
>
>
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: BARNETT WEISS
>
> To: connie at souldrama.com ; list at grouptalkweb.org
>
> Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 11:52 AM
>
> Subject: Re: Question
>
>
>
> Of course, I am not a TEP so I can only answer from my perspective
> having trained many persons in the past in some of the work in many
> venues. I really don't see what the problem is in welcoming a
> person from one of your groups into a training program. If there is
> to be a distinction drawn about this, I am not at all clear as to
> why there should be.
>
>
>
> Psychoanalysis to begin with and many other psychotherapeutic
> approaches have implicit rules about the relationship of the
> therapist to the client that exclude such conversions and even
> those are somewhat murky decisions. In most of the training
> programs, you have to go through the therapy yourself to be more
> completely aware of what your clients are going to be experiencing
> when you work. So the trainee has to find someone else to do the
> therapy with them.
>
>
>
> In the training groups that I have lead, I was doing the therapy
> for everyone at first and then working with the more advanced
> students co-directing the psychodrama's of other members of the
> group as we went along with greater and greater hands off as they
> built their skills and confidence. I really don't quite see the
> distinction here. I also made myself vulnerable at times and became
> a protagonist briefly choosing my director and working with it.
>
>
>
> I remember a time at Beacon when Zerka asked me to direct her in
> her own psychodrama as she needed to get some clarity about some
> things. I was happy to do so while others in the group were quite
> fearful and actually reacted very intensely when Zerka was working
> as it brought up a great deal for them. While dealing with the
> group became quite a challenge, I was quite confident in working
> with this protagonist since I knew that I had one of the best co-
> directors ever...Zerka!!
>
>
>
> In fact, I see everyone's psychodrama as being co-directed by the
> so called designated Director and the protagonist themselves. If
> you are not following the direction of the protagonist, in my
> estimation, you are moving in the wrong direction. Words similar to
> those from Zerka are emblazoned in my memory.
>
>
>
> So again, I don't get why a client couldn't become a trainee at any
> time.
>
>
>
> Blessings, all, Bud
>
> Connie Miller <connie at souldrama.com> wrote:
>
> Dear Adam:
>
>
>
> Muddy?? This is a swamp!
>
>
>
> Ultimately it is the decsion of the trainer. My groups are for
> "Training in Aciton Methods" and they also comprise those wanting
> psychodrama certification. This in fact stimulates those in
> training to want to get certification later in psychodrama.
> Otherwise I feel like we will never have those certified to do
> psychodrama increase and psychodramatists will then become a
> special and exclusive group and will die. Also this is why I agree
> with you about teaching different parts of psychodrama separately
> to help spread psychodrama. And of course I would never allow
> anyone in the group who was not using the group methods in thier
> own work but only wanted to use the group for therapy.
>
>
>
> I however am studying for the written part of the tep exam where it
> asks under the ethics part,,, what do you do if someone in your
> therapy group wants to join your training group? Technically I
> guess the right anser is not allowing duel relationships but is
> this what the all the traianers are actually doing?? Right now, I
> have only met one. this is why I am looking for group feedback.
>
>
>
> Thanks Connie
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adam Blatner [mailto:adam at blatner.com]
> Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 08:39 AM
> To: list at grouptalkweb.org
> Subject: Re: Question
>
> Dear Peter, Connie, and group.
>
> Peter, your open-hearted attitude is commendable, but I
> wonder if you have considered the potential for less-than-worthy
> motivations. There are people who want the status of
> professionalism, but are yet unwilling to take on the full
> responsibility for self-management that this implies. What I'm
> referring to is the role of "patient" or "client," in which the
> therapist has a more non-judgmental attitude of "I'll try to help
> you at the level that you are functioning." Some of these levels
> can be quite immature, entitled, un-self-modulated, dependent,
> passive-aggressive, and so forth. Many people are not willing to
> live up to the simplest requirements of being responsible enough to
> pay regularly and in good faith, to show up regularly and on time,
> of refusing to be civil under the excuse of victimhood or the right
> to emotional expressiveness, and so forth.
>
> To move to a training group is a kind of graduation into a
> recognition by peers and group leader that one has moved into a
> full process of taking charge of one's life. Not all issues are
> resolved--I quite agree with Peter about this-- but there has been
> a graduation of sorts that is the equivalent of finishing therapy
> in the sick or dysfunctional role.
>
>
>
> The problem is tricky, and it is a dual role-- clients wish
> for unconditional regard, but this term is misleading. It confuses
> the archetypal maternal unconditionality--I'll draw you forth
> however you may be, age 1, age 3, age 8, age 80...
>
> and the archetypal paternal conditionality: You are
> recognized as being qualified to swim, do brain surgery, take 2nd
> level geometry, only when you have clearly demonstrated your
> mastery of the first level or other realistic requirements.
>
>
>
> Alas, the actual requirements for training as a counselor have
> become hopelessly muddy, and it is quite possible to be excessively
> immature and still get into a training program somewhere, and even
> graduate. This is because there are significant financial
> incentives to accept all comers, to keep people in rather than wash
> them out, to blur and overlook deficiencies. Arguments that the
> number of training programs and trainers should be limited evokes
> counter-accusations of being elitist and guild-like. Arguments
> that call on the belief in the innate goodness of people confuse
> the reality of people being a nexus of hundreds of roles and role
> components, some of which are more talented, and the ways strengths
> often compensate for, and not infrequently disguise weaknesses. So
> significant discrimination is needed.
>
>
>
> In some universities, this graduation - acceptance into a
> graduate school - problem of transference, dependence, and approval
> is circumvented by a general policy that there be a period in which
> graduates must travel elsewhere and perform for supervisors who
> have not been in the nurturing role, the object of parental
> transference. Perhaps later, having demonstrated clear competence
> and maturity, they may be re-considered for a position in the upper
> graduate or even lower faculty level. It's an interesting
> challenge--perhaps one that requires a hard look at the limits of
> good feeling, tele, etc.
>
>
>
> I hope I haven't muddied the issues too much. Warmly, Adam
>
> ----- Original Message -----
>
> From: Peter Howie
>
> To: connie at souldrama.com ; list at grouptalkweb.org
>
> Sent: Sunday, August 27, 2006 10:49 PM
>
> Subject: Re: Question
>
>
>
> Hi Connie,
>
> It is often a natural step. The psychodrama groups are
> developmental. The training is developmental. Not all work can be
> done in a training groups and hence experiential groups are
> required as well for trainees. Not all development can be done in
> experiential groups and hence training is available. What does the
> training do? It expands a persons functioning, their capacity for
> warming themselves in a spontaneous fashion, their capacity to role
> reverse with others and creates mental models for the process of
> doing so. While I run the groups differently the larger purpose is
> the same - a more spontaneous world.
>
> Cheers
>
> Peter Howie
> Brisbane, Australia
>
>
>
>
> At 12:19 PM 24/08/2006, you wrote:
>
>
> I was wondering what other trainers do when a group member wants
> to join the psychodrama training group. what are your feelings on
> them being in both?
> Connie
>
>
>
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
>
>
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition.
> Version: 7.1.405 / Virus Database: 268.11.7/435 - Release Date:
> 8/31/2006
> Grouptalk mailing list
> List at grouptalkweb.org
> http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080118/a56906fc/attachment.html
More information about the List
mailing list