Role Reversal, etc. (response to Peter H)

[Adam Blatner]

Dear Peter Howie in Brisbane, thank you for playing with me and us. Your response is very rich indeed, opening many doors. 
    I'll respond in bits:
1. PH327: Let's use adequacy rather than 'perfectly'. 
         AB: I guess I'm into making finer discriminations because knowing how to apply whatever conclusions we may approach requires them. Adequate for social harmony in a club group may not be adequate for effective therapy, and there are some clients who get very annoyed or reactive if the empathic capacity of the therapist isn't quite accurate---this is what led to Heinz Kohut developing his self-psychology approach in working with narcissistic clients.

  2. PH327  Some people, according to Karen Horney, cope by moving towards others. Some of course move away and some move against according to her theory.
          AB: My problem with Horney is that one one hand she was a good pioneer and opened a lot of neo-Freudian doors, began to popularize analysis, and etc., but depth psychology was still somewhat new. I think these folks made a lot of very general observations that had perhaps a bit more truth than falsehood to them, but also were , well insufficiently discriminating.  So I don't know that her theory applies in all specifics.

    2a. PH327:  I have noticed that those that cope by moving towards can be very very highly attuned to another person and can role reveres with great alacrity. However they are incapable of integrating that capacity with their own needs apart from an orientation to safety which usually means going along with the other person. 
       AB: This is an example: There are those who are overly open and caring but don't protect themselves, and such folks may be over-represented in seeking therapy. 
        However, this generality is far too, well, general to be useful. Most psychodynamic psychology or analytic literature doesn't consider that patients will be reflective enough and non-egocentric enough to even want to relate in a truly mature fashion---e.g., to attempt to empathize via role reversal. 

3. PH327 However I can also get with your scalar measure - I think that is the term - or maybe it is the other one which I have forgotten - maybe ordinal v nominal? 
       ab: Scalar is right. I never thought of using that term, but I do a lot based on scalar measures. (see my paper on "A little bit"  http://www.blatner.com/adam/psyntbk/littlebit.htm
   ph (continues): And from a role theory point of view when a person is warmed up to a group of roles or say a psychodramatic role and and the role around that expression - then that role usually has a distinct world view all its own - and in that role a person, despite years of training, may be incapable of role reversal.
       ab: May be is very different from will be incapable--- and working with that difference, helping people in one world view to first, be interested in opening his or her world view, or checking out another viewpoint, is a beginning. 
       Second, doing the work.

   PH ...  So a person's capacity to role reverse is contextual - often it is easier for instance to reverse roles with a stranger than say Mum or Dad or that bastard teacher! Though you idea that the capacity grows would presumably cross into other areas.
       AB: I introduce a key point here, the idea that one can role reverse or double a bit, GET FEEDBACK, correct the statements and perceptions, try again, say some more things, GET MORE FEEDBACK---HOW IS IT RIGHT, HOW IS IT WRONG---, and again gradually approximate at least more truth.   The willingness to guess, be corrected, re-think and re-imagine, and guess again is a little bit like an actor warming up to a part with the help of the director's input. The skill of "taking direction" is an important one in theatre.
    Of course it can be difficult to warm up to all aspects of any person, but a role that is somewhat known may be easier than a role of a stranger. It depends on a variety of factors.  (more about this at : http://www.blatner.com/adam/level2/mutuality.htm   on mutuality in therapy.)

PH:  I think the capacity we are discussing here also includes the spontaneity factor of entering into fantasy and returning to reality. 
            AB: yes, I call it working with imagination... fantasy implies to me far more of an elaborated story than mere imagining what someone might say given this or that predicament...

     PH: Role reversal is an act of creativity and it is imaginal and largely a fantasy creating process or with people we know well - a fantasy recognition process - where we recognise the fantasies we have of others.
          AB: yes, and reality testing---the process of feedback, adjustment, and trying again, reduces the amount of fantasy and increases the amount of reality...

     PH  For instance if I role reverse with you a large amount if not all of it is a fantasy that I have about you. And a large part of the profundity of role reversal is this aspect of getting to know what I think/feel about you, what I think/feel you think/feel about me and getting to see this, because it is concretised and mirrored.
          AB: This is a very rich idea. Sometimes the real goal isn't so much actual empathy as clarification of the fantasy operations of the one reversing the roles. It's close to how I think about doing the empty chair in axiodrama: http://www.blatner.com/adam/level2/enacteddialog.html

   PH  The other aspect of this model is noticing when a client or trainee is, during their work, in one or other of these stages. For instance confidence fading, energy going down can often indicate the stage of a double and hence doubling is valuable. The stage may only last a moment but it could indicate some form of doubling rather than mirroring or role reversal (which includes mirroring)
         AB: I think you're saying that doubling is often useful when the protagonist is "losing energy" -- is that so? 

    Cheers back.-- adam

    This email responds to Peter's response to an earlier email, below:

At 12:43 AM 28/03/2008, Adam Blatner wrote:

The key issue lies in words like "fully" capable... 
     One might argue that a psychodramatist with 20 years experience, plus, let's say this person has really "lived" psychodrama, incorporated depth psychology, worked on herself, practiced role reversing a lot in life--- that such a person might be able to role reverse with, oh, let's give it a number---84% accuracy. Let's say "fully" or perfectly is 100% accurate and is in fact an asymptotic limit---like the speed of light, or perfection, cannot in ordinary ways be attained. 
       Then let's say a psychodramatist who has been doing this for 10 years may be 73% accurate,  an ordinary non-role-reversing person who has just learned the technique, a mature adult, 63%,  an 18 year old, bright, trying it out, 50%     a  13 year-old,  35%    a 7 year old, 14%... and so forth. 
        There's no doubt that toddlers and infants feel empathically---it's built into the mirror neuron system--- and something as obvious as distress or pain can evoke a sense of sympathy, awww, give you my blanket or dolly and you'll feel better, pat on the shoulder... 
 
           So the theme of empathy development may potentially continue to develop throughout life.
  (I notice that I'm more sensitive and more accurate in appreciating other points of view in proportion to my experience and reflection on that experience.)
 
Rebecca comments on Ed's reminding us about Zerka's book and its chapter:  I was looking for that and couldn't remember where I had seen it. Zerka doesn't mention mirroring in this chart, though. I have always liked the idea that first one needs to experience being adequately doubled before being able to accept being mirrored.
 
It has occurred to me that there is something simple and elegant about the idea that first comes doubling, then mirroring and then role reversal. It is true of  adequate parenting of the infant, it is true of the child's own development, and it is true of the therapeutic relationship. Probably true of romantic relationships, too!  
 
      AB: Mirroring is another function--- step outside of yourself and imagine how others see you. I comment on this in my paper on "performance awareness"--developmental functions---    http://www.interactiveimprov.com/performdevlp.html    
      
         If this is so, some kids may develop some mirroring capacity without having been doubled..  but again, there may be that need for doubling for the mirroring to be more mature, filtered through a more complex process of reality testing, neocortex integration, 
       And again, I wonder if we might argue that a 20 year old's capacity to mirror may be less than a 50 year old who has been reflective and perhaps actively practiced the technique.. 
 
         Warmly, Adam
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://grouptalkweb.org/pipermail/list_grouptalkweb.org/attachments/20080327/105f68b6/attachment.html