Walter Logeman: Journal
Relationships
Shared Realities: Participation Mystique and Beyond
Heard about this on Shrink Rap Radio where Dr Dave interviews the author/editor Mark Winborn. Worth listening to.
Download 427 Exploring The “Participation Mystique” with Jungian Analyst Mark Winborn
I had to get the book, it is a sort of meditation on the nature of the relational space. It focuses on therapy, but this would be so relevant for those of us who consider that the marriage is the therapy.
Archetypal Psychology by James Hillman
My rating: 3 of 5 stars
Loved the book, learned so much. Finished up disliking him more. Never liked him, always awed by his genius, and impacted. His attitude to his affair and his relationship with women is not just of its time – it is callous and a-psychological, out of touch and this is so disappointing. It shows a flaw in his professional as well as personal life, not one that I can forgive. I sort of knew this but here it is laid out – blatant. Even though the author seems to be sympathetic, colludes.
So I rate the book 5 for illumination and remove stars for an ultimate disdain for the character.
I am highly conscious of the language in couple therapy I do at the moment. I used to use the Imago language in couple therapy for many years. I was resistant to the rather ugly “sender and receiver” words. Though not as accurate for what was actually happening I preferred talker and listener in the last few years. However after listening to audios by Hedy Schleifer I’ve shifted to the “crossing the bridge” language of “visitor and host”. As one client told me, that is a bit fruity, whatever that means.
The thing is that is not just a change in language, but a whole different mode of being. Sending is a metaphor for posting something into space and it is then received like an email. This is not a metaphor that is very connecting. It also leaves the receiver wanting to respond… it invites reply. Responding is close to reactivity, and replies are close to argument and debate.
Host and visitor are quite different. Each person is having a turn at the same time, one as visitor, on a trip to another land, as a learner, a witness as an explorer a learner. The other as a host, a presenter, a storyteller. with this metaphor for the work there is not the same need to coach appreciations… I just say, be a good host and be a good visitor, and immediately they say such things as “Thanks for inviting me into your world, I appreciate you taking the initiative, I know it might not be easy for you.”
In the visit I use the exact mirroring , summary, validation and empathy structures.
In every culture there is some protocol and ritual for crossing the bridge into another persons territory or space. The protocols for visiting a neighbour apply. The leave taking can be quite lovely. I’ve heard people say.”Thank you for having me.” or more fully, such things as: “Thank you for inviting me, I appreciate you showing me how things work in your land. I will be much more aware how not to stomp on those areas that are so sore. I enjoyed meeting your little child and seeing how burdened your mother was while she had three under four.”
The language and the change facilitates dramatic enactment. Show me your world is an action cue for sculptures and role reversals with the social and cultural atom.
With maori clients and some other kiwis as well I have used some of the concepts from a meeting on a marae. The visitors are: manuhiri and the hosts the, the people of the land, the tangata whenua.
The depth of meaning of the pōwhiri or welcome could well be used to make the crossing into each others worlds more meaningful. For example the concept of Pōwhiri – the Māori welcome carries with it all the richness of the english word dialogue and more: “… po can be translated as a venture into ‘the unknown’ or a new experience, while whiri is derived from whiriwhiri meaning the act or experience of exchanging information and knowledge.
You are fed up. This is been on your mind for a while. You need to tell the other person. Its not fair. They are a problem. You’ve been meaning to do this but they’d never listen…
Those thoughts and feelings are your warm up. A warm up like that needs some attention. The other party is not likely to listen. When the time comes to talk you need better warm up. The six steps will create a good warm up for a productive conversation. “It is all in the warm up.”
What is the title of this conversation? One that is of interest to both parties. Create a topic that is constructive. Do this well before you approach the other person. This will determine everything from here on.
Begin with the impulse for the talk, e.g. “Your careless behaviour over the years has made me resentful and bitter and it is time you changed.”
Remove blame: “I think you are careless and I resent that and I’d like you to change.” Notice the subtle difference with the words: “I think…”
Remove resentment: Resentment is something you have allowed to build up, own it. “I think you are careless and I have found this difficult to raise with you, and I’d like you to change.”
Convert judgmental words, and be specific about outcomes: “I think the jobs can be done more efficiently.”
Make it collaborative: “I think we can do this more efficiently.”
Topic: “How we can do some things more efficiently”
How you do that also creates a warm up. More on that soon.
Summary of Norms and Guidelines
for Communologue1. Everyone is mirrored. This slows sharing down but develops a sense of each speaker feeling safe and being fully heard.
2. Anyone can volunteer to mirror. If no one else wishes to mirror the speaker, the facilitator(s) will do it. We suggest that if a person wants to “respond” to what has been said, they not be the one to mirror the speaker to whom they wish to “respond.”
3. Have an attitude of pre-validation.* In other words, assume that all persons “make sense” and are valid before they speak. Listeners seek to understand the “sense” that speakers are making and are trying to express.
4. The group holds the “space of validity” for all members and encourages the sharing of different points of view.
5. Avoid MasterTalk* – in other words avoid sentences that imply that only one point of view is correct. If Master Talk statements are made, “Boundary insertions” may be used to return the tone to one of sharing.
· “This is a fact” is politely mirrored, “So you believe…”
· “This is what happened” becomes “So you remember…
· “You are wrong” becomes “So you think differently. You think…”
· “I think I speak for everyone here” is met with a polite request to just state what is true for him or her.6. Value silence skillfully. Powerful points are often followed by silence. Silence doesn’t have to be filled right away. Listen for the emerging wisdom of the group.
7. Silence, on the other hand, can be a signal that talk is going underground. If this is perceived, a facilitator may invite and encourage sharing.
8. Facilitators and group members encourage all points of view and honor real differences.
9. Work to shift the tone from “conflict” to “sharing”. Saying you want to make an “addition” can be a powerful alternative to debating and win/lose thinking.
10. Encourage a sense of seeing a larger picture by valuing each person’s contribution to the group consciousness.
11. Learn to enjoy hearing and sharing even ideas you don’t particularly like. Learn to hold the tension of differences and grow the communologue space.
12. Senders should make relatively short sends; paying attention to the needs of other’s to share the time available.
13. It is believed helpful for senders to stay with one subject per send.
I’m studying up on master talk. Here is a link to Al’s main essay. There is also a link there to an MP3 which I bought.
MASTER/SLAVE, Two World Problem: The Essay | Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom
Certain words can clue you into MasterTalk:
‘is’ , ‘know’, ‘the fact that’, ‘reality’, ‘we’ or ‘you.’”
I am trying to get the idea, these little lists help a lot.
The way out, Friend/friend talk, includes phrases such as
The are I statements about information – cognitive I statements.
I like Al’s definition:
Note this is not a relativist position. There may well be one truth. But each of us has our own experience, leading us to our own conclusions and beliefs.
❋
Sunday, 01 August 2021 — downloaded from Al’s website, to add a bit of redundancy to its survival.
Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom :: MASTER/SLAVE, Two World Problem: The Essay
To Imago Therapists | Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom: “”
Worth a read, especially the paragraphs on Master Talk
Continue reading “To Imago Therapists | Al Turtle’s Relationship Wisdom”
İSTANBUL PSİKODRAMA ENSTİTÜSÜ – an interview with Zerka Moreno 2000
(it is on that link but takes a bit of perseverance to find it.)
I was intrigued by the ideas about couple therapy. Pre marital clarifications of expectations.
Small Graces Mapping a Route of Beauty to the Heart of the World
by Jason Sugg
Submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of
Master of Arts in Counseling Psychology
Pacifica Graduate Institute
14 February 2012
Has a whole section on Participation Mystique and I-Thou.
Well researched.
Below is an enticing quote. The reason I’m attracted to this work is that I think that the very relationships we are discussing here, participatory, with the ego dropped, with heightened awareness of self and other, are also the relationships that are needed between therapist and client, and partners in a relationship. It’s not well grasped: they are vital to knowing each other. We can’t know others at this level of consciousness without participating in the relationship with full role reversal. Continue reading “Small Graces: Mapping a Route of Beauty to the Heart of the World”
