sufficiency of sociometry

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Ed, ah, yes, those wonderful photos of semi-dancing Tibetan monks debating!
     Thank you for your reassurance that you are not being personally offended. I mean 
this in the spirit of refining, of aiming towards refining theory.
     So to your response: ES I find your comment "painfully reductionistic" to be 
painfully reductionistic for me. To suggest that Moreno's understanding of human society 
(who will survive) and his writing about sociatric forces manifesting in sociometry - to 
be painfully reductionistic is to miss the pure genius of Moreno.  His brilliance is the 
utter simplicity of what is so hard to see.
      AB: First of all, I don't know that Moreno assumed that his writings were the end 
point, sufficient, and complete. The final answers are not to be found buried in their 
subtle meanings, to be elucidated like the Talmudists working on the text of Torah or 
earlier Talmud. There is a spirit of creativity, a spirit that acknowledges that knowledge 
can continue to grow, be influenced by discoveries in other fields. All I was saying is 
that it is reductionistic for you to argue or imply (not Moreno) that his writings contain 
the implied complete solution. The solution may require the input from a hundred or a 
thousand different innovators, plus people applying and refining those inputs---as it is 
throughout science.

    ES  I am very clear that JL Moreno was not only a psychiatrist, but to be honest, a 
kind of modern day prophet who saw things, named them, created tools to heal them, and 
left the whole thing for those who follow.
      AB: I am suggesting that the tools he created can be improved. The guy who invented 
the modern microscope in the early 19th century should not be seen as one whose invention 
should be accepted as the end-point. There have been thousands of improvements since then. 
So too with both sociometry and sociometric theory.

ES  Although I find your suggestions for action reasonable, I don't take well to demeaning 
Moreno as "painfully reductionistic".  I see it the exact opposite:  painfully awake.
   AB: Let's not argue about whose approach better serves Moreno's greatness. I 
acknowledge many aspects of his greatness, and yet I also reserve the right to critique 
the limitations of some of his writings. Actually, while I see the thesis that sociometry 
is the solution is reductionistic---and I don't know if Moreno ever explicitly made that 
claim, incidentally---i.e., THE (as in one and only forever) solution---, rather, I 
critique Moreno for often over-generalizing. The trouble with such statements is that they 
may be in many ways true, but there's also the associated problem of a lack of specificied 
implications, what to do, how to apply them, and so forth.
        So, I could claim: The world would be better if we all were good.  That might be 
in many ways true, but it is too general to be of much practical use.

     Our challenge is then to build on some general ideas and see if we can come up with 
anything more specific. If you can do this, I will bow to your creative triumph. I think 
it is possible, I just can't think of any at this point.
      I know some things, suspect some things, and there's a whole bunch that I don't know 
or haven't figured out yet.

     Awaiting further developments. Warmly, Adam
>
> Ed
>
>
>
> On Jan 21, 2008, at 11:18 AM, Adam Blatner wrote:
>
>> That there are power gradients in our society, and even oppression,  is not a thesis I 
>> would dispute. That these gradients can begin to  be categorized as the "sociodynamic 
>> effect" is, to me, painfully  reductionistic, akin to saying, "Aha! I have determined 
>> the Van  Gogh's paintings are in color! Wow! Color is the key. Now if we can  just 
>> figure out color, we'll understand his art!"
>>
>>        Also, that there are major challenges that should not be  ignored or devalued is 
>> again not disputed. That it follows that our  concepts of sociatry and its related 
>> methods have much to  contribute to the solution of these challenges has not yet been 
>> established. It is possible that our tools are as yet still  immature, insufficiently 
>> generalized.
>>
>>       There are periods in the history of science in which immature  technology is 
>> insufficent: For example, around 1870-1970 the  emerging science of inoculation against 
>> infectious disease was  still too new and that this technology often was ineffective or 
>> plagued by side effects, not recognizing impurities or knowing how  to eliminate them, 
>> etc. (Indeed, after 20 years, we still haven't  figured out how to get around the 
>> devious and clever ways certain  viruses evade the creation of an effective 
>> inoculation.)
>>
>>        So, I await some ideas and technologies that can be clearly  described---not 
>> just vaguely hoped for. I wish I were clever enough  to come up with some, but at this 
>> point, not yet.
>>        Well, there are a few components that I've been working on,  such as--
>> -- promoting the teaching of practical psychology in the core  curriculum beginning in 
>> middle school
>> -- using role theory as a user-friendly language for this
>> -- using experiential methods such as role playing, etc., as  pedagogic techniques for 
>> the above
>> -- identifying cultural illusions and trying to structure specific  ways of countering 
>> them (see my blog)
>>        and so forth.
>>
>>      Warmly, Adam