Theoretical foundations of the structural analysis of movement sessions

The Arts in Psychotherapy. Vol. 23, No. 1. pp. 15-25. 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0197-4556196 $15.00 + .oO

Pergamon

SSDI 0197-4556(95)00063-l

THEORETICAL

FOUNDATIONS

OF THE STRUCTURAL

MOVEMENT

SUSAN L. SANDEL,

OF

SESSIONS

PhD, ADTR and DAVID READ JOHNSON,

The Structural Analysis of Movement Sessions (SAMS) is a system of observation and research of groups-in-action that provides a useful vocabulary for the dance/movement therapist. The need for a commonly accepted framework for describing and studying group movement processes is well-known, though only a few dance therapists have made contributions (Schmais, 198 1). Yet efforts that merely transfer concepts and findings from research on verbal groups to groups-in-action may inadvertently obscure unique processes that occur when people express themselves in movement. SAMS, in contrast, is specifically derived from clinical experience with dance/movement therapy groups. SAMS is based in general systems theory and its proposition that the state of the group’s structure greatly affects, and is affected by, the individual’s experience. In this article, we will examine the nature of this relationship between group structure and the individual’s experience. First, we will attempt to differentiate SAMS from other approaches to group research, largely by its emphasis on the concept of structure. Then we will examine two major functions of structure: facilitating the group’s adaptation to the environment in the service of performing its tasks and as a defense against internally-generated anxieties in the service of maintaining the group’s cohesion and coherence. Next, we will describe the states of equi-

ANALYSIS

PhD, RDT*

librium that tend to result from these interacting functions of structure. Finally, specific types of structures defined by SAMS will be described. We have previously described basic definitions, implications for training and research studies on techniques, leadership styles and stages of group development (Bruno, 1981; Johnson & Sandel, 1977; Johnson, Sandel & Bruno, 1984; Johnson, Sandel & Either, 1983; Sande1 & Johnson, 1983). SAMS and Other Group Observation

Methods

SAMS may be differentiated from other systems of group analysis in three ways: (a) The basic unit in SAMS is a behavior of the whole group, not of individual members; (b) SAMS examines aspects of the formal rather than informal group structure; and (c) it is designed for groups that are not seated in chairs but are participating in an ongoing action task. Systems Perspective SAMS emerges from the framework of general systems theory that examines the group-as-a-whole (Berrien, 1968; Von Bertalanffy , 1968). Other approaches to group research have utilized methods in which a predetermined set of categories are scored for each interaction between group members, such as

*Susan Sandel, Clinical Coordinator of Mental Health Services at Veterans Memorial Medical Center, Meriden, CT, is also Program Director of the Long-Term Care Certificate Program at the University of New Haven, CT. Her publications include co-author, Waiting at the Gate: Creafivity and Hope in the Nursing Home and co-editor, Foundations of Dance/Movement Therapy: The Life and Work of Marian Chace. David Johnson, Associate Professor, Department of Psychiatry, Yale University School of Medicine, is also Director, Outpatient Division, National Center of PTSD, VA Medical Center, West Haven, CT. I5

16

SANDEL AND JOHNSON

asking a question, providing information or making an interpretation (Bales, 1950; Mann, 1967; Mills, 1964). Group structure is then understood to be the patterns that emerge from the data (Davis, 1977). In contrast to viewing the group as a conglomeration of parts and deducing group structure from resulting patterns, the systems approach begins its analysis with observations of the state, properties and changes in these patterns of group interaction. Individual behavior can then be understood within the context of the whole in which it is embedded. Scheflen (1966) in particular stressed the need to look at the context of any action in order to derive its meaning: “Only when we know the organization of the systems and the relation of components to larger entities can we systematically determine the meaning or function of any unit” (p. 282). Several researchers who have studied self-analytic or process-oriented groups have proposed group-level variables, such as recurrent group themes and informal roles (Bennis & Shepard, 1956; Dunphy, 1968; Mann, 1967; Tuckman, 1965); however, they also derive these patterns from ratings of individual interactions. Those who have analyzed phenomena from a whole group perspective have tended to be theorists, not researchers, who use information collected from subtle observations of covert processes (Bion, 1959; Rioch, 1970; Slater, 1966; Turquet, 196311975). Bion in particular suggested that groups operate as-awhole on both task-related and emotional/irrational levels; he named these functions the work group and the basic assumption group, respectively. Bion’s formulations on the basic assumption processespairing, dependency and fight-flight-are more detailed than those concerning the processes of the work group. Others (Menzies, 1960; Miller & Rice, 1967) have integrated Bion’s conceptualizations with organizational theory in studying the structure and functioning of the work group. Consistent with this perspective, SAMS is a research method that measures fluctuations in the work-group’s functioning in the dance therapy session. Disruptions in this functioning are assumed to reflect the emergence of conflicts between the work-group (i.e., task-related level) and basic assumption processes (i.e., emotional level). The implications of these conflicts for dance therapy groups will be discussed later. Formal Structure Researchers of groups have often used the concept of structure to refer to interaction patterns that de-

velop between specific group members (e.g., when anyone asks Bill a question Mary always answers for him). Such patterns are not predetermined or assigned to group members, but develop informally out of the ongoing interaction. Typically, individuals are not entirely aware of them. These informal patterns may become quite fixed; in many ways the individual’s experience of the group and of the group’s reactions to the individual are determined by these informal structures. Formal structures (e.g., leader, instructions, rules, seating arrangements), which SAMS examines, reflects how the group has organized itself to accomplish its overt tasks. The formal structure of the group allocates responsibilities to people in particular roles and specifies procedures for task performance. For example, the dance therapist instructs the group to form a circle and to take turns leading a movement that everyone else is expected to mirror. Here, the circle, taking turns and mirroring are elements of the formal spatial, role and task structures, respectively. Systems theory has shown that the organization of a group’s formal roles and tasks may have various relationships to the informal group structure (Menzies, 1960; Miller & Rice, 1967; Singer, Astrachan, Gould & Klein, 1976). For example, conflicts may develop between the formal and informal structures when the group’s adaptation to the environment conflicts with the group’s internal needs for support and cohesion. In a dance therapy session, the group might become bogged down because one member will not give up the leadership to someone else and the group fails to confront the member for fear of embarrassing him or her. However, the formal structure may also be rigidly maintained by informal group pressures, with proposed changes in the formal structure creating intense anxiety and resistance. As the tasks of most groups are relatively stable, formal structures are usually predetermined and slow to change. Dance therapy sessions, however, consist of constantly changing action and sound tasks that require new role assignments and spatial formations. For example, everyone in a dance therapy group might be standing in a circle stamping their feet. The therapist might suggest, “Can somebody give us another movement?” John responds by running in place and everyone follows him. The therapist might then ask, “Who can lead us around the room?” Betsy leads the group in a line down the center of the room and so on. Here, the circle, line, the leader and the unison performance of movements are examples of the formal structures of the dance therapy session.

STRUCTURAL

ANALYSIS

These are constantly in flux and are influenced significantly by both the therapist’s perception of the group’s needs and the informal structure among group members. A common informal structure involves one person being perceived as the therapist’s assistant. In the previous example, when the therapist asks, “Who can lead us?“, the group might wait or even subtly encourage that person to take on the leadership role. If that person does not, an uncomfortable delay may occur before the task continues. Thus, the variations in formal structure for this type of group are apt to reflect its ongoing process. In fact, in many instances the goal of the therapist is to manage the changes in the formal structure so that it more closely matches the informal group structure. Groups-in-Action SAMS is designed to study groups-in-action in which spatial arrangements and action tasks are constantly changing. Spatial and task structures are categorized and variations in the group’s use of them are measured. How the group’s ongoing process is reflected in these dimensions of group behavior can then be studied. The literature on groups contains studies predominantly of discussion groups in which members are sitting in chairs in a circle or around a table. Even nonverbal analysis has been performed largely on these kinds of groups (Davis, 1977). This no doubt reflects a cultural phenomenon (i.e., groups tend to conduct meetings while sitting in chairs). Nevertheless, even spatial arrangements in seated groups may reflect important aspects of the group’s functioning. Variables that have been studied include proximity, seating patterns, absent members and the relationship between placement and status in the group (Hare & Bales, 1963; Patterson, 1968; Sommer, 1961, 1967). Spatial patterns seem to support the group’s sense of individuals’ roles and make the group environment a familiar one: disturbances in seating patterns, for example, may have disruptive effects on the group’s functioning (Bradford, 1964). The research on groups-in-action includes studies on naturalistic groups, dances (folk and choreographed) and dance therapy groups. Although several researchers have attempted the difficult study of naturalistic groups such as those on street comers (Efron, 1941), at zoos (Birdwhistell, 1959), and children at play (Barker & Wright, 1954), they found that spatial variables were difficult to quantify. Therefore, such

OF MOVEMENT

SESSIONS

variables, with the exception of proximity, have been examined infrequently. Existing studies of dances and dance therapy groups have utilized variations of the Effort-Shape system (Dell, 1970). Choreometrics analysis of folk dances and everyday activity (Lomax, Bartenieff & Paulay, 1968) have correlated movement patterning and complexity with cultural variables, such as sophistication in the means of production. One unique study of a choreographed dance revealed a hierarchy of increasingly larger movement patterns that the choreographer had designed to resemble wave-like motions (Davis & Schmais, 1967). Schmais and Felber (1977) recorded the frequency of such variables as synchronous movement, small group formations and touching in a dance therapy group. Of these studies, only Schmais and Felber have attempted to relate their findings to psychological dimensions of the group’s functioning. Thus, there have been very few studies examining the unique processes of dance therapy sessions from a group perspective. Dynamic

Functions

of Structure

We will now examine two functions of structure that interact with and balance each other in a group process. Due to rapidly fluctuating structures in a dance therapy session, these functions provide critical links between the psychology of individual members and the group as a whole and therefore provide a basis for the importance of measuring them through a system such as SAMS. Adaptive Function of Structure Structure is necessary for the achievement of the adaptive goals of the group (Menzies, 1960; Parsons, 1952; Rice, 1969). In order for work to be accomplished, the group must organize itself in ways that facilitate its functioning. Tasks, roles and procedures must be identified and integrated with one another so that various input to the group (e.g., materials, people) can be transformed into its desired products. Without appropriate structures, this process will remain haphazard and ineffective. Dance therapy groups, for example, have various goals for which specific kinds of structures may be indicated. These goals are likely to include: (a) the maintenance of ongoing contact between people in movement activities, (b) the expression of feelings and (c) the development of interaction among group

SANDEL AND JOHNSON

18

members (Sandel, 1980; Sandel, Chaiklin & Lohn, 1993). It is the dance therapist’s role to create and maintain structures that are appropriate to these goals, as well as manage the boundaries between the group and its environment. Thus, the circle may be used to increase contact; images and sounds may be introduced to elicit feelings or movement activities directed to each other’s neighbor may be used to increase interaction. The therapist is in this sense the manager of the group as a system in addition to the role as helper (Newton, 1973). In many groups, especially those of severely disturbed people, the therapist may initially be the primary holder of the group’s goals and of the adaptive use of structure, whereas group members may be more concerned with issues related to personal safety and autonomy. As the group develops, members usually become collaborators and contribute to the pursuit of these goals. Adaptive functioning by the group necessarily makes demands on individuals to perform certain tasks and to accommodate to the group’s goals. Anxieties are apt to emerge in response to these demands. For example, as Turquet (1963/1975) pointed out, one of the basic concerns of the individual is to preserve a sense of self while maintaining relations with other people. The continuous contact with others in group movement may create anxieties related to fears of fusion with others or fears of external control by them; either will tend to overwhelm the sense of “I.” A defense against these anxieties might be withdrawal from the group. Second, anxiety-producing images, activities or themes may emerge in participants’ expressions of feeling. Tolerance of others’ feelings, a goal strived for in dance therapy sessions, may be diminished at these times. Third, when interaction between members occurs, the potential for interpersonal conflict arises. The possibility of conflict may cause the group to want to shift to other activities involving different structures. Typical reactions to task-related anxieties are: (a) less energetic participation by many group members, (b) actual withdrawal of individual members from the group, (c) suggestions for changes in the current structure or (d) strong resistance to the introduction of those structures that might raise anxiety. During these moments disturbances tend to occur in the maintenance and continuity (flow) of the group’s formal structures. Defensive

Function

of Structure

Lack of structure in groups is apt to increase anxieties in group members because they experience the

loss of a stable, organizing and familiar environment that helps them maintain an internal equilibrium. A stable external environment not only diminishes threats to the organization of people’s internal experience, but also controls their sexual and/or aggressive impulses toward other members of the group (e.g., “without an authority, who will stop me if I feel like hitting someone” or “who will stop him from hitting me’?“). In groups where the defensive role of structure predominates, structures are rigidly maintained; group members will offer great resistance to any change that threatens the existing order. In most groups, formal roles, tasks and spatial patterns are quite rigid and alter only through elaborate, infrequent procedures (e.g., elections, new policy decisions and at the completion of tasks). Bern (1968, p. 110) noted with dismay our culture’s overly rigid structure: “In the usual situation no counterforces exist to encourage the flexible use of an individual’s entire repertory of group-relevant functions. ” An illumination of the defensive role of structure has been provided by the study of unstructured groups, such as T-groups and Tavistock group relations, in which the consultant does not provide typical structures (e.g., agendas, leadership, activities). Anxiety is consistently evoked within the participants who often experience the lack of a structured interpersonal environment as disorienting and even frightening. In an effort to cope with the ambiguity of this situation they often attempt to impose a structure (e.g., “let’s pick a leader;” “ let’s set up an agenda;” “let’s do something.“) without any apparent consideration of the group’s learning task. Turquet (196311975) has similarly described the pressures toward disorganization in individuals who participate in large, unstructured groups. In such groups it is difficult for people to maintain meaningful contact with each other and discussion is often disjointed and/or contradictory. The large group is experienced as a strange and unfamiliar environment, and attempts to structure it, unlike the small group, are seen as futile. Turquet noted that the individual’s need for self-definition in these group situations may become a matter of urgency in response to “the sense of an established world falling apart.” Given the lack of formal structure, the individual must decide between these threats to their identity versus withdrawal into isolation. These observations indicate that one function of formal group structures, such as specified roles and tasks, is to bind people’s anxieties. Bion (1959) suggested that organization is one of the group’s major tools for preventing members from becoming dis-

STRUCTURAL

ANALYSIS

tracted by dependency, fight-flight and pairing dynamics. The existence of an external structure impedes the emergence of irrational, non-adaptive modes of functioning in groups. Jaques (1955) and Menzies (1960) examined the defensive role of structure in two natural systems (a factory and a nursing service). In both cases, they showed that these systems were supported by deep-rooted anxieties. These anxieties interfered with necessary changes in the formal structure that would have facilitated the systems’ adaptation to new demands from the environment. Support for this notion also comes from research on sensory deprivation; studies show that people placed in a sensory deprived environment consistently become disorganized in their thinking, even to the point of experiencing delusions and hallucinations (Bexton, Heron & Scott, 1954; Reitman & Cleveland, 1964). Thus, the degree of order in the external environment may have a direct influence on the sense of psychological integrity within the person. To the extent that dance therapists are impacting on or managing this overall sense of order in the session, they may have influence on the internal states of their clients. This relationship, if it indeed exists, provides one basis for the therapeutic action of dance therapy. Structure, then, may be a defense against deeprooted anxieties that emerge if the environment becomes too ambiguous or disorganized. In this case, the organization of the interpersonal environment supports the stability of the individual’s internal experience. Klein’s (193 li 1975) formulations of the role of internal and external environments have much to offer in understanding this phenomenon. She proposed that throughout children’s development, the internal world is built up through their interactions with the external environment. Children initially are unable to differentiate between these two realms (e.g., between the thought of the mother and the real mother ). As development proceeds, children’s internal state remains intimately tied to the external environment. External objects (i.e., people) are only partly differentiated from thoughts about them. They come to stand for their internal counterparts, which have become inaccessible to children’s accurate observation. Fantasies and anxieties arising about their inner world act as an incentive for them to turn to and make sure about significant figures in the environment. If the external environment is relatively stable, consistent and moderate, children will be reassured about the state of their internal world. Reality, by being more moderate than the infantile fantasies and fears, can serve as an important protection against internal disorganization.

OF MOVEMENT

SESSIONS

The children who have a hateful thought against their mother, but then become anxious because of fears they may have actually destroyed her, become relieved by her actual presence. In Klein’s terms, the internal “good” mother is supported and preserved by the continued presence of the external one. The environment, of course, does not necessarily play this role. Research on the families of schizophrenics suggests that in many cases the external environment and interpersonal relations for these infants were in fact disorganized, inconsistent and conflictual (Bateson, Jackson, Hayley & Weakland, 1956). Where the external environment cannot fulfill the role of stabilizer, the child’s cognitive organization may become permanently impaired. Similarly, Winnicott (1971) has pointed out the importance of the “holding environment” created by the mother in supporting the child’s emotional development. Thus, the state of the group environment in a dance therapy session will be an important influence on group members. The maintenance of a good-enough holding environment with both stability and flexibility is an essential condition for therapeutic work. We now turn to an analysis of how such states of equilibrium are likely to be sustained. States of Equilibrium Structure in its defensive function binds anxiety. However, in its adaptive function, structure also creates anxieties due to the demands it makes on members. These anxieties typically lead to disturbances in the structure. Yet, disturbances in the group’s structure also create anxiety and stimulate a concomitant desire for more or a different structure. An equilibrium therefore tends to develop within a group between forces supporting the maintenance and those supporting the disruption of the group’s structure. Turquet (196311975) referred to these as centripetal and centrifugal forces. As anxieties arising from its adaptive work disrupt the group’s structure, pressure develops for more structure. But if the structure is too rigidly and defensively maintained and is therefore unable to adapt to the changing needs within the group, pressure develops for withdrawal and/or disruption. Such an equilibrium, if maintained, is characteristic of a group that has attained what Bern ( 1968) called dynamic stability. Three basic states of a group can be described in relation to this equilibrium. The first state is characterized by a lack of stability: equilibrium has not been attained. The structures in the group are not able to

SANDEL AND JOHNSON

20

bind the group’s anxieties. Disruptions are common and the group atmosphere is strained and disorganized. In these disrupted states, groups may be overwhelmed by anxieties related to the tasks demanded of them, such as sustaining interpersonal contact in a group of withdrawn schizophrenics. The second state is characterized by a rigid acceptance and maintenance of group structures in order to defend against anxiety and disruption. In such inflexible states, a static kind of stability is maintained, but at the expense of the group’s adaptive functioning. The intense concern with personal needs sharply limits the potential flexibility of the group in accomplishing its goals and makes the group highly susceptible to disruption if certain demands are made. A group with strong dependency needs that cling to structures and looks to the therapist for leadership shows this pattern. If given the task to share the leadership, for example, this group is likely to have difficulty functioning smoothly. The third general state of a group can be described as having a dynamic, flexible stability in which structures are able to be maintained and created according to the shifting needs of the group. Some degree of disequilibrium can be tolerated without arousing undue anxiety. This type of flexible group may have members whose internal structure (i.e., sense of self) is more secure and who do not need to rely so heavily on external support. However, in any group whose familiarity with the activities, the leader, and each other has developed over time, greater degrees of flexibility can be expected. Types of Structure We have discussed the quantitative aspects of structure (i.e., how much of it exists) and its impact on the psychological states of individuals. Structures, however, also vary in qualitative ways that may influence the group process. One such dimension of structure is its modali&. Miller (1959) suggested three dimensions within which systems differentiate themselves: technology(i.e., tasks and roles), territory and time. SAMS divides structures into Task, Space, and Role dimensions and examines them across time. Within each modality, SAMS defines mutually exclusive categories of structure that vary in their level of complexity. These are listed in Table 1. These categories vary according to another qualitative dimension of structure: complexity. Complexity may be defined as the degree of internal differen-

Table Types

I of Task,

Number of Tasks: Smgle Presentational Multiple

Space

and Role

Structures

Within

Task (Action and Sound) Time: Repeating Limited

SPACE Simple Circle Referent Circle Simple Line Referent Line Simple Cluster Referent Cluster ROLE Group Leader Task-Leader Sidecoach Group Object

SAMS

Interaction: Level Level Level

I 2 3

Simple Scatter Referent Scatter Centered Circle Double Circle Spiral Irregular Delegate Audience Teams Subgroups

tiation in the group necessitated by the structure (Miller, 1959). For example, a group with a leader and followers has a less differentiated role structure than a group in which each person has a specified role (e.g., president, secretary, treasurer). The demands on the group’s ability to function coherently increase as the complexity of its organization increases. One element in a group’s level of development, then, is its ability to maintain simple or complex structures. The task structure of the group in SAMS does not involve the abstract therapeutic goals that may be understood by the group (e.g., to share feelings) or individual tasks (e.g., Jim should express his anger more directly), but only the observable action and sound patterns of the group as a whole (e.g., the group members are stamping their feet and shouting, “Hey”). Action and Sound tasks are considered separately. All task structures are categorized on the basis of three variables: number of separate tasks, relationship to time and degree of interaction. Either everyone may perform the task simultaneously (Single), some people may watch (Presentational) or some may perform other tasks concurrently (Multiple). A task may be repeated over and over (Repeating) or it may have an understood end (Limited). A task may not have any relationship to others in the group (Level I), may be directed toward them (Level 2) or may be used in a back-and-forth interaction with them (Level 3). Task structures are constructed of these three vari-

STRUCTURAL

ANALYSIS

ables (e.g., a Single, Limited, Level 3 structure or a Multiple, Repeating, Level 1 structure, etc.). Thus, there are 18 different types of task structure based on these three variables. A spatial structure is the physical relationship that the group members have to one another in the space (i.e., the group formation). There are 12 types of spatial structure, beginning with a simple circle and moving, with increasing complexity, to lines, clusters and scatters (see Table 1). A spatial structure does not refer to factors concerning the individual’s position in space (e.g., proximity, shape or level). The Circle, Line, Cluster and Scatter are the four basic types of spatial structures. Each of these may be simple (i.e., when all group members make up the formation) or referent (i.e., when the people in the formation relate to one or more persons apart from it). Four special categories are also included: Double (i.e., concentric) circle, centered circle, spiral and irregular (which includes any formation not otherwise scorable). In addition, whether these formations involve group members touching each other is recorded. The role structure refers to the particular pattern of formal roles that the group sets up in conducting its activity. The role structure does not refer to the qualities of the relationship between individual people (e.g., Mary plays a maternal role in relationship to Tom), but rather to the sets of expectations placed on different members of the group in order for the group to perform its intended activity. There are 8 types of role structure (see Table 1). The leader may initiate actions that the group follows (Group Leader) or assign someone else to be a temporary leader of a task (Task Leader) or may coach the group without participating in the action (Sidecoach). An individual may be the focus of the group’s activity, as in passing someone around the center (Group Object), may perform a necessary task for the group, such as changing a record (Delegate) or may present a movement or sound in front of the group (Audience). Subgroupings may either interact with each other (Teams) or act as independent, non-interrelating groups, as in mirroring in pairs (Sub-groups). In addition, any of these structures may include the taking of turns, in which members understand that they will be alternating roles. Each of these structures is then rated according to two dynamic measures: presence and embeddedness. Presence of a structure is measured at three levels: definite, unstable and indefinite. A structure within any dimension is considered present when its existence can be perceived by an observer. For purposes

OF MOVEMENT

SESSIONS

21

of our analyses, a definite structure is one that all group members are supporting. For example, the spatial structure is definite when the entire group stands in a circle. An unstable structure is at the intermediary level, when a pattern is discernible, but not all group members are supporting the structure. Despite an awareness by members that the group is forming a circle, not every group successfully achieves or maintains a stable, circular formation. People may constantly leave and return or the circle may temporarily break. At these times, the structure is viewed as unstable, but present. When there is no longer an identifiable organization in the particular dimension, then the structure is considered indefinite. For example, the spatial structure is labeled indefinite if group members are scattered about the room haphazardly without any pattern in relation to one another. The task structure is indefinite if everyone is doing a different type of activity without a common overall plan among the individuals’ actions. Structure in one modality may be indefinite whereas that in another is definite. Embeddedness is the degree to which the group members spontaneously produce a structure without explicitly discussing or labeling it, (e.g., as when members sit in the same chairs during each session without being told to do so or when they automatically form a circle to warm up). Norms are examples of embedded group structures. Even though they are often unstated, they are not unconscious structures. Rather, embeddedness refers to the learned assumptions that the group members rely on to guide their behavior and identify deviance. Unembedded structures typically need to be clarified and defined for group members (e.g., when they ask “could you go over those rules again?” or “what’s the point of this exercise?“). SAMS studies embeddedness of structure by observing whether or not a structure needs to be verbally indicated by the therapist or group members. By this we mean that a group member has verbally or by an obvious intentional gesture (such as a wave of the hand) identified for the group the particular action, sound, spatial formation or role. When a structure is present but not indicated, it is assumed to be embedded within the group. Summary

Thus, a complete analysis of a moment in time within a dance therapy group is a combination of three structural scores for Task, Space and Role, and within

22

SANDEL AND JOHNSON

each the type of structure, degree of presence and whether it was indicated. Table 2 illustrates an example. By rating the changes in group structures over time and then calculating the percent of time within each interval for each measure, an ongoing flow chart of a session can be constructed. The fluctuating level of presence of structure can be examined within each modality of task, space and role or within the session as a whole by adding these dimensions together. Examples of the flow diagrams of the three types of session discussed earlier (disrupted, inflexible and flexible) are illustrated in Figure 1. Frequency for each type of structure and degree of embeddedness can also be derived for the whole session. Treatment Implications

STABLE

UNSTABLE

DISRUPTED INDEFINITE

L

STABLE

UNSTABLE

INDEFINITE

I

INFLEXIBLE

STABLE

SAMS does not in itself prescribe therapeutic goals or evaluate effectiveness of a dance therapy session. It merely records the moment to moment fluctuations in structure and flow during the session. Highly chaotic or rigidly ordered sessions will be easily identifiable as well as momentary disruptions in otherwise smoothly flowing sessions. Generally, large shifts in the stability and embeddedness of the session’s structures or disparities between the Task, Space and Role dimensions will suggest significant clinical events in the session. An indepth content analysis of the process leading up to these moments, given the knowledge of each client and the history of the group, will be required to derive a comprehensive clinical analysis of the meaning of the SAMS data. From a research perspective, each session is videotaped and scored by

Table 2 Example of a SAMS Analysis of One Moment in a Dance Therapy Session Task Structure: (everyone makes arm movemen toward person in center of circle) Multiple, Repeating, Level Two Definite, Indicated Spatial Structure: (person is standing in center of circle) Centered Circle, No Touch Definite,

Indicated

(everyone takes turn going into center; one person refused to go in and no one instructed the group to take turns) Group Object, Taking Turns Unstable, Not indicated

Role Structure:

UNSTABLE

FLEXIBLE INDEFINITE TIME

Figure I

Three potential states of group stmcture.

trained raters who review the tape several times. However, we have found that a knowledge of SAMS can be helpful to the clinician in both general and specific ways. Due to its emphasis on whole group action and flow of movement, SAMS is particularly applicable to dance therapy sessions following the principles of Marian Chace (Sandel, Chaiklin & Lohn, 1993). We have found that the notion of group equilibrium is helpful in considering the role of the therapist in the Chacian dance therapy group. The therapist ideally provides enough structure to maintain group members’ continued participation and withholds a certain degree of structure so they experience some ambiguity and anxiety. The therapist’s role, therefore, is to help establish and monitor the equilibrium by titrating the anxiety in the group. This is essential if participants are to feel safe enough, but also motivated enough, to invest in the development of the group’s life and their roles within it. Implicitly, the therapist attempts to help the group attain or move toward this level of dynamic functioning because here there is a

STRUCTURAL

ANALYSIS

maximum flow between internal and external states and the greatest possibilities of integration. Mahler, Pine & Bergman (1975) reported in an analogous situation that a child’s growth is most enhanced when the mother both encourages separation and yet is always available as a “home base” for emotional support. In addition, the therapist must be alert to the potential anxieties arising from particular structures and then assess whether to alter them in order to support the group’s continued participation or to allow them to emerge more fully. SAMS does not imply that a smoothly flowing session in which an equilibrium is maintained is the most effective. Most sessions have significant disruptions that result from the transformation of feelings evoked by the dance therapy experience. Nevertheless, in general it is likely that highly chaotic or rigidly controlled sessions are examples of either too little integration or too little risk-taking and are not optimal environments for growth. SAMS also offers specific contributions to clinical work. For example, once therapists are aware of embeddedness, they may become more judicial in their use of verbal instruction. One therapist who complained that her groups did not “go deep enough” discovered that she was continuing to indicate structures that were already embedded in the group, thereby keeping a cognitive lid on the developing process. Another common difficulty occurs when the structures chosen by therapists are too complex for the particular group. The therapists may attribute the problem to any number of sources, when simply by choosing less complex structures they will discover that the flow of the group improves. We have found that certain populations prefer simple, whereas others prefer complex structures (Johnson et al., 1984). An understanding of these preferences may in fact suggest useful alterations in technique, as we have noted in the treatment of adolescents, who require more complex structures (Johnson & Either, 1990). Third, problems may develop when the group structures are not definite enough and the lack of stability raises group members’ anxiety. Here the therapist may titrate the level of anxiety in the group by providing a more ordered, structured experience. Often problems that the therapist attributes to interpersonal or transference dynamics are actually structural in origin. Finally, we have found that a therapist’s style of leadership may be poorly matched to the needs of the group (Johnson et al., 1983). For example, some therapists tend to intervene in one particular dimension

OF MOVEMENT

SESSIONS

(task, space or role) or prefer simple or complex structures. In one case, a therapist was inattentive to the role dimension, resulting in inadequately defining members’ roles. Their confusion around roles reflected itself in a loss of energy in the session, which the therapist responded to by reorganizing the spatial structure. This intervention was consistently unsuccessful in improving the flow of the session because it was made in the wrong dimension. Once the therapist had learned to “see” the role structures and had been made aware of her own proclivity to use the spatial dimension, her work dramatically improved. In addition, we have found that certain populations have particular sensitivities to role, space or task dimensions, and an awareness of these is helpful in leading sessions (Johnson et al., 1984).

Conclusion There is evidence that the appropriate management of structure is critical to the well-functioning system (Singer et al., 1976). Confusion about the group structure is bound to create anxiety and misunderstanding. Parsons ( 1952) wrote of the importance of a common group culture that mediates and stabilizes the interaction among group members. In small groups, such as dance therapy groups, the common culture is to a large extent experienced and defined by the basic task, role and space structures we have described. In creating a framework for a safe, predictable environment, they provide the basis for meaningful interaction and communication. The dance therapy experience allows and encourages a great deal of flexibility. Participants can try out new roles and behaviors in an environment that is less restrictive than everyday life. When that environment is also characterized by a set of commonly shared and clearly understood norms, then the group is perhaps best prepared to stimulate the individual’s growth and learning. SAMS is a research tool based on a systems theory approach to dance therapy sessions. Analysis of the formal, though fluctuating, structures in space, role and task modalities can be used to identify disruptions in the flow of the session, indicating possible critical shifts in the group process. The measures used in SAMS are closely tied to the interventions made by dance therapists, and the effects on the group can be readily tracked. The essential link between internal and external psychological environments is highlighted by the dynamic flow of patterns within the

SANDEL AND JOHNSON

24

session, illuminating the potential of dance/movement therapy to impact on the lives of our patients. References Bales. R. F. (1950). Interaction

process anulysis. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley. Barker, R.. & Wright, H. (1954). Midrrest und its children. Evanston, IL: Row, Peterson. Bateson, G., Jackson, D., Haley. .I., & Weakland, J. (1956). Toward a theory of schizophrenia. Behavioral Science. I. 251264. Bennis, W., & Shepard. H. (1956). A theory of group development. Human Rrlutions. 9, 415-437. Bern, F. R. (1968). G~~~7rral and sociul ,~ystems. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Berrien, F. R. (1968). Grnerul and social systems. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press. Bexton, W. H.. Heron, W.. & Scott, T. (1954). Effects of decreased variation m the sensory environment. Curiadiun Jorrrrtal oj PsJchology. 8. 70-76. Bion, W. F. (1959). Experience5 in groups. New York: Basic Books. Birdwhistell, R. L. (1959). Microcultural incident., m ten zoos (film). Pennsylvania State University Film Service. Bradford, L. P. (1964). Trainer interventions: Case episodes. In L. Bradford. J. Gibb & R. Benne (Eds.). T-group theory and laboratory method (pp. 136137). New York: Wiley. Bruno, C. (1981). Applications and implications of structural analysis of movement sessions for dance therapy. The Arts in Ps,vchothrrapy.

8, 127-135.

Davis, M. (1977). Methods ofperceivq putterns in small group behalaior. New York. Dance Notation Bureau Press. Davis, M., & Schmais, C. (1967). An analysis of the style and composition of water study. Reseurch in datzce: Problems and possibilities (pp. 105-I 13). New York: Committee on Research in Dance. Dell, C. (1970). A primerfor movement description: Using qf@tshape and supplementary concepts. New York: Dance Notation Bureau. Dunphy, D. (1968). Phases, roles, and myths in self-analytic groups. Journal qf Allied Behavioral Science, 4, 195-225. Efron, D. (1941). Gesture und environment. New York: King’s Crown Press. Hare, A.. & Bales, R. (1963). Seating positions and small group interaction. Sociometry, 16, 480-486. Jaques, E. (1955). Social systems as defense against persecutory and depressive anxiety. In J. Riviere (Ed.), Nen directions in psychoana!\‘sis. London: Tavistock. Johnson, D., & Sandel, S. (1977). Structural analysis of movement sessions: Preliminary research. American Journal of Dance Therapy,

I. 32-36.

Johnson, D., Sandel, S., & Bruno. C. (1984). Effectiveness of different group structures for schizophrenic, characterdisordered, and normal groups. International Journal of Group Psychotherapy,

34, 413-429.

Johnson, D., Sandel, S., & Either, V. (1983). Structural aspects of group leadership styles. American Journal of Dance Therap?. 6, 17-30.

Johnson, D., & Either, V. (1990). The use of dramatic activities to facilitate dance therapy with adolescents. The Arts in PsychotherapT, 17, 157-164. Klein, M. (1975). A contribution to the theory of intellectual inhibition. In Love. guilt, and reparation (pp. 236248). London: Hogatth. (Original publication 193 I) Lomax, A.. Bartenieff, I., & Paulay, F. (1968). Dance style and culture. In A. Lomax (Ed.), Folk song se/e and culture (pp. 222-247). Washington, DC: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication no. 88. Mahler, M.. Pine, F., & Bergman,

A. (1975). The psychologicul New York: Basic Books.

birth of the humau infant.

Mann, R. D. (1967). Interpersonul New York: Wiley.

styles and group development.

Menziea, I. C1960). A case study in the functioning of social systems as a defense against anxiety. Human Relations, 13. 95% 121. Miller, E. I. (1959). Technology, lations.

territory,

and time. Human Re-

13. 243-272.

Miller, E. J., & Rice. A. K. (1967). Systems r~forganization. don: Tavistock. Mills, T. (1964). Prentice Hall.

Group

trunsformution.

Englewood

Lon-

Cliffs,

NJ:

Newton, P. (1973). Social structure and process in psychotherapy: A sociopsychological analysis of transference, resistance, and change. International Journal of Psychiatry, 2, 480-526. Parsons,

T. (1952).

Psyhiatrx,

Patterson.

Superego

and the theory of social systems.

15. l-32.

M. (1968). Spatial factors in social interaction.

Relations.

Human

21, 251-261.

Reitman. E., & Cleveland, S. (1964). Changes in body image following sensory deprivation in schizophrenic and control groups. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 68, 168-176. Rice, A. K. (1969). Individual, Human Relatrons,

group,

and intergroup

processes.

22, 565-584.

Rioch, M. (1970). The work of Wilfred Bion on groups. atq,

Psych/-

33, 56-66.

Sandel S. (1980). Dance therapy in the psychiatric nal of the National tals, II, 20-26.

Association

of Privute

hospital. Jour-

Psyhiatric

Hospi-

Sandel. S., & Johnson, D. (1983). Structure and process of the nascent group: Dance therapy with chronic patients. The Arts in Psychotherapy. IO, 131-140. Sandel,

S.. Chaiklin,

dance/movement

Columbia,

S., & Lohn, therapy:

MD: American

A. (1993). Foundations of The life and work of Marian Chace. Dance Therapy

Association.

Scheflen, A. (1966). Natural history method in psychotherapy. In L. Gottschalk & A. Auerbach (Eds.), Methods of research in psychotherapy (pp. 263-289). New York: Appleton-Century Crofts. Schmais, C. (1981). Group development and group formation therapy. The Arts in Psychotherapy. 8. 103-109.

in

Schmais, C., & Felber, D. (1977). Dance therapy process analysis: A method for observing and analyzing a dance therapy group. American

Journal

of Dance Therapy,

I,

18-25.

STRUCTURAL Singer,

D. L., Astrachan,

B.. Gould,

L.. & Klein,

ANALYSIS E. (1976).

Boundary management in psychological work with groups: Issues of tusk, role, structure. contract, and accountability. Un-

published manuscript, Yale University. Slater, P. (1966). Microcosm. New York: Wiley. Sommer, R. (1961). Leadership and group geography. Sociomety, 24, 99-l IO. Sommer. R. (1967). Small group ecology. Ps~~+~o/o~ical Bulletin, 67. 145-152.

OF MOVEMENT

SESSIONS

Tuckman, B. W. (1965). Developmental sequence in groups. Psychological Bulletin, 63, 384-399. Turquet, P. (1975). Threats to identity in the large group. Kreeger (Ed.). The large group: Dynamics and therapy. don: Constable. (Original publication 1963) Von Bertalanffy. L. (1968). General systems theory. New Braziller. Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. New York: Books.

25 small In L. LonYork: Basic