Adam Blatner
Words and Images from the Mind of Adam Blatner
Social-Depth Psychology
Originally posted on September 10, 2012
J. L. Moreno developed a method called sociometry that involved more systematically asking people about their interpersonal preferences according to specified criteria. Diagramming the responses brings into view the intangible matrix of the social field. It operates in a way analogous to what a microscope does. But more, the social field thus exposed deserves attention because there is much there, more even than can be found through the sociometric method. (A number of papers on sociometry are on my website.)
What needs to be noted is that this field of interactions and the psychological feelings associated with having preferences and sensing or being anxious about others’ preferences is very emotionally sensitive. The mind is a social organ, exquisitely attuned to slight shifts in perceived status, whether one is noticed, liked, approved of, cared about, preferred, and so forth. Other depth psychology approaches touch on these dynamics, such as the psychoanalytic theories that attend to interpersonal relations (Harry Stack Sullivan’s writings in the 1940s); or “object relations theory;” or “self psychology;” and beyond Freudianism, Alfred Adler’s ideas in his system of individual psychology. But these built out from the one-to-one setting in therapy or observations on the family unit in early childhood.
Social-depth psychology mixes the social psychology with the way these interactions resonate deeply and often involve non-rational dynamics in the minds of those involved. For example, since even young children develop preferences, child A prefers to play with B in one setting, but with friend C in another setting. But there’s a curious compartment-alization. A feels hurt if he finds out that B prefers to play with C in certain settings, even if A doesn’t even like that type of play. This is because A as a young child wants to be preferred by everyone—it’s normal egocentricity.
In other words, folks have preference for different people and it doesn’t mean that the one not chosen must feel ashamed and rejected. Talking openly about these things may reduce the immature tendency to be hurt. The point is that in our culture and many cultures such talk is taboo, avoided unconsciously, and much of what we call courtesy arises to cover over the possible frictions generated by this natural dynamic that people indeed prefer some folks over others according to many criteria, common interests being most prominent. And people differentiate more in their interests as they grow older.
Unless this reality is talked about openly, processed consciously, many people sustain the sense of being hurt if they become aware that they are not always preferred—that early childhood attitude. In other words, becoming more overtly aware of the natural principles of social preference might help folks not take it so personally, might help counter this childish attitude.
The Oedipal Complex
Freud was right and I think he was also mistaken. He was right that all kids around the ages of 3 – 6 have emotional conflicts about jealousy, but it was about the dynamics mentioned above, not about wanting to be sexually close to one’s mother and being afraid that the father in retaliation will cut off (or has magically cut off) the child’s penis. Possibly a few kids with very weird family dynamics have that, but what Freud was picking up and trying to understand might, I think, be better appreciated in terms of social-depth psychology: Why do some people like me now but seem to prefer others in other contexts?
The point is that this problem of having to adjust to the reality of social differentiation is a normal developmental phase, and it is worked out in a wide variety of healthy and unhealthy ways. I think that if the culture as a whole could address the underlying issues more directly—as matters of natural differentiation of preference—it would make it easier for kids to negotiate this transition: For example, it becomes clear that some kids like to play sports more, and other kids like quieter games. Temperament begins to be a part of how we choose playmates. And so forth.
Wider Implications
Social-depth psychology might well address many issues, complementing a number of books that have been written lately about social psychology, such as Daniel Goleman’s “Social Intelligence.” Some people remember the word “sociometry,” developed by Moreno in the 1930s, based in part on observations over the previous few decades; some have forgotten this root. Nevertheless, there has been a resurgence of interest in social psychology as an extension of our culture’s becoming more psychologically-minded. It all points to a growing awareness of the need to address greater levels of complexity in the bio-psycho-socio-cultural matrix, and recognizing that there’s a depth psychology dimension to sociology and social psychology may help in this endeavor.
One Response to “Social-Depth Psychology”
Leave a Reply Cancel reply
Categories
- Action Explorations
- Art (Mandalas, Doodles, Scripts)
- Autobiographical
- Book Reviews
- Current Events
- Essays and Papers
- Follies
- Foolin Around
- History
- Mind-Spectrums
- My Favorite Things
- Play and Spontaneity
- Psychodrama
- Psychological Literacy
- Psychology
- Psychotherapy and Psychiatry
- Scriptology
- Social-Depth Psychology (Sociometry)
- Spirituality and Philosophy
- Uncategorized
- Whassup?
- Wisdom-ing
- World of Almost-Real
- Zordak's Journal
Archives
- October 2021
- January 2020
- November 2019
- August 2019
- March 2019
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- October 2014
- September 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- April 2009
- February 2009
- December 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- September 2006
- May 2004
- September 2002
[…] as I call it, social depth psychology: This addresses a sub-category of social psychology that overlaps with how people feel about […]