Psyberspace

The five instruments:

• Stage
• Audience
• Director
• Protagonist
• Auxiliary Egos

Word documents on this available here.

My recent post: Can we Survive? is a draft for an item in a psychodrama publication. In that post I link Wisdom Councils and – Creative Insight Councils to the Sociometric methods of J.L. Moreno. The main idea is that there is a lager community and the small group resonates with the larger group in isomoprhic harmony, and can thus give back compelling insights and wisdom.

In this post I want to add a related idea.

From Dynamic Facilitation and the Wisdom Council theory I have got it clear that a small group can achieve something in addition to personal therapy for its members, and assist an organisation or community in developing its life, and in its decision making.

Jim Rough calls it “option creating”, I am not yet sure exactly what he means by this but it is not just a list of possibilities or wild ideas from a brainstorming session. The breakthrough in a group happens when there is an insight into a real option – something the whole group would like to see happen.

Such breakthroughs are possible over the longer time frame of a group, of diverse members, meeting for several days and sharing at a deep level. Traditional meetings can’t achieve this depth.

For a group to be of use to a larger community there needs to be a thorough warm-up before the event as to the purpose and context. While in psychodrama we are aware of the importance of the frame, I have not experienced a group in that tradition that has the focus of leading to outcomes for the whole community. In our organisations we tend to make decision in meetings, and while there is plenty of interaction and depth work, it is not specifically an clearly focussed on future actions. There may be specialist sub-committees, or work groups, but they tend to be by the people with special positions an ongoing positions within the organisation.

Imagine randomly selected diverse small group – from an organisation or community – doing depth work groups with the task of one or two of the following topics:

What is our strategic plan?
What is our vision?
Principles for the Constitution.
Who should be a member?

The group would present its findings to all members of the community or larger organisation and its governing in one a4 document, and 20 minute audio file at a special hui for the occasion.

Jane & I discussing Socio over dinner after our great ANZPA conference in Sydney.

A photo follows!

Full text of “GROUP PSYCHOTHERAPY”
Vol. VIII, Nos. 3 and 4.

The whole volume is online in a poorly scanned version.

This is the second post while doing a close reading of Moreno’s lecture on Tele, “given by the author during his European journey, May- June, 1954.”

Note: I continue to edit these posts, they are a work in progress for now, not really be good blogging practice. If anyone comments or there are track backs, I will not change what I wrote so conversations make sense.

First Post
Transference and Tele (tag).

Quotes from the lecture, some research on Google and my detailed comments follow.

In what some might call synchronicity I came across Mesmer’s (W) animal magnetism in two separate contexts today.

Firstly, in “Transference, Countertransference And Tele: Their Relation To Group Research And Group Psychotherapy [Word Doc] in Psychodrama Vol II by J.L. Moreno and then again in:

A podcasted radio program from WNYC on the Placebo effect.

Both these sources tie in with much of what I am writing about in this blog on the science of relationships, and specifically a current project on “parallel process” in supervision. It got me interested again in what Moreno calls tele. It is a word that will be with me, like it or not while I am involved with psychodrama (like the word psychodrama itself). I don’t like the word “tele” much, it seems to confuse everyone including me. The aim of this post(s) is to investigate tele, especially in relationship to, as in the title of Moreno’s lecture, to group research and group psychotherapy. I thought I’d make a summary of Moreno’s 1957 lecture chapter, and make responses.

Note: I continue to edit these posts, they are a work in progress for now, not really be good blogging practice. If anyone comments or there are track backs, I will not change what I wrote so conversations make sense.

I’ll start with quoting the Intro in full, make some comments and do more posts later, a series: Transference and Tele (tag).

A comparison of psychoanalytic and psychodramatic theory from a psychodramatist’s perspective – Counselling Psychology Quarterly:

A comparison of psychoanalytic and psychodramatic theory from a psychodramatist’s perspective Abstract A comparison of Freud’s and Moreno’s theories with regard to their implications for psychodrama therapy. Basic differences in the theories are discussed with special regard to therapist role, transference and tele, insight and catharsis, the time concept, the body, and developmental psychology. Other topics treated are concepts of drive or energy, psychic structure and role theory, psychic determinism contra the doctrine of spontaneity-creativity and differences between an intrapsychic and an interpersonal approach. An outline of the relationship of psychodrama and its philosophy and practice to other schools of psychotherapy is given.

I’ll see if I can get this through the library.

Later

Yes I got it as a member of the Canterbury Public library, here.

Ideas on cyberspace and psyche follow, with reference to social networks, science, psychodrama and sociometry. I conclude with a quote from Moreno that led to this reflection.

I have just been given some info about “Systemic Constellation work”

I want to follow up, two links that might be useful.

THE CHALLENGE AND PROMISE FOR PSYCHODRAMA
OF SYSTEMIC CONSTELLATION WORK
By Ronald Anderson and Karen Carnabucci

And this one, an Alert

Systemic Constellations Wikipedia.

Family Constellations More specifically about Hellinger. Interesting discussions on Wikipedia.

When I was a social worker in the early ’80s and a person was waiting in the waiting room to see me, the receptionist would ring me and jokingly say your client system is here to see you.

Social Work has had a strong sense for a long time that the individual is always part of a system. This same systems theory was taught to me as being central to Psychodrama, specifically through an article by Lynette Clayton.

Recently I have read some good material in Imago Relationship Therapy : Perspectives on Theory, particularly by Randall C. Mason, Ph.D. who talks about the Relational Paradigm, and sees it as distinct from systems thinking.

I have been wanting to tie all this together, and Moreno’s contribution is significant. I love the way he sees the origin of our thinking of individual psyche ties in with the body as being the locus of treatment in medicine. What a fallacy it has been to continue to think like that in psychotherapy!

The opening of the Chapter on Sociometry in Psychodrama Volume one follows.