- Email: [email protected]
Further thoughts on understandings
The Arts in Psychotherapy,
Vol. 15 pp.
307-308.
D
Pergamon Press plc, 1988. Printed in the U.S.A.
0197-4556/88 $3.00 + .OO
Response FURTHER
THOUGHTS ELEANOR
ON UNDERSTANDINGS
C. IRWIN, PhD, RDT
Asked to write a second response, I immediately envisioned McNiff s imaginary reader. Surely he or she would raise eyebrows and ask, “What?Another one?” And then all four authors would try to defend the shared compulsive need to state and restate positions, perhaps with the hope that this time we might say precisely what we mean. Mulling over such an imaginary dialogue, I came to the conclusion that another trip around the barn couldn’t hurt-and might even help. Ergo: another try, with comments on process and content. First, process. Although this series of statements and responses might seem repetitious, I realized that this effort is an important part of our still-evolving identity quest. What comes to mind is the analogy of the young child who questions constantly in an attempt to understand the world. Using words to confront reality, children gradually cross the “borderline,” as it were, from immature to more mature modes of thinking and feeling. In this developmental journey, splitting and projections slowly give way, with gains in the ability to tolerate anxiety, ambivalence, separateness, and differentiation. This maturational advance, however, depends on meaningful relationships and the dialogue. In like manner, as members of young disciplines, we can benefit from involvement in an enabling process that stimulates discussion and thoughtful feedback. Continuing this kind of interpersonal, intermodality communication can help us to better understand another’s approach, penetrate superficial understanding of another’s theory, and lead to respectful and informed ap-
preciation of similarities and differences. As this is also what we try to do in our everyday work with patients, it is appropriate to use this opportunity to do the same with colleagues. In contemplating the personal, group, and professional identity issues that are at the core of these writings, I was reminded of a similar time in the field of art therapy when there was confusion about roles and functions. In 1961 Elinor Ulman, then Editor of the Bulletin of Art Therapy, wrote a seminal paper entitled “Art Therapy: Problems of Definition” in which she compared the work of Margaret Naumburg and Edith Kramer. Although both women were psychoanalytically oriented, they developed different ideas about how art and therapy are cojoined, with Naumburg espousing art in therapy and Kramer taking an art as therapy point of view. Ulman’s paper came at a nodal point in the development of the field, for many art therapists, adrift on the identity position, were subsequently helped to find their way toward a comfortable theoretical harbor. Unfortunately, no such set of potential labels fits either Moreno or McNiff. Although both practice as shamans and both work in a Jungian framework, they seem to have different ideas in regard to practice. As the Naumburg/Kramer example illustrates, individuals can come from the same orientation yet have different practices. Further dialogue could help us to understand more about their work and how it is like/unlike the practices of the more “traditional” shamans and creative arts therapists. Although the “arts as/in therapy” appellation is inappropriate here, this series re307
ELEANOR exposes the need to articulate clearly what we do, how we do it, with whom, and why (i.e., our theoretical rationale). However, saying what we think and do is difficult, a task that is often unwittingly undermined by misunderstandings, projections, and distortions. In spite of our best efforts, such difficulties seem to be part and parcel of human discourse. Although the editors have given us the opportunity to respond to each other, it is still difficult to clarify common/special/idiosyncratic meanings when spontaneous exchange is limited. Although there are many examples of such misunderstandings/distortions in these pages, it would be helpful to try to unravel them, just as we do with our patients. One example (of my own!) might suffice. Moreno believes that I have misunderstood him, and in this he may be right. I think 1 misread him because I “saw” something in his paper that I wanted to be there. In talking about guided imagery, Moreno made reference to verbal processing, insight, and focusing on unconscious feeling. As though those words meant the same to him as to me, I made several assumptions. First, I thought he was advocating the use of “insight” as an intrinsic part of the music/shamanic experience; second, I talked about what this would mean vis-a-vis training. Clearly I read Moreno’s comments in a way that would fit my own position on insight and training. I believe that for some patients, but not all, working toward the goals of insight and understanding is crucial. Further, I think that all therapists must be well-trained enough in psychological theory that they can process and understand individual and group behavior, even if the verbalization of that insight is not one of the goals of that particular session. As this is my firm position, I may have been too ready to see congruence between my point of view and Moreno’s. Further dialogue, at a deeper level, is needed to understand these slippery terms.
C. IRWIN One of the many issues still unclear to me is whether and how Moreno and others incorporate insights/interpretations into their shamanic practices. Another issue that could fruitfully be explored is that of structure and control. Further, these topics are undertaken with the full realization that others in our respective fields can, and do, take different positions. It is unlikely that either Moreno or McNiff represent the “typical” music or art therapist, and many in dance and drama might find Schmais and myself too traditional. All of us, however, seem to respond to the multidimensional approach. What is at the heart of this discussion is the how, when, with whom, and why of the shamanic approach. Although it is helpful for us to continue to work at this process of definition and identity, we need to remember that it is neither theory nor technique that heals. No one has a corner on the cure market, unfortunately. Rather, it is the elements outlined in the earlier statement (i.e., the therapist’s personality and ability to “name” the illness) that convey a sense of a shared world view, and the patient’s expectations for help and his or her growing sense of mastery in the course of the therapy. Moreno has done arts therapists a service in writing a highly readable paper, reminding us that we are related to centuries old traditions of religion, healing, and helping. He has urged us to pay more attention to the multiarts experience and cautioned us to not become so focused and specialized that we forget our heritage. These are wise words that can help us to become better at what we do.
Reference Ulman, E. (1961). Art therapy: Problems fir1 of‘ Arr 7’lwrrrp~ f(2), 10-20.
of definition.
BuIle-
Vol. 15 pp.
307-308.
D
Pergamon Press plc, 1988. Printed in the U.S.A.
0197-4556/88 $3.00 + .OO
Response FURTHER
THOUGHTS ELEANOR
ON UNDERSTANDINGS
C. IRWIN, PhD, RDT
Asked to write a second response, I immediately envisioned McNiff s imaginary reader. Surely he or she would raise eyebrows and ask, “What?Another one?” And then all four authors would try to defend the shared compulsive need to state and restate positions, perhaps with the hope that this time we might say precisely what we mean. Mulling over such an imaginary dialogue, I came to the conclusion that another trip around the barn couldn’t hurt-and might even help. Ergo: another try, with comments on process and content. First, process. Although this series of statements and responses might seem repetitious, I realized that this effort is an important part of our still-evolving identity quest. What comes to mind is the analogy of the young child who questions constantly in an attempt to understand the world. Using words to confront reality, children gradually cross the “borderline,” as it were, from immature to more mature modes of thinking and feeling. In this developmental journey, splitting and projections slowly give way, with gains in the ability to tolerate anxiety, ambivalence, separateness, and differentiation. This maturational advance, however, depends on meaningful relationships and the dialogue. In like manner, as members of young disciplines, we can benefit from involvement in an enabling process that stimulates discussion and thoughtful feedback. Continuing this kind of interpersonal, intermodality communication can help us to better understand another’s approach, penetrate superficial understanding of another’s theory, and lead to respectful and informed ap-
preciation of similarities and differences. As this is also what we try to do in our everyday work with patients, it is appropriate to use this opportunity to do the same with colleagues. In contemplating the personal, group, and professional identity issues that are at the core of these writings, I was reminded of a similar time in the field of art therapy when there was confusion about roles and functions. In 1961 Elinor Ulman, then Editor of the Bulletin of Art Therapy, wrote a seminal paper entitled “Art Therapy: Problems of Definition” in which she compared the work of Margaret Naumburg and Edith Kramer. Although both women were psychoanalytically oriented, they developed different ideas about how art and therapy are cojoined, with Naumburg espousing art in therapy and Kramer taking an art as therapy point of view. Ulman’s paper came at a nodal point in the development of the field, for many art therapists, adrift on the identity position, were subsequently helped to find their way toward a comfortable theoretical harbor. Unfortunately, no such set of potential labels fits either Moreno or McNiff. Although both practice as shamans and both work in a Jungian framework, they seem to have different ideas in regard to practice. As the Naumburg/Kramer example illustrates, individuals can come from the same orientation yet have different practices. Further dialogue could help us to understand more about their work and how it is like/unlike the practices of the more “traditional” shamans and creative arts therapists. Although the “arts as/in therapy” appellation is inappropriate here, this series re307
ELEANOR exposes the need to articulate clearly what we do, how we do it, with whom, and why (i.e., our theoretical rationale). However, saying what we think and do is difficult, a task that is often unwittingly undermined by misunderstandings, projections, and distortions. In spite of our best efforts, such difficulties seem to be part and parcel of human discourse. Although the editors have given us the opportunity to respond to each other, it is still difficult to clarify common/special/idiosyncratic meanings when spontaneous exchange is limited. Although there are many examples of such misunderstandings/distortions in these pages, it would be helpful to try to unravel them, just as we do with our patients. One example (of my own!) might suffice. Moreno believes that I have misunderstood him, and in this he may be right. I think 1 misread him because I “saw” something in his paper that I wanted to be there. In talking about guided imagery, Moreno made reference to verbal processing, insight, and focusing on unconscious feeling. As though those words meant the same to him as to me, I made several assumptions. First, I thought he was advocating the use of “insight” as an intrinsic part of the music/shamanic experience; second, I talked about what this would mean vis-a-vis training. Clearly I read Moreno’s comments in a way that would fit my own position on insight and training. I believe that for some patients, but not all, working toward the goals of insight and understanding is crucial. Further, I think that all therapists must be well-trained enough in psychological theory that they can process and understand individual and group behavior, even if the verbalization of that insight is not one of the goals of that particular session. As this is my firm position, I may have been too ready to see congruence between my point of view and Moreno’s. Further dialogue, at a deeper level, is needed to understand these slippery terms.
C. IRWIN One of the many issues still unclear to me is whether and how Moreno and others incorporate insights/interpretations into their shamanic practices. Another issue that could fruitfully be explored is that of structure and control. Further, these topics are undertaken with the full realization that others in our respective fields can, and do, take different positions. It is unlikely that either Moreno or McNiff represent the “typical” music or art therapist, and many in dance and drama might find Schmais and myself too traditional. All of us, however, seem to respond to the multidimensional approach. What is at the heart of this discussion is the how, when, with whom, and why of the shamanic approach. Although it is helpful for us to continue to work at this process of definition and identity, we need to remember that it is neither theory nor technique that heals. No one has a corner on the cure market, unfortunately. Rather, it is the elements outlined in the earlier statement (i.e., the therapist’s personality and ability to “name” the illness) that convey a sense of a shared world view, and the patient’s expectations for help and his or her growing sense of mastery in the course of the therapy. Moreno has done arts therapists a service in writing a highly readable paper, reminding us that we are related to centuries old traditions of religion, healing, and helping. He has urged us to pay more attention to the multiarts experience and cautioned us to not become so focused and specialized that we forget our heritage. These are wise words that can help us to become better at what we do.
Reference Ulman, E. (1961). Art therapy: Problems fir1 of‘ Arr 7’lwrrrp~ f(2), 10-20.
of definition.
BuIle-