INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 2018, VOL. 10, NO. 3, 221–236 https://doi.org/10.1080/19409052.2018.1513625

Collective shadows on the sociodrama stage

Siyat Ulona and Robin McCoy Brooksb aDepartment of Psychiatry, Far Eastern Memorial Hospital, Taipei, Taiwan; bNew School for Analytical , Seattle, WA, USA

ABSTRACT KEYWORDS Jung was not interested in exploring within the Diversity sociodrama; many dimensions of concrete social that the authors claim unconscious; also contributes to how we are formed as individuals in addition J. L. Moreno; C.G. Jung; group to psychical phenomena. Our interactions with these concrete and dynamics psychical phenomena have lingering effects on both the individual and the intersecting social worlds to which we are inured across the planet and through . The authors argue that sociodrama facilitates the exploration of uncritically held ideological structures that are influenced by these interactions that can hinder our ability to bear responsibility for our transactions within any collective. The authors’ theoretical assumptions that support sociodramatic exploration within an academic conference environment are elaborated, including details about a diversity sociodramatic exploration the authors conducted during the International Association for Jungian Studies (IAJS) conference in Cape Town, South Africa in 2017. The article further includes a depiction and critique of this sociodramatic demonstration that occurred as an example of its applicability in conferences such as this one.

“They call for an inclusiveness that does not sacrifice particularity.” Angela Davis, 20181

Why sociodrama at an international Jungian studies conference? ’s theoretical understanding of social relied on a psychical unifying ground he called the collective unconscious that he situated beneath the workings of the . Jung’s epistemological basis for selfhood and almost exclusive fidelity to the objective had the unfortunate effect of disavowing the influences of the bio- logical body and its material environments including micro and macro processes such as , local and global social factors (including collective trauma), (including atti- tudes towards alterity), technology, politics, , world health conditions (plagues), climate change, and the lingering effects of catastrophe. Nor was Jung interested in exploring group dynamics or in investigating the many dimensions of concrete , as described above, that contribute to how we are formed as individuals amongst other persons (and things such as technology) and how these interactions have lingering effects not only on the individual, but the intersecting social worlds across the planet through time (Stiegler, 2018).

CONTACT Siyat Ulon [email protected] © 2018 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 222 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS

What is spectral (or in ) to the Jungian self has to do with material reality includ- ing the embodied experience in relation to other people, things, and processes. The con- stant and unrelenting tension between subjectivity and its own others (alterity) within the concrete world and its psychical processes (as was Jung’s insight) is what gives rise to the singular mind in the first place. From this perspective, we, the authors, hold the shared belief that each of us becomes the ‘bearer of collective responsibility’ through our capacity to think critically while amongst others (Rozmarin, 2011, p. 345). Thus, we decided to submit a proposal to the International Association for Jungian Studies (IAJS) conference in Cape Town, South Africa, a living epicenter of racial conflict and ‘transitional ’ to explore these themes socio-dramatically, because Jung’s corpus does not critically engage a broader perspective of collective reality.2 Sociodrama is a group action method created by J. L. Moreno (in 1921) that integrates mind and body-learning, and generally provides group participants with opportunities to communicate in new ways with each other within a creative process (Moreno, 1953/1978). Our clinical experience has demonstrated that sociodrama facilitates the exploration of uncritically held ideologi- cal belief structures that hinder our ability to bear responsibility for our transactions within any collective. This article has three parts. This first section is designed to give the newcomer to socio- drama a theoretical orientation to sociodrama that facilitates our use of it in this confer- ence. By using a sociodramatic approach, we anticipated exploring what we would reflect various sociological, cultural, and collective concerns amongst the group participants who were drawn to what we described in the program as a ‘Sociodramatic exploration of collective shadow or complexes.’ Sociodrama deals with aspects of the col- lective shadow (in Jungian parlance), and searches for of its traces while the indi- vidual’s private relationship to what emerges remains the background of the facilitator’s concern. The second section of this essay describes the sociodramatic process that ensued in the conference in such a manner that respects the confidentiality of those who were present. Therefore, we modify any details that may identify the attending participants. Our discus- sion contains a phenomenological depiction of the group process and does not focus on individual psychologies, which is the aim of . Sociodrama, in general, is not conducted as a therapy group because the sociodramatist is more interested in the group within a whole context. As analytical psychologists, we cannot help but consider the intrapsychic dimensions of what emerges on the sociodrama stage. What emerges in the moment within an individual or between individuals is approached as a symptom, signifier, or sign of a collective concern that the group may be warming up to even though this something else may have many diverse micro or macro expressions. In other words, as sociometrists, we observe the subterranean river in the group that is revealed through emerging individual concerns and their confluence into a collective flow. By using different psychodrama techniques, we can amplify what is collectively shared (or archetypally driven in Jungian parlance) in the experiences of participants. In short, the purpose of sociodrama is to shed more on the hidden subterranean river of the col- lective unconscious (or the Real in Lacanian parlance) within the whole group that is difficult to discover in traditional psychoanalysis. Holding the space for the of a central collective concern, knowing how to recognize it, amplifying it with various

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 223 , and working with the entire group is part of the skill of the sociometrist. The third section critiques the sociodramatic process that ensued at the conference by building on the contents of the previous sections.

Theoretical and philosophical considerations Facilitators’ orientations

We (Siyat and Robin) are certificated trainers, educators, and practitioners (TEP) of psycho- drama, sociometry, and group psychotherapy and have extensive experience leading a variety of professional groups in sociodramatic explorations. Siyat is a psychiatrist living and working in Taipei, Taiwan. He completed his graduate training in at UCLA and has extensive training in the theory and practice of . He is an indigenous person from the Truku tribe in Taiwan and as such continues to partici- pate in social movements supporting the human of indigenous and minority peoples in Taiwan. Siyat offers sociodrama and psychodrama training workshops to mental health professionals including social activist groups and conducts sociodrama explorations amongst indigenous people to create opportunities for discourse in disparate social situations. As an indigenous person growing up in Taiwan, a country where cultural diversity and continuous ethnic conflicts are prevalent, Siyat creatively uses his skills as a psychiatrist, an anthropologist, and as a psychoanalytically trained therapist and group leader by directing group explorations amidst conditions of social diversity and conflict as a means of enhancing mutual understanding. What drew Robin to become a Jungian Analyst (in part) was a yearning to understand and articulate the conditions from which an egalitarian-based community of care emerged amidst the horrific early years of the AIDS plague in Portland, Oregon, USA. There (and many other places across the globe), a whole dimension of humanity remained sus- pended in a kind of social void that was exiled from everyday social rhythms and practices because these social norms (including the various social systems supporting those norms) could not recognize or embrace the reality (horror, helplessness, fear) of what was happen- ing. We were in the midst of a plague. Against this background, Robin co-led many psy- chodrama residential retreats and therapy groups amidst the forming community of persons living and dying of AIDS that would eventually become Project Quest Integrative Health Center.3 These clinical, and more than clinical experiences, formidably shaped her and how she thinks, writes, and practices today. It was in this setting that the healing and destructive power of group dynamics amalgamated her understanding that who we become as persons is inextricably bound to the ethos of the groups to which we are inured. Our theoretical orientations overlap in our shared views regarding the use of the psy- chodramatic, sociometric, and sociodramatic methods to investigate the personal and col- lective realms of human experience. Again, the aim of these explorations has to do with facilitating a singular sense of collective responsibility through a growing capacity to think critically while we are amongst others. We are both influenced by the philosophical thought of post-phenomenology in our clinical practices and written works. Additionally, we have enjoyed many conversations discussing Jung’s corpus especially about what

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 224 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS remains relevant today from our own perspectives. Our theoretical affiliations in our use of Jung differ at in that Siyat more closely adheres to Jung’s original intent regarding the collective unconscious (objective psyche), even though he critiques its limitations. Robin has critiqued Jung’s foundationalist explanatory model of the psyche and the restrictive epistemological assumptions from which he grounds his theory of psychic reality (Brooks, 2011). Further, we come from different and do not share the same gender, race, or age demographic. Siyat is an anthropologist and a psychiatrist. Robin is a Jungian Analyst. spiritually influences Siyat. Robin is a pagan. If we were bound by iden- tity politics alone, we might not have formed a collegial relationship founded in deep mutual respect in today’s fractured world. Writing this essay required that we incorporate our different points of view alongside of our shared sensibilities. Therefore, the reader will notice the absence of a seamless depiction of thought in areas of this essay as we attempt to represent what is dissimilar side by side.

Description of sociodrama Sociodrama reconceptualizes a way of learning about the boundaries between individuals and the social worlds we live in. It creates a space to observe how the individual can be interwoven with others. Working with a collective requires us to reconsider the basic assumptions surrounding our understanding of subjectivity and objectivity that are foun- dational to analytical psychology. Jung’s entire project was founded on a core belief that self-relatedness was fundamental to the health of the person and the entire species. His model of the psyche depicted an isolated disembodied mind in that the individual per- sonal psyche was separate from others and was itself private or unknown to others. Never- theless, Jung developed the of the objective psyche that challenged Freud’s theory of the unconscious and extended our understanding of the personal psyche to the collective.4 Jung’s conception viewed a part of the personal psyche as shared in the phenomenon he named the collective unconscious, a part that was not contained within an isolated mind alone.5 As such, Jung opened the critical question about the dis- ruption between the personal and the collective unconsciousness. In Jung’s formulation, the individual self emerged from the objective psyche via its engagement with archetypes, implying continuity between the individual and collective psyche. Today, Jung’s theoreti- cal insight provides us an entrance to contemporary research that can view both an indi- vidual and collective psyche to which we are all inextricably bound, yet exist as distinct . However, we still need to develop different theoretical and clinical methods that extend Jung’s nascent insight for a better understanding of the ways in which we are socially constructed as beings amidst the various social groups to which we are embedded including our material environments. It would be easier to describe the continuity of the personal and collective unconscious by introducing Sherman M. Stanage’s concept of cojectivity (1973). Cojectivity is a phenomenon that is created for overcoming the barrier of subjectivity and objectivity. If we consider subjectivity to be an amalgam of personal and unconscious- ness and consider objectivity as the collective, then cojectivity represents the synthesis of both phenomena. Thus, the of cojectivity has certain resonances with Jungian’s theory of the self. In our view, both subjectivities and objectivities, no conscious and unconscious, are the self’s nutrition and need to be digested for personal growth.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 225

This integration can be processed during the individual’s personal analysis and can occur within group psychotherapy or individual analysis. But how do we decipher the mutual or multiple projections that are already present in the real world outside of individual or group analysis?6 Jung emphasized the importance of using the dynamic interaction between the trans- ference and countertransference as a means of reaching enigmatic aspects of the analy- sand’s psyche. However, being (subject, self, personhood) in the real world is interwoven with others and cannot be fully explored from just a pair of mutual projections within the analytic dyad. This is a critical limitation in a more traditional psychoanalysis (of any ). If our theories of mind only consider the psychical import of incoming archetypal material (originating from the collective unconscious) as the nexus of individua- tion, then the analyst’s theoretical frame will not recognize other crucial collective influ- ences that mediate personhood including our social, cultural, biological, environmental, political, technological, and economic to which we are inextricably bound histori- cally and in everyday life. From this perspective, aspects of what remains in shadow (not assimilated, unconscious, in excess) from real world collective wounds (including our his- tories) can be revealed in a sociodramatic exploration.7 Sociodrama investigates and collective that shape these relations (Moreno, 1953/78, p. 87).8 In the sociodrama enactment, each individual plays a different role that emerges from the personal experiences of everyday life. The roles we are socially learned and are dominated by different cultural scenarios in and out of our awareness. The roles may spring forth in an unrehearsed manner on the sociodramatic stage as in real life. How we are different or similar to others within the roles we play may be influenced by the collective unconscious, or what is estranged from our everyday awareness.9 How we are different manifests in the living strategies (including what we do and how we think, or don’t think about things) we acquire from the particular surround- ing environments (including macro processes and local-social factors) we live in. Diverse living strategies may be considered strange, perverse, or even evil to an uninformed out- sider even if these strategies are meaningful within specific cultural contexts. Sociodrama provides a space that allows for the possibility of what is spectral in a group to emerge. The true subject of a sociodrama is the group (Moreno, 1953/78, p. 87). There- fore, the sociodramatist’s focus shifts from exclusively following what appears to be emer- ging from an individual’s complexes (in Jungian parlance), or psychology, to an exploration of what is in excess or out of awareness (spectral) in a particular group. By crea- tively using certain action techniques, the sociodramatist amplifies what is both singular and universal within certain kinds of conflicts that inevitably arise across cultures.10 In other words, the sociodramatic form allows group participants to observe and reflect on what is unique within individual experience even though certain human themes are shared. It is difficult to infer what happens on the sociodrama stage and to know how this may be relevant to the larger world. Nevertheless, sociodrama explorations do provide opportunities for exposing and revealing how different we may be from each other within certain universalizing themes, as was the case in our sociodramatic experi- ence that we conducted in Cape Town where the theme of alterity (otherness) was highlighted. Our hidden about ourselves in relation to each other are not usually accessible unless we are suddenly challenged or even shocked by a moment of singular that

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 226 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS occurs through an encounter with another and others that reveals our own ignorance. An example of this kind of self-revealing rupture can be found in Jung’s depiction of Zarathus- tra’s encounter with the ‘ugliest man’ taken from Nietzsche’s text Zarathustra (Jung, 1998; Nietzsche, 2012, pp. 311–312). In this case, Jung contended that the protagonist, Zarathus- tra, could ‘not take the step towards the ugliest man’ (our neighbor) who is the ‘real man,’ or the being who has the most to teach me about my own shadow (Jung, 1927/1970 paras. 268–271). To take this step, according to Jung, one had to break out of unconscious and deadening social and psychological ideological restraints by turning towards one’s own inferiority or what one loathes most about oneself that has been projected onto our neigh- bor, our neighborhood, or the larger world stage (Jung, 1927/1970, para. 265; Jung, 1998, p. 164). The practice of sociodrama exposes us to our critically unheld narratives about our- selves that have been enabled by cultural norms, and are out of our awareness. Socio- drama exposes us to our opacities that contribute to the ‘ with the herd’ as a ‘soulless herd animal’ that Jung discusses at some length in the Zarathustra seminars (Jung, 1998, pp. 247–253). At the same time, following the theoretical sensibility of Judith Butler (2005), sociodrama (as we are using it) does not encourage a co-ownership of another person’s singular experience (over-identification) for the sake of unwarranted closure where we may defensively appropriate another person’s story.11 Nor does socio- drama, in our practice, totalize the individual’s personal experience into a collective ‘we.’ Therefore, even though we may share similarities as individuals, there remains the space for what is irreducible between us. This stance is crucial, especially in the face of col- lective trauma. Anthropologist Dominique LaCapra makes a strong for the of what he refers to ‘empathic unsettlement,’ or the necessary barrier to closure in dis- course (in our case sociodramatic discourse) in the face of other people’s pain (LaCapra, 2001, pp. 40–42). Empathic unsettlement is a capacity to bear what is unbearable without rushing towards defensive harmonizing and incongruous spiritual uplifting accounts from which one might derive reassurance (such as ‘we are one’ narratives) when there is no reassurance to be had.

Review of a sociodrama process What follows is a somewhat fictionalized phenomenological description of a group process that approximates what occurred during our actual group session. The purpose of this deception has to do with protecting the confidentiality of those who participated in the sociodrama. To describe this process, we follow a three-phase format: 1.) Warm-up Phase from which a theme emerges, 2.) Action Phase: Enactment from which the group explored the emerging themes through a series of role-played, or enacted, scenes that may reveal multiple dimensions of reality associated with the themes that have arisen, and 3.) Closure of Action and Sharing Phase where participants disclose further and personal experiences that are associated with emerging themes explored.

Warm-up phase

The co-facilitators conducted a warm up process that had several purposes. We educated the group about sociodrama and how it can be used as well as highlighting the difference

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 227 between sociodrama and psychodrama. Intuitively, Siyat (who speaks three languages fluently) decided at the onset that he would primarily play an auxiliary director role and augment Robin’s front line facilitation. He thought that the variety of spoken English dia- lects present in the group might impair his close following of the subtleties of language conveyed by group members. He did not express this directly to Robin as this kind of non-verbal mutuality is typical in co-facilitation. Up-front leadership is often wordlessly passed back and forth between facilitators (when co-leadership is cohesive). There were 12 attending participants and two facilitators. The room size was about 400 square feet. It contained several chairs lined up in formal classroom- rows. The session length was two hours. We noted that many participants were unfamiliar with sociodrama and felt anxious about the demonstration. This was conveyed verbally and non-verbally before the session began and afterwards. Different from being an audience member in a lecture, all group members might play roles in the sociodrama group. We began creating an environment that incrementally conveyed that this room would become a ‘safe space’ that encourages self- amongst others, promotes a of generosity, and builds group cohesion.12 To do so, we were attentive to participant concerns from the onset. Other safety and cohesion-promoting features included a confidentiality agreement, the proviso that there is no wrong or right way (within ) to experiment with one’s expression, and a clear overview of our purpose and role as facilitators. We taught through modeling and action along the way. Instead of giving a didactic presentation about what an action method was, we taught a method as we used it. When confrontation wavered dangerously into destructiveness, we intervened (using action methods), but this does not usually occur (if it does) until the action phase.13 We began by welcoming everybody as they entered the room. Once we officially started, we asked the group to help us create an empty working space (stage) in the center of the room that was surrounded by a large circle of chairs. This required that each of us move our chairs in some sort of collaborative way as physical capacities allowed. We welcomed stragglers as they came in, and let them know what we were doing so that they could easily join in. Once this was done, we introduced ourselves by name and gave brief about our professional and personal lives that led us to attend this conference. We asked group members to do the same in a typical circle format, instructing each person to gently tap the person to their right when they were done. We then moved into action. ‘Who are we as a group?’ Robin asked. ‘Let’s find out.’ We determined who had group experience, psychodrama experience, and sociodrama experience by asking group members to place themselves in proximity to a chair we placed the middle of the room. Closeness to the chair signified lots of group experience while placement further away from the chair signified little or no group experience. This technique is referred to as a sociogram. Individuals then spoke about what their group experience had been. Many had general group experience, some taught groups, others were or had been students in groups, some led or had led groups, and only one participant had actual, although limited, psychodrama experience. No one present had ever attended a sociodrama group except for the facilitators. Even so, this particular group of people appeared to be psychologically sophisticated in their ability to articulate experience, their exposure to psychological material, and their professional training (for the most part) as was born further when the session unfolded. There were only two individuals who were not in the mental health field and one participant who was entirely new to

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 228 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS psychological explorations of any kind: clinical or academic. As group leaders, we kept a keen on eye on the least experienced person as this individual may be the most isolated or in need of assistance participating in psychological processes. Our working hypothesis was that those with group or psychological experience might more adeptly cope with this novel experience. Because the group had little experience with group action methods, we took more time with the warm-up. We taught along the way thereby pacing the groups’ warm-up process to establish a basic sense of cohesion before we moved to a more chal- lenging enactment phase of the sociodrama. We gave a brief overview of what sociodrama is. We expressed that we were not the group’s therapists even though personal psychological material may likely be revealed. We stated that we were more interested in the group process and what might be revealed that is useful to the whole. We explained that often these explorations are extremely stressful in that each of us may be exposed to affect (our own or others) that is baffling, disorienting, or enigmatic. The sociodramatic exploration would allow us to explore how these excesses might be shared thematically.14 We introduced the idea of working in action and using our words and bodies to convey what our experience was as we fol- lowed a collective process. Siyat, for example, spontaneously pulled a chair into the center of the room and stood on it to demonstrate the limitless possibilities for expressing mood or intent in action. ‘Show us … don’t (just) tell us,’ was our motto. Immediately, a participant expressed concern about ‘what the rules’ were in a tone that appeared to challenge the leadership’s structure and possibly its intent. This participant informed us that they led groups professionally and wanted to know how this group process would be conducted. The request was conveyed with urgency, and was framed as a demand. It felt as if a palpable wave of tension passed through the group in antici- pation of our response. This was the first shot across the bow. A bowshot usually conveys a serious warning or need of some sort. This need was viewed by us through the lens of a shared basic assumption. That is, we assumed that each individual carries an important role in a social grouping and speaks a truth about the group, not just about themselves, from that position. Thus, we respectfully spoke to a gap in the frame. Doing so illustrated that we valued each person’s participation in the sociodramatic process. Attending to the participant’s initial request contributed to building an environ- ment of relative safety (‘what you say or need matters’) so that authentic exploration could ensue. The situation enabled us to practice another basic assumption of sociodrama, which is to follow the messiness of the group process and its enigmatic unfolding by suspending the need for certainty. Thus, Robin thanked the participant for the request and responded to it directly. She roughly stated:

At any time, anyone can opt out of certain kinds of participation, and we encourage talking about these decisions out loud to the group. For example, say: I don’t want to participate in this exercise. However, if you make a statement such as this, please stay in the room to ride out the tensions, if possible, so we can work through the statement as a group. The only exception to leaving the room is for bathroom breaks. There are two of us here to facilitate, so if you need our help, let us know. Speak out loud to what you are feeling and thinking. Further, we discussed the parameters of confidentiality and gathered group . The participant who expressed concerns about the frame seemed somewhat assuaged by these parameters, and had no further questions nor did anyone else. Thus, we assumed

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 229 that any unexpressed concerns about the sociodramatic frame, or other concerns, would come out later and would be addressed then. It was time to gather more information about who we were as a group. We asked each person to identify where in the world each had come from to attend this international con- ference. Then, we asked each person to physically place themselves somewhere in the room using the whole space as a geographic stage. Group members co-created a dynamic world map. This enterprise required cooperation as individuals creatively popu- lated an imagined world map by placing themselves beside each other, or not, while con- sidering the proximity of continents, oceans, countries, and provinces. Following their placement on the virtual planet, we asked each person to state their name again, identify where they had placed themselves, comment if this place was their homeland, or anything else that came to mind. We encouraged crosstalk. Individuals spontaneously engaged each other across territorial lines by introducing themselves. The volume was animated and enlivening. Within these conversations were disturbed references about the corrup- tion of the American President and that of African governments, of rural poverty amongst indigenous peoples, of drought in the southern African continent, and of racial tensions in Cape Town, the country of South Africa, and abroad. There were a few disparaging remarks from non-American participants about the U. S. President dominating the present conversation and in conversations within the general conference. Of notice was the number of South African participants attending this sociodramatic exploration with a predominant number of them living in Cape Town. A mini-world congress was forming that included representatives from many countries representing different kinds of life experience. The group contained a diverse cultural and professional presence that included analysts, academics, and brand-new students of Jungian Psychology. After a while, the cross-conversation lulled. There was a quiet moment. Participants began to move from their mapped positions back to their chairs around the circle. Sud- denly, a participant from the Americas stood up emphatically from his chair and addressed the whole group by stating: ‘Who are you? What are you doing here?’

Action phase: enactment

The action phase is defined by the emergence of a group-mobilized central theme that holds singular and universal elements about what the group may be carrying that is estranged from discourse. What is estranged from collective and how this occurs is impossible to formulate into a single theme because of the many voices and singular stories that carry it. What can emerge during a sociodrama, however, are expressions of experience that can begin to translate particularity into a form of univers- ality. This universality levels distinctions between others by recognizing what is common amongst us as people, but at the same time does not disallow what remains irreparably separate (M. Ruti, October 5, 2013).15 The participant’s questions, ‘Who you are and what are you (really) doing here,’ became an invitation to shed presentations.16 The questions can be received by those in the group in different ways, so we waited without comment. A brief silence followed. The group therapist (A1) who first challenged the leadership in the beginning of the session responded first. The response was a concrete interpretation of the question and was answered as what I do (social ) versus who I am (singular self-revelation).17 What

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 230 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS

A1 said appeared to annoy another participant (A2). A2 challenged A1. A2’s challenge was heated and provocative, roughly claiming that A1 demonstrated a need to compete with the leadership for control of the group and was continuing to do so. A1 appeared momen- tarily shaken, but quickly responded with energetic intensity by logically countering A2’s accusations that were, according to A1, misinformed. We allowed the exchange to volley back and forth without interruption as it escalated. What emerged was a rapid-fire encounter between two individual personalities. This became an opportunity to stress the function of sociodrama versus a therapy group and move what was happening into the group realm. In a sociodrama, we view enact- ments between individuals as representing issues involving societal roles in relation to others. We would not focus on resolving the psychological conflict of the dyad as compel- ling as the psychological conflict may be. The tension could have easily transformed the focus to an unauthorized therapy session. Instead, our concern as sociodramatists was to follow the present action that may lead to a central concern for the whole group. Robin stated this focus many times in varied ways throughout the action phase to encou- rage group participation, because the tension between the co-protagonists was powerful and compelling. We needed to slow down the encounter between A1 and A2 so that what was happening between two individuals could become a vehicle of exploration for the larger group. Robin interrupted the dialogue. ‘We need to put this encounter into action for the whole group,’ she stated. She instructed everybody to stand up and asked A1 and A2 to position themselves somewhere in the room and face each other at a distance that felt congruous. Then, Robin summarized their positions something like this:

A2, you are feeling dominated by the way A1 engages with the leadership and the group. You feel they take up a lot of space. A1, you are feeling persecuted by A2’s accusations about your involvement here, about the misinformation expressed about your hometown, and these biases extended to you. Robin and Siyat moved around the room alternating who stood by whom. We moved with the action of the group and Siyat scanned what was happening on the periphery as Robin focused on the epicenter. Co-leadership is crucial in such cases, because even in a smaller sociodramatic group, as this one was, one leader cannot adequately manage or attend to various dynamics that may surface in a group process. To further encourage total group involvement, Robin stated at various times something like this:

Do you have an affinity for either one of these positions no matter how attractive or repugnant it is to you? Place yourself by the person who is speaking to something that is familiar to you. As that changes, move away from the speaker, or move to the other speaker if your affinity changes. This is not a popularity contest. We are looking at the various roles we play in the world, not to align with these particular individuals. Our roles are fluid. Again, content of the dialogue between A1 and A2 is not as crucial as is the way group members responded to what was being said. As clusters formed and reformed around the polarity sites, Robin would freeze the action and emphatically encourage individuals to speak about their placement as the action moved. ‘Make “I” statements,’ she encour- aged. ‘Speak from your position out loud and to each other in your cluster,’ or, ‘Speak from your position to the other position,’ and so on. Several participants placed them- selves outside of or between the polarities and were asked to speak from these positions. Others spontaneously followed. This kind of fluid role reversal of the auxiliaries (group

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 231 members not directly in the A1–A2 dyad) is designed to develop empathy, amplify what is happening, promote self- reflection, physicalize one’s thoughts, vocalize nonverbal com- munications, provide support, facilitate insight into the situation, give perspective, and enable the enactors to see themselves through their fellow group member’s eyes (Stern- berg & Garcia, 1989, pp. 55–61). The concerns that were expressed by group members generated from the various pos- itions that circumambulated around the heated dialogue between A1 and A2 included: the feeling of being overpowered; powerlessness; feeling unimportant to others; being misunderstood; being misjudged; feeling alone, isolated, or excluded; and feeling inadequate in the hands of insufficient authority. At the time, A1 and A2 did not appear to be curious about the other person’s position or self-involvement in the conflict that arose between them. They appeared entrenched in defending their own points of view, which were based on their about social identity assumptions, that is

who I think you are via how I interpret our social roles (male, female, oppressive, oppressed, conservative, liberal, ethnicity, educational gravitas, , socio-economic class and, further, the psychological filters that impair my seeing who you are). They did not appear to be interested in the galvanizing questions offered by the participant that launched their dispute: “Who are you and why are you here?” Or, who are you beyond your apparent social roles and why are you here? Social roles are informed by the critically held and unheld biases contained in all social relations through time including our unknown psychical and concrete history (recalling Laplanche’s enigmatic signifier, Levinas’s ethical relation, and Jung’s ugliest man). These spec- tral biases often digress into entrenched polarities (and the power dynamics typically played out on all levels of social engagement including identity politics) that foreclose the singularity of the other person or persons who are not like me, or do not share my own identity. The ethical relation, returning to the philosophical perspective of Levinas, has to do with engaging each other from the space of discourse, or that pre-verbal raw sensorial experience (who I am) that has taken me to my knees in the face of the abject difference. Having the courage or stamina to stay psychologically engaged with you (in the who I am exposed to in the face of your penetrating enigma) as I struggle to think about my own shame or fury or bafflement is an aspect of the ethical relation. From this perspective, we can view the encounter between A1 and A2 as having occurred within the initial phases of the ethical relation signified in the inarticulable rawness that is evoked through a sudden sensorial impingement. In other words, A1 and A2 remained suspended in a mutual psycho-activated bubble and had not yet moved to a place of expressed curi- osity or thought about who the other person is and how their own psychological barriers might be impairing their ability to receive each other. We were experiencing the effects of a psychological stalemate between two individuals entrenched in each other’s alterity. They could not (at this moment in time) break out of their singular and deadening social and psychological ideological restraints aggravated by the other’s presence. This stalemate dynamic is prevalent intra-psychically and whose unconscious effects extend to our relational world including its collective manifestations across the globe. However, the group members were able to dynamically express (as summarized above) the raw feeling of ‘who I am’ from their various singular positions that emerged in the action around the polarizing forces of the co-protagonists.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 232 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS

We were running out of time and had to move from action to closure even though the action was incomplete. It is our belief that we were exploring difficult and complex per- sonal, cultural, and political dynamics that have no quick resolutions, if any. We had to move to the sharing phase where further reflection could occur.

Closure of action phase: sharing

Closure is a crucial part of any sociodrama in that it allows for the participants to reflect out loud on their own experiences as they integrate what happened throughout the socio- drama. The process also reintegrates those who played more dynamic roles into the group, because they were more personally exposed. Insights into one’s own circumstances and new possibilities may also be shared. Additionally, others may be stimulated in the formulation of their own experiences and thoughts when hearing the sharing of other group members. Because of the confidential of sociodrama, we cannot reveal the contents of the stories except in the most general terms. There were stories of individ- uals participating in unconscious oppression towards another and the feelings of shame that ensued; of having one’s lifework disregarded in the workplace, yet persevering and now being on the precipice of success; of feeling spiritually isolated within one’shome- land; of feeling emotionally shut down in the conference; and of feeling helpless without the tools to address injustices that occurred in a polarized rural community. Others asked us for resources so that they could practice these methods elsewhere. Several participants stated that this experience, albeit painful at times, was crucial in that it allowed for the experiential integration of other material being presented in the conference.

Critique and closing remarks Sociodrama is most effective with a larger number of participants than the 14 group members who participated in our group at the conference, especially when it is being demonstrated as a new method. Sociodrama can be directed with hundreds of people and the effects on the group can be even more dynamic as a larger number of participants take on multiple roles. In our case, there was plenty of dynamism, but the smaller size made it more difficult for the directors to keep the group focused on its dynamics that touched all of us versus a psychological conflict between two individuals. Secondly, with a larger census, the opportunity or necessity of using a broader range of action tech- niques would have provided a better demonstration of what is possible with the sociodra- matic method. Thirdly, the themes a larger group carries become more accessible as more experienced or less inhibited participants co-facilitate the warm up process. Fourth, although we were grateful for the generous allotment of a two-hour work frame, we would have benefited with an additional hour so more extensive exploration in all three phases could have more fully occurred. The limitations of our leadership had to do with choice points made along the way. Robin made the executive decision to not role reverse A1 with A2, a classic maneuver in such an encounter, because we were running out of time. She wanted to focus on how the other participants were utilizing the positions, and de-emphasize the psychology of the two individuals. In retrospect, a role-reversal or several would have been a dynamic

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 233 device and probably would have amplified or deepened the stalemate situation with an unknown outcome. We could have extended the warm-up even further using more action teaching techniques so that individuals unfamiliar to action methods would have more options for expressive possibilities. Many of the participants had not read our intro- duction for the workshop, and we did not spend enough time describing our purpose to compensate for this. A more detailed description of sociodrama illustrated with action techniques to amplify the didactics could have created a clearer frame and would have been appropriate for the attendees who attended this conference and were interested in the theory as well as the practice of sociodrama. Most psychoanalytic conferences, along with other disciplines, do not include enough space for the integration of the information that is being conveyed in lecture-style aca- demic formats. Single presenters typically read their papers to rows of chairs in front of them with very little time to develop a reasonable argument. There is less time allotted for panel-presentations. Furthermore, time allowed at the end of the lecture, panel, or indi- vidual format can be insufficient when structured in a question and answer (Q and A) style. Q and A style assumes that the person reading the paper is an expert or the ‘one who knows’ (top-down conveyance of information) in contrast to a more egalitarian discourse model that encourages what Hannah Arendt refers to as a ‘polis’ conducted in circle of indi- viduals who think together about what is presented before them.18 The classroom seating amplifies the top-down structure as does the learned panel on the stage seated in front of a table, which functions as a barrier, and is often occupied by white males, but not exclusively so (Mandavilli, 2016). The material now emerging in various ‘equity’ studies challenges these uncritically thought systems of conveying knowledge that by their very nature can oppress those who are not on the panel of influence. These traditional spaces of influence tend to recycle the thoughts of those who carry privilege according to societal norms, thereby controlling those narratives about what is real (truth claims) and disregard particularity.19 Sociodramatic explorations can provide a different kind of space that allows for what is spec- tral to these ideological biases to emerge, be experienced, metabolized, and collectively acknowledged. As has been discussed, the ‘What I am’ (or my recognized identity role) is favored in traditional conference formats over a practice that recognizes or also values ‘Who I am’ (associated with self-formation). Making structural room for a broader range of participation in any way, but particularly in the discussion of after papers are presented, will not only be respectful to the presenters, but also to those who are listening.

Notes 1. Eminent civil rights activist and academic Angela Davis made this remark in the forward of the text titled: when they call you a terrorist a black lives matter memoir (2018). The forward is an extraordinary commentary on the status of racial in the United States today reflecting Davis’s lifelong experience that began in the civil rights movement in the 60’s. 2. See Alex Labon Hinton’s (Ed.), Transitional Justice Global Mechanisms and Local Realities after Genocide and Mass Violence, (2010) for a compelling collection of essays that focus on the con- volutions inherent in the real world of local justice. This frame of the concept of ‘transitional justice’ involves a process of peoples recognizing and reconciling past collective wrongs from an anthropological perspective. 3. Project Quest was co-founded by medical psychologist Lusijah Marx and co-visionary Lucas Harris in 1989 having established its 501c3 non-profit status and remains a thriving clinic today. Lucas Harris died in 1996 only months after HAART (highly active antiretroviral

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 234 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS

therapy) became available that would rapidly curtail the death rate from AIDS in developed countries. See Brooks (2018) for further discussion on the psychological/philosophical dynamics behind the emergence of this center. 4. While Freud mostly concentrated on the effects of the unconscious on individual behavior, he did extend the application of his thought to groups and society. In (1912/1999), he published Totem and where he analyzed anthropological material through a psychoanalytic lens. Most notably, Freud published Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego (1921/1990) where he attempted to formulate what comprised a group, how the mental life of the individual was influenced by the many and what the nature of this change was. Later, Melanie Klein would reformulate and extend these in their relationship to the mother/infant dyad (pro- jective identification) and Wilfred Bion (who entered a training analysis with Klein) would extend basic object relations theory into an extensive theory of group and organizational behavior in his research as a member of the Tavistock Institute of Human Relations in London (1961/2004). See Robert De Board’s(1978/2014) informative overview of these Freu- dian thinkers (and others) that influences the thinking of group dynamics today. 5. We are underscoring the significance of Jung’s historical insight that elaborated a socially con- structed self, albeit limited to an almost exclusive fidelity to the objective psyche. 6. It is well beyond the scope of this paper to define what we mean by group analysis. For the purposes of this project, however we both hold that the of psychoanalysis (what- ever tradition one follows) can be applied to group practice. 7. We emphasize the word ‘aspects’ here because just as in a psychoanalytical treatment, what is out of awareness or unconscious amidst a collective is also revealed in traces and left to the individual or individuals in the group to interpret. Unlike Jung, who believed he alone had the personal authority to interpret the archetypal presences that emerged in etc., we are inclined to follow what emerges in a sociodramatic process and note it phenomenologically, more as Jung did in his treatment of the (Jung, 1935, para. 190, para. 174; Brooks, 2013, pp. 88–89). 8. Sociodrama is a that emerged from the theory and practice of its founder, Jacob L. Moreno, a Romanian-American psychiatrist and sociologist. Moreno (1889–1974) is generally considered to have coined the term ‘group therapy’ and developed the methodologies known today as psychodrama, sociometry, and group psychotherapy. There are international societies for psychodrama and group therapy that strictly credential its practice around the world. 9. We are using the term ‘collective unconscious’ liberally here and not adhering to Jung’s epis- temological that shaped his . Instead, we are referring to what is estranged from knowledge from the wider contexts of a patient’s and our own lives within these broader social contexts. 10. It is beyond the scope of this paper to describe the various kinds of action techniques that a psychodramatist has in one’s back pocket. We direct the interested reader to a few classic texts on the subject: Sternberg and Garcia (1989), Blatner (2000), Kellermann (2007). 11. Butler insists: ‘Your story is never my story’ (2005 , pp. 39–40). 12. Is it realistic to think we can create a safe and cohesive environment in the first place in a two- hour span with people who don’t know each other in a professional conference where persona is often ? Even the terms may appear cliché or promote a false promise of soli- darity in a post-modern age that has shown us that experience is at best provisional and fleeting. With this proviso, the challenge of writing this paper is to not rigidly theoretically sys- tematize the kinds of experiences that may occur in a sociodramatic exploration. Instead, we attempt to describe, from our experiences in the field, certain general conditions that appear to contribute to the feeling of safety (somebody else is keeping me in mind) and enough cohesion (the feeling that I am at this moment in time a part of something outside of myself) so that participants want to self-disclose with each other. 13. There are times when facilitators need to teach on their feet about the difference between what is assertive versus what is destructive, or limit or contain an excessive display of emotive- ness that may distract or detract from the direction of the larger group process. We also do not want to encourage over-self disclosure where the participants might feel ashamed afterwards

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF JUNGIAN STUDIES 235

because there was not adequate time to integrate what was happening. See Kellermann (2007) for a rich discussion about the special needs that tend to be inherent when working with of sociodrama explorations of varying demographics and sizes. 14. Often the structural frame of intellectual conferences does not save enough space for conver- sation amongst participants about the ideas conveyed in a lecture in the first place or much less for real discourse that includes the expression of experience. Discourse, as the pre-cursor to the ethical relation is being referred to here from a Levinasian lens. From this view, what is un-thought or the pre-cognitive affective disposition towards another or others (or a text) is the nexus of subjectivity (or self in Jungian parlance) and to thought and the ‘situation of dis- course’ [to saying] (Levinas, 1996, p. 9). Discourse from this frame is embodied first and then thought. Heidegger referred the pre-theoretical level of transcendental experience between oneself and others as an original enigmatic ground of being through which being was consti- tuted through crises (Heidegger, 2010, pp. 58–59). In his early secular engagement with the works of the apostle Paul, Heidegger would temporalize Kant’s transcendental structures of knowledge by extending authentic knowledge of the individual into the communal milieu (Heidegger, 2010, pp. 70–73; Brooks, 2018). 15. This notion was originally rearticulated and cited from a lecture delivered by Lacanian aca- demic Mari Rutti in the Psychology & the Other conference titled: ‘The Other as Face in post- Levinasian and post-Lacanian ,’ October 5, 2013, in Cambridge, MA. 16. These primal questions, ‘Who are you and what do you want (of me)?’ are reminiscent of Lacan’s(1981) elucidation of the infant’s first traumatic encounter with the (m) other that is enigmatically lodged at the core of human experience and remains in the background of life like a spectral presence. Jean Laplanche’s extension of this thought can be found in later works (1999), with an excellent secondary text elucidation found in Ladson Hinton’s accessible article (2009). With this thought in mind, we can imagine how the psychodynamic realities of individuals are played out throughout our lifetimes as they reverberate within our social worlds. 17. In situations where various forms of oppression remain endemic, the singular ‘who I am’ can be reduced to ‘what I am’ where a social identity is forged by the compliance of the individual and the public forces at play that reduces one into a thing. We are all exposed to these phenomena at all times. Self-revelation in oppressive environments is dangerous and unusual. The participant responded from the register of social identity. See Diane Perpich’s engaging text on The Ethics of Emmanuel Levinas (2008) for a full discussion of the topic of normativity in relation to identity politics. 18. Arendt borrowed the ancient Greek idea of polis and used it metaphorically throughout her political/philosophical works. In her usage of the term, she was not only referring to the (Greek) city/state of political power but also a more general usage that described a public space or ‘realm of action and speech’ that either has already occurred in the history of the world or to its possibilities. A polis can be established amongst a community of free and equal citizens with the purpose of sharing words and deeds thoughtfully (Arendt, 1958, pp. 198–199). 19. For example, see this very relevant link to an equity blogging site titled ‘Fakequity’ centered in Seattle WA: https://fakequity.com/author/fakequity/

Disclosure statement No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.

Notes on contributors Siyat Ulon, (Taiwan), MD, MA, TEP is in private practice in Taipei and teaches psychodrama to medical staff in Far Eastern Memorial Hospital and Formosa Institute of Psychodrama and . Robin McCoy Brooks, (USA), MA, TEP, Jungian Psychoanalyst is in private practice in Seattle, WA. She is a founding member of the New School for Analytical Psychology and a member of the Inter- Regional Society of Jungian Analysts.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access 236 S.ULONANDR.M.BROOKS

References Arendt, H. (1958). The human condition. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. Bion, W. R. (1961/2004). Experiences in groups and other papers. New York, NY: Routledge. Blatner, A. (2000). Foundations of psychodrama history, theory, and practice (4th ed.). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Company. Brooks, R. M. (2011). Un-thought out metaphysics in analytical psychology: A critique of jung’s epis- temological basis for psychic reality. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 56, 492–513. Brooks, R. M. (2013). The ethical dimensions of life and analytic work through a levinasian lens. International Journal of Jungian Studies, 5(1), 81–99. Brooks, R. M. (2018). Self as political possibility: Subversive neighbor and transcendental agency amidst collective blindness. International Journal of Jungian Studies, 10(1), 48–75. Butler, J. (2005). Giving an account of oneself. New York, NY: Fordham University Press. Davis, A. (2018). Forward. P. Khan-Cullors & a. bandele (Eds.), when they call you a terrorist: A black lives matter memoir. Forward. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press. De Board, R. (1978/2014). The psychoanalysis of organizations: A psychoanalytic approach to behavior in groups and organizations. New York, NY: Routledge. Freud, S. (1912/1999). . London: Routledge. Freud, S. (1921/1990). Group psychology and the analysis of the ego. (J. Strachey, Trans.). New York, NY: W. W. Norton & Company. Heidegger, M. (2010). The phenomenology of religious life. (M. Fritsch & J. A. Ferencei, Trans.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Hinton, A. H., (Ed.), (2010). Transitional justice: Global mechanisms and local realities after genocide and mass violence. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Hinton, L. (2009). The enigmatic signifier and the decentered subject. Journal of Analytical Psychology, 54, 637–657. Jung, C. G. (1927/1970). Women in Europe. The collected works (Vol. 10, 113–133). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Jung, C. G. (1935). The tavistock lectures on the theory and practice of analytical psychology. The col- lected works (Vol. 18, 5–182). London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Jung, C. G. (1998). Nietzsche’s Zarathustra: Notes of the seminar given in 1934–1937: Vol.1. J. Jarrett (Ed.), London: Routledge. Kellermann, P. F. (2007). Sociodrama and collective trauma. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. Lacan, J. (1981). The four fundamental concepts of analysis. New York, NY: W. W. Norton. LaCapra, D. (2001). Writing history, writing trauma. London: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Laplanche, J. (1999). Essays on otherness. New York, NY: Routledge. Levinas, E. (1996). Basic philosophical writings. A. Peperzak, S, Critchley & R. Bernasconi, (Eds.). Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press. Mandavilli, A. (2016). Female scientists turn to data to fight lack of representation on panels. The New York Times. Retrieved from https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/06/science/gender-bias- scientific-conferences.html/ Moreno, J. L. (1953/1978). Who shall survive? Foundations of sociometry, group psychotherapy, and sociodrama. Boston, MA: Beacon House. Nietzsche, R. (2012). Thus spoke Zarathustra. San Bernardino, CA: Simon & Brown. Perpich, D. (2008). The ethics of Emmanuel Levinas. Redwood City, CA: Stanford University Press. Rozmarin, E. (2011). To be is to betray: On the place of collective history and freedom in psychoana- lysis. Psychoanalytic Dialogues, 21(3), 320–345. Ruti, M. (2013). The other as face in post-Levinasian and post-Lacanian ethics. Proceedings from the psychology & the other conference, Cambridge, MA. Stanage, S. M. (1973). Cojectivity and the human sciences. Journal for General Philosophy of Science, 4 (1), 81–97. Sternberg, P., & Garcia, G. (1989). Sociodrama: Who’s in your shoes? New York, NY: Praeger. Stiegler, B. (2018). The neganthropocene. D. Ross (Ed., Trans). London: Open Humanities Press.

Downloaded from Brill.com10/02/2021 10:10:07AM via free access