Lets get going with the next references to Marx. It is in a chapter called Experimental Social Revolution (pp.27-31) The whole chapter is littered with references to Marx, Lenin, and revolution, I need to quote the whole section. I’ve asked ChatGPT to make, a summary, it’s pretty good, but I recommend the original so I’ll quote that too. When I come comment on it, I will quote from the original.
In this chapter Moreno wants to use his methods to further revolutionary causes. I almost want to say Comrade Moreno. He doesn’t mention the word sociodrama in this chapter, strangely, he calls them attempts at small revolutions.
Unfortunately the chapter deteriorates and I dismiss the later section.
ChatGPT Summary
Experimental Social Revolution
This passage explores revolutions as dynamic, experimental processes of social transformation, offering profound insights into human creativity and collective action. Highlighting the French and Russian revolutions as historical cradles of sociology and Marxism, it argues that revolutions—large or small—function as laboratories for understanding societal change. The author reflects on small-scale revolutions as real, concentrated experiments, mirroring the stages and tensions of global upheavals. Central to these movements are three key forces: the rejection of the old order, a clear vision of the new, and the mobilization of collective spontaneity. Drawing comparisons between Christian and Marxist revolutions, the text underscores the role of visionary leadership in navigating the sociometric dynamics of transformation, revealing both the ethical and pragmatic complexities of revolutionary change.
(ChatGPT Summary, Moreno, 1978 pp27-31)
Here is the chapter in full….
EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL REVOLUTION
A social revolution has all of humanity in a test tube. If one could be a participant-actor in it and, at the same time outside of it, an observer, this might make a good beginning for a research of revolutions in statu nascendi. The great French revolution may be called the “cradle of sociology”. It is the outstanding contribution which France has made towards the development of the social sciences. It started a chain reaction from Saint Simon, Fourier, Comte, Proudhon to Durkheim. The same distinction goes to the socialistic revolutions culminating in Russia. The Paris Commune of 1871, the Russian Revolutions of 1905 and 1917 are the three cradles of Marxism. In spite of their mental confusions, distortions of precept and madness of leadership, these experiments of nature and history—though to a great extent unplanned and uncontrolled—did more to seduce people into thinking about the major social problems of humanity than all the Departments of Sociology since established . But what has such irrational thing as a social revolution to do with thinking and science? The explanation is simple: in the emergent phase of a revolution humanity is in a highly productive phase; similar to a man of genius in a state of inspiration, ideas which have been dormant come suddenly to the fore and form new, exciting and creative constellations; similar to a mental patient in the sudden outbreak of an acute phase, or the outpouring of elevating ideas and actions in the initial phases of a new religion.
I played with the idea of putting revolutions on an experimental basis. They seemed to be much more rewarding for gaining knowledge than the writing of comprehensive sociological systems and scholarly critiques of revolutions . It appeared to me also that making revolutions on a very small scale would be more advantageous than the global ones. They could be more concentrated and thoroughgoing, the phenomena could be studied as if under the microscope. It would be the quickest and most direct way of learning about problems which look very different post mortem; they look like every other corpse after life has vanished. What I dreaded most, however, was to fall into the abyss of make— believe and the artificiality of contrived experiment. The small revolution had to be as real as the global one. In the course of years several opportunities offered themselves, communities of people who were willing to engage themselves in a total change of their social relationships, a cooperative revolution, and I was able to see with my own eyes how a society can be changed and what happens after the change is accomplished . In the course of microscopic experiments I encountered many of the problems which have been described about revolutions on a big scale, the idea stage, the propaganda stage and the stage of violent action ; the various types of social revolution, the Christian kind of “introverted action”, accompanied by a minimum of social involvement, the Marxist type of “extroverted action”, accompanied by a high degree of social involvement, the “all out” type of revolution as in the sociometric scheme . (In the Marxist revolution only the working classes are “all out”, the bourgeoisie is on the defense.) In the microscopic forms as in the global ones the existing social order is confronted by a new one. The existing order is rejected by the prophet of the new order or by the majority of the revolutionary group. The new social order must be visualized with a reasonable degree of clarity and intensively wanted by the prophet (in the religious case) or the leaders of the group (in the social case) in order for such a revolutionary experiment to become meaningful and effective. If these conditions exist the crucial problem for the leaders is how to get the masses ready for action and for the acceptance of the new order; how to mobilize the spontaneity of the masses, to turn them into spontaneous actors in behalf of the project of replacing the existing social order. Some methods of “warming up” are indispensable to get them ready. We see here three categories operating which sociometry has pointed out with particular emphasis: the category of creativity, a clear vision of the new order; the category of spontaneity, the masses arousing themselves and being aroused to make the visionary order a reality and the category of the warming up, to get the prophet or the leaders and the masses ready for action.
I tried to clarify in my mind what the modus vivendi of a social revolution might be and arrived at the following tentative hypotheses: a) it is the degree of the impact of the social groups as historical forces upon the current situation; b) the degree to which the smallest functional units of society, the socioatomic structures are directly affected by the political rebellion and integrated into the official sect or party organization; c) the degree to which the leader or leaders of revolution are “intuitive” sociometrists-adequately able to gauge the sociodynamic forces operating in the immediate present within the population involved—thus the chances for a successful revolution rise and fall. This applies to every type of revolution whether religious or political, bourgeois or proletarian. The Christian revolution tried to bring certain religious values and intellectual properties of the Jewish intelligentsia, the Pharisees, and of a few, exclusive saints to poor and rich alike, to Jews and non-Jews alike, to all people of all nations. However lofty and mystical the Scriptures are, there are many clues which can be used to draw sociometric and role diagrams of personal and ideological forces criss-crossing the emerging Christian revolution. If leaders like Jesus of Nazareth and Saint Paul would not have had a clairvoyant’s sense for the actual forces operating at the moment, the potentialities of the social unrest within the masses might have taken a different course, a military or political revolution might have succeeded instead of the religious one. The imagination of the leaders must have been sensitive to the now and here forces in order to transform the potential into real achievement. The American revolution of 1776 proclaimed: “All men are created equal” and the French revolution raised the banner of: “Egalite, Liberte, Fraternite”. These two revolutions tried to extend the influence of the many and reinforced the principle of universality. At first sight the Russian revolution of 1917 with its “Dictatorship” of the Proletariat may seem to be of a different order. Like Marx, Lenin was hardly aware of the sociometric nature of society, but he was convinced that the economic forces of the class struggle were pushing human society inevitably towards a socialistic form of government. He felt that he had the mission at this moment of history to bring to conclusion, as it were, this unavoidable experiment of Nature. But there were two Lenins, the loyal servant of dialectic materialism and the other, the practical Lenin, besieged by enormous difficulties and more than ever by the realization that many of the communist promises are impossible to attain. He recognized that there were not two classes sharply separated, fighting each other-as it is with the armies of two states at war-but that there were innumerable shades and degree of class distinctions. Class is sociometrically not only a specially qualified social group, it has a quantitative distribution. Social classes like bourgeoisie and proletariat are metasociological constructs, the tangible thing is the “party organization”. He had to make a decision to win for the party with whose cause he had identified his life. Like a general he began to survey the present field of action before him. Without an intuitive, quasi-sociometric analysis of the total situation in Russia from day to day and without letting his insight move his decisions, the opportunity for a successful revolution might have gone astray, notwithstanding that ideal political conditions for victory existed. In his mind he drew the picture of the sociograms of the persons and groups and ideological and military forces operating for or against him and his people and then he started the proletarian war which preceded the proletarian dictatorship. He may have said to himself: “The dictatorship of the bourgeoisie is ruthless, tyrannical and murderous when it comes to suppressing the working class. Therefore, the war of the proletariat cannot be won by soft talk, it will have to use warlike weapons; it will have to be equally ruthless, tyrannical and terroristic.” What bolstered Lenin’s courage to lead a social revolution with all its brutalities was full of ethical and moral implications: “It is true,” he may have said to himself in moments of honest cynicism, “that we are merely reversing the order of who is suppressing whom, reversing one government of terrorism and suppression with another, but at least the government which will suppress from now on represents the producing masses, the many against the few.”
A sort of ethical motive, the idea of universal participation, which we found implied in the development of scientific method apparently also plays a role in the makings of social revolutions. There is a similarity in sociometric position between Lenin, the Tartar, the tribune of the masses bringing political power to the people, and Prometheus, the tribune of science, bringing scientific power to them .
(pp.27-31)
My Comments, a conversation with Moreno
Humanity in a test tube
A social revolution has all of humanity in a test tube. If one could be a participant-actor in it and, at the same time outside of it, an observer, this might make a good beginning for a research of revolutions in statu nascendi.
Test tube. Science. And participant-actor observer is central to Moreno’s scientific methods. Note he adds in the word “actor”, this is more than being there, he is advocating being an agent. And statu nascendi, moment of birth. Moreno believes that inorder to understand something it is good to go to its moment of birth.
Humanity in a highly productive phase – when much is revealed.
But what has such irrational thing as a social revolution to do with thinking and science? The explanation is simple: in the emergent phase of a revolution humanity is in a highly productive phase; similar to a man of genius in a state of inspiration, ideas which have been dormant come suddenly to the fore and form new, exciting and creative constellations;(p.28)
Revolution is a phase when much is revealed, making it a time ripe for study. Moreno is not explicit, but I imagine the science he is thinking of is intensive exploration on the stage. The human productivity can be produced on the stage. The moment of birth can be recreated on the stage. these enactments are by actors, but in the world of psychodrama and sociodrama the actors are group participants. A person Moreno evokes at the opening of the paragraph, someone who is a “participant-actor in it and, at the same time outside of it, an observer”.
“There are decades where nothing happens; and there are weeks where decades happen.” Lenin.
Sociodrama
The chapter under consideration is kindling my motivation to do sociodrama that explores revolution.
The struggle is always present. If everything can change in an instant, we can live with that intensity and creativity now. Sociodrama in groups can stimulate such intensity. Sociodrama can collapse time. In an hour, you can experience years, even decades. This chapter, Experimental Social Revolution is vital because it advocates experimental spaces where revolutionary change can be explored and enacted.
While we’re not in a revolutionary phase in New Zealand. The global context is dire. Thousands are being killed in Gaza, Lebanon, fueled by American imperialism. Ukraine presents disaster. The USA has elected Trump (inaugurated as I write), a revolution from the right? Germany is on the edge of new fascism. Domestically, we have a right-wing government, an ineffectual Labour Party, and the ongoing reality of living in a colonial state.
All of these could be related to the history of the last century or more and be the subject of sociodrama.
Small Scale Revolutions
It appeared to me also that making revolutions on a very small scale would be more advantageous than the global ones. They could be more concentrated and thoroughgoing, the phenomena could be studied as if under the microscope.(p.28)
Not revolutions IMO.. I see small-scale revolutions in every psychodrama group. These are psychological revolutions. Most sociodramas I have attended are group centered and more like non-protagonist centered psychodramas delving into the experiences of the group. Sociodreama is the drama of the group (ref).
In the course of years several opportunities offered themselves, communities of people who were willing to engage themselves in a total change of their social relationships, a cooperative revolution, and I was able to see with my own eyes how a society can be changed and what happens after the change is accomplished.
What is he talking about? Hudson school for girls? A cooperative revolution is not a revolution. As he says in a revolution: “the existing social order is confronted by a new one.”
Moreno describes his efforts
In the course of microscopic experiments I encountered many of the problems which have been described about revolutions on a big scale, the idea stage, the propaganda stage and the stage of violent action; (p.29)
His framing of stages is oversimplified. A revolution isn’t planned in neat stages—idea, education, and then forcefully implementing it. That approach suggests imposing change rather than involving people deeply in the process. He later touches on Marxist extroverted action with high involvement, which resonates more.
I’m pausing here on the “idea stage” concept because even in small-scale psychodrama and sociodrama, where revolutions in relationships can occur, the process feels less linear. Instead of “idea-propaganda-action,” I prefer the psychodrama framework: warm-up, spontaneity, and creativity.
The new social order must be visualized with a reasonable degree of clarity. (p.29)
No. That approach reminds me of a movement I was interested in in the early 70s. I think it was from Philadelphia, Movement for a New Society. It had a plan.
-
-
- Work out the problem
- Clarify the solution
- Plan the steps
- Follow the plan
-
Leadership is required, but that is not it, the movement faded to naught..
Moreno asks the right question
If these conditions exist the crucial problem for the leaders is how to get the masses ready for action and for the acceptance of the new order; how to mobilize the spontaneity of the masses, to turn them into spontaneous actors in behalf of the project of replacing the existing social order. Some methods of “warming up” are indispensable to get them ready. (p.29)
His answers
We see here three categories operating which sociometry has pointed out with particular emphasis: the category of creativity, a clear vision of the new order; the category of spontaneity, the masses arousing themselves and being aroused to make the visionary order a reality and the category of the warming up, to get the … leaders and the masses ready for action.
I like the Morenean formulation: warm up, spontaneity. creativity (action), it is embedded here.
He is clearly grappling for some clarity, but I think it is valuable that he identifies two groups: “the leaders and the masses”
I don’t like the word “masses”… how about workers, or people (and there are the enemies of the people). From a groupwork perspective the two groups are different, The question of the party, or the vanguard that is now on the table.
Are the people a self healing group?
Moreno continues, with a tentative hypothesis…
I tried to clarify in my mind what the modus vivendi of a social revolution might be and arrived at the following tentative hypotheses: a) it is the degree of the impact of the social groups as historical forces upon the current situation; b) the degree to which the smallest functional units of society, the socioatomic structures are directly affected by the political rebellion and integrated into the official sect or party organization; c) the degree to which the leader or leaders of revolution are “intuitive” sociometrists—adequately able to gauge the sociodynamic forces operating in the immediate present within the population involved—thus the chances for a successful revolution rise and fall.
Let me paraphrase:
What is the life energy of a social revolution? The the chances for a successful revolution rise and fall on these factors:
-
-
-
- ) the impact of the historical forces playing out in the current situation;
- ) the impact and integration of the organization of the political rebellion on small units like families;
- ) the ability of the leaders of the revolution to gauge the social forces operating in the population
-
-
Sometimes I don’t know what he’s talking about till I paraphrase it like that.
Looking at these three points again I think they are valuable. The leaders, or anyone looking to take social action or make revolution are a distinct small groups who can do sociodrama to explore of these questions. That is Moreno’s contribution here. I’m not sure that Marx ever went into the depths of how to get the solidarity needed. Point three sums it up… that is the sociometric question What are the the social forces operating in the population? Moreno does not spell it out, but in planning sociodrama I will call this The social forces question. Where is the action?
❋
Dismissing the rest of Moreno’s chapter
The rest of the chapter I find hard to read. I don’t want to engage with it. Moreno seems uneducated in Marxism and revolutionary history. He doesn’t understand bourgeois revolutions. He thinks they “tried to extend the influence of the many and reinforced the principle of universality”. He doesn’t understand class and that these nice slogans were a sham. He doesn’t understand Lenin.
How can we deal with this section? I’m going to skip it. Because there’s nothing there to learn about making effective social change. It’s a testament to Moreno not understanding Marx or the social forces of revolution. Maybe I need to come back to it to spell out why I have made this assessment. But maybe it’s obvious to anyone who reads it. I don’t know. It’s blatant crap, in my opinion.
After a few prompts ChatGTP generously summed the section thus:
Moreno’s analysis of revolutions, while imaginative, misunderstands the material realities of class struggle. By reducing historical movements to sociometric dynamics and personal charisma, he ignores the structural forces that shape society. Revolutions like 1917 in Russia were not mere products of leaders’ insights or sociometric diagrams but the result of deeply rooted economic and political contradictions. Lenin’s mastery of dialectical materialism allowed him to navigate the complexities of a fluid and stratified society, turning theory into action. Moreno’s framing oversimplifies these dynamics, offering little to enhance our understanding of revolutionary change.
❋
This post is part of a series.
See Intro Marx and Moreno Monograph