<html xmlns:v="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:vml" xmlns:o="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:office" xmlns:w="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:word" xmlns:st1="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" xmlns="http://www.w3.org/TR/REC-html40">
<head>
<META HTTP-EQUIV="Content-Type" CONTENT="text/html; charset=us-ascii">
<meta name=Generator content="Microsoft Word 11 (filtered medium)">
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
.shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}
</style>
<![endif]--><o:SmartTagType
namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" name="country-region"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="City"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="place"/>
<o:SmartTagType namespaceuri="urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags"
name="PersonName"/>
<!--[if !mso]>
<style>
st1\:*{behavior:url(#default#ieooui) }
</style>
<![endif]-->
<style>
<!--
/* Font Definitions */
@font-face
{font-family:Wingdings;
panose-1:5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0;}
@font-face
{font-family:Tahoma;
panose-1:2 11 6 4 3 5 4 4 2 4;}
/* Style Definitions */
p.MsoNormal, li.MsoNormal, div.MsoNormal
{margin:0cm;
margin-bottom:.0001pt;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman";}
a:link, span.MsoHyperlink
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
a:visited, span.MsoHyperlinkFollowed
{color:blue;
text-decoration:underline;}
span.EmailStyle17
{mso-style-type:personal-reply;
font-family:Arial;
color:navy;}
@page Section1
{size:612.0pt 792.0pt;
margin:72.0pt 90.0pt 72.0pt 90.0pt;}
div.Section1
{page:Section1;}
-->
</style>
<!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapedefaults v:ext="edit" spidmax="1028" />
</xml><![endif]--><!--[if gte mso 9]><xml>
<o:shapelayout v:ext="edit">
<o:idmap v:ext="edit" data="1" />
</o:shapelayout></xml><![endif]-->
</head>
<body lang=EN-US link=blue vlink=blue>
<div class=Section1>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Kia ora Hamish and others,<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Yes, I also have a similar view of role…funny
that </span></font><font size=2 color=navy face=Wingdings><span
style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Wingdings;color:navy'>J</span></font><font
size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Arial;
color:navy'>. When I consider a role as a whole way of being I don’t get
so caught up with the notion that it must be visibly ‘enacted’ or
played out. From this perspective, those parts that people hide are still roles
that have a thinking and feeling and not so visible action component. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Cheers<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=2 color=navy face=Arial><span style='font-size:
10.0pt;font-family:Arial;color:navy'>Grace</span></font><font color=navy><span
style='color:navy'><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<div class=MsoNormal align=center style='text-align:center'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'>
<hr size=2 width="100%" align=center tabindex=-1>
</span></font></div>
<p class=MsoNormal><b><font size=2 face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;
font-family:Tahoma;font-weight:bold'>From:</span></font></b><font size=2
face=Tahoma><span style='font-size:10.0pt;font-family:Tahoma'> list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org
[mailto:list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org] <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>On
Behalf Of </span></b>Johanna Perfect<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Sent:</span></b> Tuesday, 22 December 2009
1:14 p.m.<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>To:</span></b> 'grouptalk'<br>
<b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Subject:</span></b> RE: <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s role theory questions</span></font><o:p></o:p></p>
</div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
<table class=MsoNormalTable border=0 cellspacing=0 cellpadding=0>
<tr>
<td valign=top style='padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 0cm'>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I have been engaged by the thread also - and
reflective about my own use of Role Theory.<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Congruent with a move in this part of the world I
see roles as 'whole ways of being' - containing thinking, feeling and action
components including motivation and values. Perhaps this is not much of
a change in some ways but it warms me up to appreciating the psychological
complexity of what I might name as role. I can at once appreciate
the social function and effect of the role as it is enacted in a group and
can come to appreciate the formation of the role in the persons history and
personality (for example in a psychodrama).<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>I guess in saying this i don't much hold with <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s original
categories of somatic, psychodramatic and social. I think of <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City> as creating an
idea and a context and the many people who have come later as filling this
idea out and integrating it more with related developments in
social sciences and psychology. I really like his notions of the Matrix
of all identity, doubling, mirrioring and role reversal as developmental
stages. The gem to me is that, for example, doubling is both a
developmental stage and a way of being I can adopt with my client or produce
in a drama. Similarly role is both personal and specific to the client
and an element of the life of the group in the present. To me this
linking of social and personal is a valued aspect of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s genius. <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>As a psychotherapist I find value in the notion that
roles can be categorised as fragmenting, coping or progressive /
generative. I am sorry i do not remember the author that first created
these categories however Max Clayton took them up and developed them.
Coping roles seem to me to be related to what psychoanalytic
psychotherapists call defences, i.e. ways of being that are defensive or self
protective in orientation... On the other hand when Grace speaks of
being Strength Based I warm up to the functioning form and working to
strengthen progressive functioning....<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Warmly<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Hamish<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Psychodramatist<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'> <o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
<br>
--- On <b><span style='font-weight:bold'>Tue, 22/12/09, Grace <i><span
style='font-style:italic'><grace@graceworks.co.nz></span></i></span></b>
wrote:<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
<blockquote style='border:none;border-left:solid #1010FF 1.5pt;padding:0cm 0cm 0cm 4.0pt;
margin-left:3.75pt;margin-top:5.0pt;margin-bottom:5.0pt'>
<p class=MsoNormal style='margin-bottom:12.0pt'><font size=3
face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:12.0pt'><br>
From: Grace <grace@graceworks.co.nz><br>
Subject: RE: <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s
role theory questions<br>
To: "'grouptalk'" <list@grouptalkweb.org><br>
Date: Tuesday, 22 December, 2009, 11:05 AM<o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
<div>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span
style='font-size:12.0pt'>Kia ora Jenny and all,<br>
<br>
I enjoyed the previous exploration of role theory and am yet again<br>
appreciating people's responses to Katherine. I hope this adds
something to<br>
the conversation and is not going off on a bit of a tangent...<br>
<br>
I am no expert in the role theory, nor of other theories of personality.<br>
However, I do believe that there is much more that could be added to the<br>
written body of knowledge about Role than what was left to us by <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City><br>
himself. This would seem to be true from the anecdotal information
shared<br>
with us over the course of this discussion. <br>
<br>
<br>
The thing I really appreciate about the practical use of Role Theory is its<br>
immediacy and its strength-based focus. <br>
<br>
I find using a somewhat simplified version of a role analysis (an analysis<br>
of the functioning in a role... well developed, over developed,<br>
under-developed, embryonic, conflicted etc, such as you would use in a role<br>
training session)is a very useful tool even with folk who have no<br>
psychodrama background. It immediately shifts people from a place of
seeing<br>
ONLY the hole in the doughnut (the thing they did badly- and HOW VERY BADLY<br>
THEY DID IT) to a strength-based perspective. Typically they
immediately<br>
warm up to recognising that MOST of what they did was good and often only a<br>
very small adjustment is required for it all to be useful to them. Much<br>
more hope that way! It also is very useful to assist them to see that
the<br>
person with whom they are struggling is also a system of roles and the<br>
particular role they struggle with is not ALL of that person; much more<br>
hopeful. <br>
<br>
Cheers<br>
Grace<br>
-----Original Message-----<br>
From: <a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org">list-bounces@grouptalkweb...org</a>
[mailto:<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org">list-bounces@grouptalkweb.org</a>]<br>
On Behalf Of Jenny Wilson<br>
Sent: Monday, 21 December 2009 8:01 p.m.<br>
To: Katherine Morris<br>
Cc: grouptalk<br>
Subject: Re: <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s
role theory questions<br>
<br>
Hi Katherine<br>
Welcome to grouptalk and trying to find out more about roles. I'm sure<br>
there is a link somewhere to a recent and lengthy conversation I had<br>
with Adam, Peter Howie and others although I am unsure how you access<br>
the old conversations.<br>
<br>
I found Adam's books useful also this article by Max Clayton:<br>
Clayton, M. (1994) Chapter 6: Role theory and
its application in<br>
clinical practice, in Holmes, P., Karp, M., and Watson, M. (Eds.)<br>
(1994) Psychodrama since <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>:
Inovations in theory and practice.<br>
<st1:City w:st="on">Florence</st1:City>: Routledge-Taylor and <st1:country-region
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Frances</st1:place></st1:country-region>.<br>
<br>
Also the response (copied below) from Peter Howie that I kept because it<br>
contained a bit of an aha moment for me... (hope you don't mind Peter).<br>
It helped me see the difference between role theory and the<br>
psychological theories I was more familiar with.<br>
<br>
Kind regards<br>
Jenny Wilson<br>
(Clinical Psychologist)<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Dear Jenny,<br>
<br>
It is good to see you struggling with roles and role theory. I have been<br>
doing so for some time as well. However I think I am struggling at a<br>
different edge of the "theory" to you. As I read about your
struggles I<br>
seem able to perceive different elements that you are struggling with<br>
and I am not sure that 'answers', if such exist, are likely to be all<br>
that useful.<br>
<br>
However, by way of an answer as I perceive your motivation during this<br>
discussion, I have been most effected by role theory when I am applying<br>
it to others. The main reasons being that it stimulates my imagination,<br>
and when they are involved it stimulates their imagination and usefully<br>
leads to further considerations and areas of focus. I yak on about this<br>
in my blog which I titled "The value of using role thoery" and it is<br>
at:<a href="http://www.morenocollegium.com.au/blog" target="_blank">http://www.morenocollegium.com.au/blog</a><br>
<br>
I guess this means that this is somewhat of a practitioners model or<br>
maybe even a well developed heuristic-type model - a 'rule of thumb'<br>
type approach. That isn't quite right but I don't think it is required<br>
that role theory have an internal psychological framework as well as an<br>
external one that is being applied. I like it because the internal<br>
psychological theories neither confirm or deny it (role theory) and can<br>
be incorporated peripherally. As I write this I wonder if,<br>
philosophically, this may be many people's dilemma though I am not sure<br>
if it is yours: that role theory has no great generating motives, no<br>
implicit underlying parts of a person's psyche, no implications about<br>
how a person works or how a person's mind, non-mind, consciousness,<br>
non-consciousness, pre-conscious, personality and other similar idea and<br>
things function. It is in one sense highly superficial and descriptive.<br>
Perhaps because the descriptions are not fully formed and pre-defined<br>
(such as with a taxonomy) there is an unwillingness in me and others to<br>
enter into such an open landscape. I get the shivers in such an open<br>
landscape. I find it reminiscent of being asked to develop phrases off<br>
the top of my head in playback theatre, the creative emergent process.<br>
Especially zen-moments where three members of the troupe summarise a<br>
story into three very short lines and sculptures - and often nailed it<br>
wonderfully. But was it very tricky, hard and creative. Something<br>
haiku-ish like "Adam wrote and lead the way; Jenny prised the rocks of<br>
ignorance aside; together they, with the vicarious onlookers, enjoyed<br>
the squirmy creatures beneath."<br>
<br>
I am still thinking visually of the picture of philosophically, role<br>
theory being thin at the top but deep in its penetration of me and<br>
others. While thinking that many other descriptive and taxonomic models<br>
are deeper philosophically but may not be able to penetrate to any depth<br>
in how it effects people. Depth here I guess is about depth of affect of<br>
the client and myself as we enter a process. To illustrate: I am just<br>
back from 4 days with 21 people where we used two models - Myers-Briggs<br>
Typology personality theories and the Adult experiential Learning Styles<br>
of David Kolb... These are both sophisticated forms of stereotyping and<br>
some people love them and some people hate them and while it is about<br>
putting people in boxes it does create an argument about there being<br>
different boxes than what many people believed they might have been. It<br>
validates difference. However it is still a form of stereotyping and<br>
does actually narrow a person down quite a bit. It also narrows down how<br>
I look at that person. I find it quite tricky stuff. And there are<br>
books, and books and research on this stiff and it has a large conserve<br>
around it. Yet when I do role analyses of and with others I find that<br>
with only a few role names to start with, I begin to imagine much<br>
greater things that what is present. That is what I mean by depth. And<br>
as I read this again I reckon that it is also similar in this aspect<br>
with a psychodrama in that it has elements of surprise, intrigue, an<br>
aesthetic and others<br>
<br>
Cheers for the moment. I'll go and keep chewing. I also read Adam's<br>
chapters in the last week - weren't they good!<br>
<br>
Peter<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
Katherine Morris wrote:<br>
> Hello, my name is Katherine Morris and I'm currently studying for an MA<br>
> in clinical psychology. My undergraduate studies were in philosophy and<br>
> psychology. I have a strong interest in therapies that engage the whole<br>
> being rather than just the intellect, and am currently learning about as<br>
> many different whole-person therapies as I can find.<br>
> <br>
> Thank you so much for your detailed response! Sorry for not introducing<br>
> myself (I thought I did, but I joined 3 lists at the same time and must<br>
> have forgotten to introduce myself on this one.) and also for what might<br>
> accidentally appear 'harsh and abrupt' or an 'attack' (I think my<br>
> academic training in philosophy gives me that, because philosophers<br>
> learn to go straight for logical inconsistencies, etc. without any extra<br>
> 'niceties' ;) and maybe that is not so good outside of philosophy.<br>
> <br>
> I don't have time for a proper response at the moment, but for now I<br>
> just want to say that I learned more about the concept of 'roles' in<br>
> this one email than I did in my entire school quarter that I just<br>
> finished in dramatherapy! (hmmm...not sure what to think about that,<br>
> especially after what I paid for tuition!) I was never told that 'roles'<br>
> is a technical term; I thought it was being used in the common sense of<br>
> the term. Actually, in the class I just finished, the concept of roles<br>
> was not discussed much, almost not at all, even though the concept is<br>
> fundamental to psychodrama and dramatherapy. Now that I see its<br>
> technical meaning, I see the concept in an entirely different way now;<br>
> so thank you Dr. Blatner for taking the time to educate me.<br>
> <br>
> Katherine<br>
> <br>
> On Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:48 AM, <st1:PersonName w:st="on">Adam Blatner</st1:PersonName>
<<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablatner@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:ablatner@verizon.net">ablatner@verizon.net</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ablatner@verizon.net"
ymailto="mailto:ablatner@verizon.net">ablatner@verizon.net</a>>> wrote:<br>
> <br>
> Dear Katherine, (The others on grouptalk may not
know that we've met<br>
> in <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Seattle</st1:place></st1:City>
a month ago and you're a philosophy student as well as a<br>
> student of drama therapy, and one with a broad
background. You might<br>
> want to introduce yourself to people. )<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> further comments interspersed:
-----<br>
> *From:* Katherine Morris <mailto:<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=morris.katherine@gmail.com"
ymailto="mailto:morris.katherine@gmail.com">morris.katherine@gmail.com</a>>*
<br>
> responding to the graphic sent **To:* <a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a>>*
**Sent:* Sunday, December 20, 2009<br>
> 12:36 PM *Subject:* Re: fun graphic
by Eric<br>
> Rutberg <<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ericrutberg@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:ericrutberg@yahoo.com">ericrutberg@yahoo.com</a><br>
> <mailto:<a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=ericrutberg@yahoo.com"
ymailto="mailto:ericrutberg@yahoo.com">ericrutberg@yahoo.com</a>>>
wrote: re role theory<br>
> <a
href="http://www.psychodramatraining.com/Roles1.htm" target="_blank">http://www.psychodramatraining.com/Roles1.htm</a>
<br>
> <br>
> KM Is this really what J.L. Moreno said?! That
our personalities are<br>
> nothing more than the sum of the various roles
we play in life? If<br>
> that is accurate, I am surprised that someone
with a classic<br>
> education like he had, would make such a
superficial conclusion.<br>
> <br>
> AB: That you are surprised
is a clue to the admixture in you<br>
> of both unusual brightness and breadth of
thought and perhaps the<br>
> lack of readiness to realize that many of your
teachers and great<br>
> people in the many fields often do not match
your keeness of<br>
> perception. Not that you're
always right, either. But you do<br>
> notice far more than many. In other words,
attend to your surprise.<br>
> <br>
> AB continues: So the de-idealization
begins. <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>
didn't have<br>
> that much of a classic education; he ready
broadly, but was very<br>
> narcissistic, so integrated only that which fit
his own schema. <br>
> <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place
w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City> was partly right in that he
countered the idividual<br>
> psychology that saw the mind as an interplay of
internal desires,<br>
> identifications, and introjected objects
(significant others). Freud<br>
> had a weak sense (it was there, but not strong)
of the power of the<br>
> here-and-now interpersonal field, group and
socio-cultural dynamics.<br>
> The way I put it, half of who we
"really" are (if it could be<br>
> stated, which it really cannot) involves the
activities,<br>
> identifications, interactions, effects,
processes in those<br>
> extra-skin dimensions. <br>
> Or we might re-frame it (in
<st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s
defense) by expanding the<br>
> appreciation of what it means to be a
psychosomatic role. But in<br>
> truth, <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s
role scheme was just a beginning. The right way to<br>
> appreciate him is as we appreciate Jung or
Adler, as a pioneer with<br>
> lots and lots of good ideas, but in no way the
definitive,<br>
> comprehensive, or final sense. Also, I find many
of <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s
ideas<br>
> not at all well-thought out, coordinated, or
inclusive of others'<br>
> work. So I give him credit for what he did, and
recognize that in<br>
> many ways he was lacking. I certainly don't take
his writing as<br>
> authoritative, but rather as a beginning---and
sometimes perhaps<br>
> even misleading.<br>
> <br>
> KM I have not read <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s own writing
yet, and I suspect that<br>
> this is an over-simplification and distortion of
his thought (and if<br>
> not, I will be very surprised that someone with
a background in<br>
> philosophy would adopt such a simplistic,
behavioristic view of<br>
> human nature). <br>
> <br>
> AB: his background
is far more superficial than his status<br>
> would suggest. He had brilliant insights, often
was ahead of his<br>
> time, but in my Foundations book I critique his
writing---it's not<br>
> really very good at all. Gems are buried here
and there, but also<br>
> fool's gold (iron pyrites) <br>
> <br>
> KM The claim that
personalities are developed merely through<br>
> taking on a bunch of roles even goes against
simple observations.<br>
> For example, we all see how babies, humans as
well as other kinds of<br>
> animals, have distinct personalities the moment
they are born. There<br>
> are inherent differences in the personalities
and temperaments of<br>
> babies (which perhaps influence the types of
roles that they are<br>
> drawn toward playing as they age). I could make
the argument that<br>
> personalities are further developed beyond what
is inherent, not<br>
> according to the roles played, but according to
one's perceptions<br>
> and experiences in life, especially since many
people feel that they<br>
> have to play roles in life that are not
authentic, (i.e... not part of<br>
> their real personality) but are required by
society.<br>
> AB: yes, I agree and write
about factors in individuality on<br>
> a paper on my website. Temperament, interests,
peculiar quirks, and<br>
> also abilities, relative no-talent spheres, etc.<br>
> Not really in
defending <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>,
though, I find that these<br>
> elements can be added to a lively role theory
(my own extension of<br>
> <st1:City w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City>'s)
in the following way. The role: A boy, age 6. Add not a<br>
> social role or its definition, but some innate
quality: A boy who is<br>
> very tall or very nearsighted or very sensitive
to loud sounds. So<br>
> in a sense, a character or picture can be built
up that includes<br>
> innate non-social-role elements. <st1:City
w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">Moreno</st1:place></st1:City> hadn't thought
out his<br>
> taxonomy very fully, in other words. <br>
> Similar deepening
and broadening and revision of zoological<br>
> or biological taxonomies have happened as technology
and knowledge<br>
> have grown in various fields, too.<br>
> <br>
> KM Also, what about people who hide major parts
of themselves from<br>
> the world because those parts don't fit into the
world, meaning that<br>
> there are no roles associated with those parts;
does that mean those<br>
> parts are not thought of as part of those
persons personalities<br>
> because no roles are ever played to give
expression and further<br>
> development to those parts?<br>
> <br>
> AB: your objections remind me of
one of the weaknesses of role<br>
> theory: The idea that roles are primarily
social. I don't think so.<br>
> A role is anything that can be portrayed, and
many sub-types of<br>
> roles are by no means social. They can be very
subtle, even<br>
> spiritual, and as mentioned, also intrapsychic.
My interest in this<br>
> or that subject is a role between me and my
writing tablet or<br>
> computer keyboard, a role that gets expanded
when you read my words,<br>
> and expanded further if you are interested,
willing to argue and<br>
> develop those ideas, etc. This is like a role
may be hinted at in<br>
> scene one of a play and then deepened and
elaborated as the role<br>
> becomes played out with various others in later
scenes---one who<br>
> understands, one who distorts, one who fails to
see any<br>
> significance, etc.<br>
> <br>
> AB: continues, anyway, welcome to
grouptalk and let's see what<br>
> others might say, too. I thought it was a nice
introduction, though<br>
> your points seem fair as an expansion of the
subtlety of role theory.<br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> <br>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------<br>
> <br>
> Grouptalk mailing list<br>
> <a
href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org"
target="_blank">http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb...org</a><br>
<br>
Grouptalk mailing list<br>
<a href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a><br>
<a href="http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org"
target="_blank">http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org</a><br>
<br>
<br>
Grouptalk mailing list<br>
<a href="http://nz.mc961.mail.yahoo.com/mc/compose?to=List@grouptalkweb.org"
ymailto="mailto:List@grouptalkweb.org">List@grouptalkweb.org</a><br>
<a href="http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org"
target="_blank">http://grouptalkweb.org/mailman/listinfo/list_grouptalkweb.org</a><o:p></o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</blockquote>
</td>
</tr>
</table>
<p class=MsoNormal><font size=3 face="Times New Roman"><span style='font-size:
12.0pt'><o:p> </o:p></span></font></p>
</div>
</body>
</html>