![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 12 of 12. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:36:12
Hi, everyone,
I thought I'd pass on the below (not an exact quote), from a chapter that was suggested to me:
> What can we do to prevent casualties in the groups in which we are leaders or members? What have I learned from my experiences with casualties?
>
> I have learned to watch and listen for, and comment on, (a) either/or as opposed to both/and thinking, (b) discomfort with one of those polar opposites, and (c) believing in social stereotypes. All facilitate projective identification (imagining that what you reject in yourself is contained in another) and its counterpart, introjective identification (imagining that you contain what is thrown out by another). These lead to the perception of and preoccupation with exaggerated polar differences, which facilitate scapegoating (devaluing, isolating, extruding) of a "problem" individual or group.
>
> I have learned to intervene promptly, but not prematurely, when scapegoating takes the form of self-righteously, indiscriminately, dogmatically, and without nuance blaming an individual or group. Or when scapegoating takes the form of an obsessive, subtly denigrating, and at the same time self-aggrandizing, solicitude for or concern about an individual or group.
>
> I have learned to stay as much as possible with a group-as-a-whole or a social-systemic level of analysis to mitigate inclinations to create scapegoats.
>
> I have learned to encourage conflict, dissent, and negotiation across the leader-members boundary. If the boundary is relatively impermeable, the tensions between the leader and members are recreated in or deflected to the relations among the members themselves.--Edelson M, Belling the Cat. In: Edelson M, Berg DN, "Rediscovering Groups: A Psychoanalyst's Journey Beyond Individual Psychology".
Bob
Posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 9:39:52
In reply to Scapegoating in groups, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:36:12
So does this mean that one of your New Year's resolutions will be to strive to have a more impermeable leader-member boundary?
Also, Mr. Edelson fails to speak about what interventions are needed for a member who has a need to play the role of martyr - consciously or unconsciously provoking the group into scapegoating. Could you address this group dynamic?
-Toph
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 9:50:25
In reply to Scapegoating in groups, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:36:12
Dr. Hsiung,
Youwrote,[...I thought I'd pass on...that was suggested to me...].
Does this mean that you are in favor of all or some of the suggestions? If you are in favor of,[...encourage negotiations across leader-member boundries...],could me and you have dialog about negotiating a policy that would requiere you to address the posts that I have requested for you to examine and you have not either addressed them on the board or replied to me to my email request to you? If you could, then I could feel safer here if we reached an agreement that would give me saftey knowing that some posts will not go unaddressed and be left on the board so that the potential for others to think that the post is acceptable here by you, in relation to posts that are on the board that I consider to have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings or to put me down or to put down those of other faiths and such.
Lou Pilder
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:08:31
In reply to Re: Scapegoating in groups, posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 9:39:52
Toph,
You wrote,[...interventions ...needed for a member who has a need to play the role of martyr...provoking the group into scapegoating...].
Are you implying that those here that request determinations from Dr. Hsiung about acceptability or not of posts here, could have the potential to be included in this group that you describe as {...a need to play the role of martyr and thus provokes the group into scapegoating?...}
If you could clarify that, then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Lou
Posted by Toph on December 7, 2004, at 10:19:16
In reply to Lou's response to Toph's post-provgrpscpgot » Toph, posted by Lou Pilder on December 7, 2004, at 10:08:31
Hi Lou,
I'm only suggesting that one should consider both sides of the scapegoat issue, the groups actions toward a scapegoat and the scapegoat's role and motivations within the group. What are your thoughts about it?
-Toph
Posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:35:24
In reply to Scapegoating in groups, posted by Dr. Bob on December 7, 2004, at 8:36:12
> I have learned to encourage conflict, dissent, and negotiation across the leader-members boundary. If the boundary is relatively impermeable, the tensions between the leader and members are recreated in or deflected to the relations among the members themselves.
Mmm hmm. Psychodynamic theory eh?
Does this mean that sometimes you purposely intend to provoke, no sorry 'encourage' conflict and dissent between yourself and members of the group? To kind of take the heat of other individuals who are having a bit of a hard time? I have wondered before whether you do this. Not to just 'see what will happen' as an experiment, but to encourage solidarity among members.
But then
>If the boundary is relatively impermeable...
Does that mean the boundary between leader and members? Is that what this talk of a democracy rather than autocracy is about? Are you hoping to become less of a leader so as to prevent
>the tensions between the leader and members [being]... recreated in or deflected to the relations among the members themselves.
That makes it sound like the conflict in the group is an artifact of having a leader with strong leader / member boundaries. But then if that is what is worrying you then why do you try to take the heat of others by deflecting to yourself. If that is indeed what you do at times.
I am confused...
Is this perhaps a vicious cycle that you have discovered???
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2004, at 0:11:49
In reply to Re: Scapegoating in groups » Dr. Bob, posted by alexandra_k on December 7, 2004, at 18:35:24
> Mr. Edelson fails to speak about what interventions are needed for a member who has a need to play the role of martyr
>
> -TophIMO, seeing the member that way might itself be considered a type of scapegoating. Like stereotyping in a way.
--
> I could feel safer here if we reached an agreement that would give me saftey knowing that some posts will not go unaddressed and be left on the board so that the potential for others to think that the post is acceptable here by you
>
> Lou PilderSorry, I know I'm behind with email. I'll try to reply, but there may be posts I don't address the way you'd like...
--
> Does this mean that sometimes you purposely intend to ... 'encourage' conflict and dissent between yourself and members of the group?
>
> alexandra_kI'd say "accept" rather than "encourage"...
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:48:02
In reply to Re: Scapegoating in groups, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2004, at 0:11:49
I am confused as to why someone would say what was said in the passage. It seems to be saying that conflict arises because of there being a member leader boundary. Then that conflict is deflected to other members of the group. Then you try to interveane by allowing (I prefer encouraging myself) people to have conflict with you so they stoppit with the other members of the group. But then the passage seemed to be saying that the conflict was there in the first place because of the leader member boundary. Maybe I am reading it all wrong...
I guess conflict arises for other reasons as well?
Is this why you are getting more democratic?
Posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:51:44
In reply to what about the vicious cycle?, posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:48:02
Oh, don't worry about it.
I read too much into things.It seems to think that conflict between members is a good thing. I was thinking the converse. Perhaps I am too idealistic.
Posted by Lou Pilder on December 8, 2004, at 4:59:06
In reply to Re: Scapegoating in groups, posted by Dr. Bob on December 8, 2004, at 0:11:49
Dr.Hsiung,
You wrote,[...Sorry, I know I'm behind with email. I'll try to reply, but there may be posts I don't address the way you'd like......].
I am not requesting that you reply to me in a way that I may like. I am requesting that you reply with a determination as to if the post is acceptable or not in relation to the guidlines of the forum. Then I could have the opportunity to respond accordingly.
Some of ny requests to you that you have not responded to me about concern posts that IMO have the potential to arrouse antisemitic feelings. Are those the posts that you are referring to that your reply could be such that I could not like it?
Lou Pilder
Posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2004, at 14:05:45
In reply to what about the vicious cycle?, posted by alexandra_k on December 8, 2004, at 0:48:02
> It seems to be saying that conflict arises because of there being a member leader boundary. Then that conflict is deflected to other members of the group. Then you try to interveane by allowing (I prefer encouraging myself) people to have conflict with you so they stoppit with the other members of the group. But then the passage seemed to be saying that the conflict was there in the first place because of the leader member boundary.
Right, there's always potential for conflict there, but if the boundary is "impermeable", that makes it worse.
Bob
Posted by alexandra_k on December 9, 2004, at 16:41:09
In reply to Re: what about the vicious cycle?, posted by Dr. Bob on December 9, 2004, at 14:05:45
Well then I guess that you need to decide whether you buy what they are saying or not. And then you need to decide whether you are 'relatively impermeable' or not.
I personally think that you are doing a great job and that things are pretty much fine here just the way they are.
Sure I haggle for relatively minor changes... But in general I am happy here :-)
Sometimes people get annoyed with posters for what I consider to be fairly obvious reasons.
Sometimes a pen is just a pen.
I don't think that that is an artifact of anything you are doing.
Though I do think that people get p*ssed of with you sometimes because you can be a bit stubborn about certain things. Just MHO...
PBC alexandra_k...
:-)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.