{"id":1012,"date":"2013-06-20T19:00:38","date_gmt":"2013-06-21T03:00:38","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/?p=1012"},"modified":"2013-06-20T19:00:38","modified_gmt":"2013-06-21T03:00:38","slug":"problems-with-social-depth-psychology","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/?p=1012","title":{"rendered":"Problems with Social Depth Psychology"},"content":{"rendered":"

To begin with, let\u2019s clarify the terminology. Sociometry has been used in the field of psychodrama to describe, in a more narrow sense, the method<\/em><\/strong>, mainly involving making explicit those preferences that are generally not explicit. In a larger sense, the word talks about all the dynamics involved in this process, and I think it might be better to call this larger sphere \u201csocial depth psychology.\u201d<\/p>\n

I\u2019ve been thinking about these dynamics for decades, and more, recently. Several articles can be found on my website under the terms \u201csociometry\u201d or \u201ctele.\u201d Google Blatner sociometry<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Social depth psychology deals with the way people feel deeply about others, and respond deeply to how they sense others feel towards them. If it is positive, tele or rapport tends to build. If it is negative, people can enter a spiral of unconscious moving away if not rejection. In addition, they begin to build unconscious fantasies. A lonely person may feel that a smile from an attractive other indicates romance\u2014and this over-reading can lead to terribly hurt feelings. A sensitive person may read a somewhat neutral response as rude rejection and build onto this a whole fantasy of why that person isn\u2019t more positive, such as thinking, \u201cShe\u2019s just jealous.\u201d In fact, that neutral other might well have become a friend but perhaps was distracted or not warmed up at the moment.<\/p>\n

Psychoanalysis has ventured into this sphere a little\u2014especially some later workers such as Harry Stack Sullivan or the inter-subjective pioneers. But these innovators haven\u2019t sufficiently attended to the interactional dynamics, the way a little cue might turn the dynamic more towards the positive or negative. This in-between state that I call Social Depth Psychology looks at such interactions, and especially considers the contextual cues of what roles the people are in.<\/p>\n

Role involves expectations, context, intent, behavior\u2014it offers a matrix for analyzing misunderstanding. Role is a relatively good language, better than most sets of terms in either sociology or psychology. Also, role reaches into many other contexts\u2014culture, cross-cultural themes, body-mind habits, etc. (I find the role concept to be the basis for a good language for intra-psychic dynamics, too!)<\/p>\n

Sociometry as a method simply makes explicit\u2014by putting it out there where all can see\u2014what is generally left implicit\u2014and therefore subject to distortions of misunderstandings, cultural bias, and so forth. Generally it puts it out there in the form of a chart. Modifications have people stand at various distances and in certain postures. Small toys and objects can also substitute\u2014each modification may have indications and contraindications, advantages and disadvantages.<\/p>\n

Sociometry as Threat
<\/strong>
Doing sociometry may be perceived as a threat, more so as people realize unconsciously what it\u2019s about. (At first it\u2019s deceptively easy!) Really working with the questions involved involves making quite clear, expressing outwardly, on a diagram, something most folks would rather not know about explicitly, nor be confronted with externally. In short, sociometry is a tool that brings to the surface what I call \u201csocial depth psychology.\u201d<\/p>\n

Consider the ambivalence stirred up by having to face the following choices:<\/p>\n

Whom do you prefer to be close to? It\u2019s neutralized a bit by having some names to choose from, and a criterion for choice, but it strikes close to every mother having to choose between her children. We\u2019re afraid of hurting those we love or need by admitting that they\u2019re not our first choice. And the mind is such that even thinking this explicitly means that they\u2019ll know and be hurt.<\/p>\n

Whom do you prefer least? Yuck! It brings up the unconscious basis of why you don\u2019t prefer or even dislike or even hate some people\u2014and many of these feelings are tied up with what you hate about yourself. It brings up primitive prejudices born of ignorance\u2014or it borders on those feelings. We tend to feel guilty about not only hating, but even not-preferring others. We just edge away and let it be unconscious.<\/p>\n

This also fits for groups. If you feel that a group doesn\u2019t like you all that much, one way of coping with the humiliation, the \u201cnarcissistic injury,\u201d is to not like them that much either. This tends to operate unconsciously and is easily rationalized. \u201cOh, I\u2019m busy that night.\u201d<\/p>\n

Moreno was a little blinded by his own narcissism so that he couldn\u2019t see how touchy people were, how vulnerable, so they couldn\u2019t even recognize how hurt they were when they preferred someone who did not reciprocate equally. This touches on deep realms of interpersonal tenderness often sensitized by old wounds.<\/p>\n

Yet Moreno was right in a way: It would be better if people could be more rather than less conscious about all this. Often\u2014really quite often\u2014our sensitivities, our wounds, are generated by artificial expectations and mistaken interpretations.<\/p>\n

Mary holds resentment towards her sister-in-law, Sarah, and maybe\u2014maybe not\u2014can bring into consciousness the complex of the perception of Sarah\u2019s scowling at her across the room at the last family get-together. In fact, Sarah wasn\u2019t scowling at Mary, but rather reacting to an inner gas pain. Or maybe she saw something behind Mary that she didn\u2019t like. The point is that this kind of getting an impression\u2014a mistaken impression\u2014and being wounded by it\u2014happens all the time!<\/p>\n

People get their feelings hurt and the offender often doesn\u2019t mean any harm and didn\u2019t know even that they did anything wrong. So sociometry partakes of the realm of, first, registering more sensitively that one gets impressions, second, admitting that they are vulnerable to being bothered, and third, bothered enough to ask what the behavior that was offensive was about. These acts show that the person cares, which proves (they think) that they\u2019re childishly dependent. <\/p>\n

\u201cI don\u2019t care what you think\u201d is still a widespread theme, sometimes expressed openly, sometimes to oneself.  It\u2019s mostly a lie. I may be able to generate enough confidence to barrel past that negative feedback, and this feels like strength, and what I need to do, but it goes too far, is generally untrue, that the perception of disapproval or weak approval or mere tolerance is not subtly bothersome. So the whole keeping up a facade rests on the automatic suppression of negativity. (Another word for automatic, unconscious suppression is \u201crepression\u201d\u2014the person doesn\u2019t even know she\u2019s suppressing, and therefore can\u2019t choose not to!)<\/p>\n

There\u2019s a whole category of interpersonal relations in which one allows oneself to be a little vulnerable and asks, \u201cExcuse me, what did you mean by that?\u201d What is referred to can be a turn of phrase, a tone of voice, a non-verbal communication. They expose themselves to further scorn if they ask. They turn the other cheek. What is weird is that a goodly part of the time the person who has offended\u2014get this!\u2014did not mean it! Often she had no idea that she was being hurtful! She may even be eager to make amends!<\/p>\n

Sadly, this is not based on a degree of hypersensitivity that is unusual. This degree of sensitivity, touchiness, is often the norm. Moreover, the person being hurt may not even notice that they are hurt. If they do notice the cues: Spontaneity dries up. Imagination shuts down. They lose their train of thought. They get quiet. They don\u2019t know what hit them. If they are asked, \u201cYou became quiet all of a sudden. What\u2019s wrong?\u201d Most of the time they\u2019ll answer, \u201cNothing,\u201d and mean it. The hurt and the transaction is repressed. It might not even be that bad of an offense.<\/p>\n

The unconscious wounding roughly correlates with how much the person became trusting, open, wanted something from the other\u2014love, validation, support, attention. What\u2019s at stake is getting in touch with this vulnerability, this wanting, the disappointment\u2014all of which in our culture tends to be associated with being a naive puppydog.<\/p>\n

Soldiers are trained to toughen up to the cues of physical discomfort; to be hard. They\u2019re trained to kill and to believe almost automatically that others want to kill them. If they\u2019re trained well, it takes a long time to lose this shift of basic interpersonal threshold. But ordinary people learn through the modeling of popular songs and television similarly to be tough, not to care, not to show it if you do, not to even know that you are vulnerable. This is seen as a strength but in fact it is maladaptive for the need for better communications in the 21st century.<\/p>\n

(This touches on innumerable examples of \u201covershoot\u201d in a changing culture, so that, for example, an emotional stance such as being stoical is considered strong in one era and \u201cup-tight\u201d in the following era.)<\/p>\n

Building an Infrastructure<\/p>\n

The challenge reminds me of the considerable effort it requires to convince the general population to wash their hands after using the toilet; to eat better or stop smoking; to follow the rules of safety in driving and other activities. It\u2019s not just determining what has to be done, it\u2019s also convincing people that they can\u2019t get away from dismissing this or that bit of hygiene. It may take years of consistent education.<\/p>\n

The very idea that we are more vulnerable than we pretend to be, and that untold conflict comes from not having the courage to check out perceived affronts\u2014this is new. People feel they are fair and what they observe is indeed as they take it to be. That misunderstandings occur is clear, but yet that doesn\u2019t apply to them! Others have illusions, make foolish mistakes, are vulnerable to the blandishments of demagogues. Oneself? Well, the illusion of coherence\u2014it makes sense to me!\u2014is as misleading as the illusion that the world seems flat so it must be flat.<\/p>\n

It may take generations to recognize that psychological illusions are as pervasive\u2014far more pervasive\u2014than the tricks of the magician or the books on optical illusions. Only fools are fooled, right? And you\u2019re not saying that I\u2019m a fool, are you? (I don\u2019t even need to look at you severely or raise my hand\u2014the question itself has a pugnacious edge!)<\/p>\n

Along with this gradual breakthrough, and perhaps working with it, is the spread of social and emotional intelligence, knowing ways to solve problems, correct mis-communications, understand oneself better, etc. (Actually, this arena is the most promising for the application of role training and the use of psychodramatic methods\u2014in spontaneity and relational skills training!) <\/p>\n

In summary, sociometry is only the tip of the iceberg. It is a method that is not known well, and may yet be capable of significant refinement. Some of these refinements may have already begun in the realm in social network analysis. But they turn again to the problem of what to do with the information, with the deep self-management skills, the social-depth-psychology that this method brings to the surface. <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

To begin with, let\u2019s clarify the terminology. Sociometry has been used in the field of psychodrama to describe, in a more narrow sense, the method, mainly involving making explicit those preferences that are generally not explicit. In a larger sense, the word talks about all the dynamics involved in this process, and I think it […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[4,11,26,32],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-1012","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-psychodrama","category-literacy","category-psychology","category-social-depth-psychology-sociometry"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1012"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1013,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1012\/revisions\/1013"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1012"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1012"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1012"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}