There is some valuable instruction on tests and unconscious plans to be found in an article titled "Comparative and clashing interests in small groups. Part I. Theory" by J. Gustafson, L. Cooper, N. Coalter Lathrop, K Ringler, F. Deldin, and M. Kahn Wright, published in "Human Relations," v. 34, 1981, pp. 315-339. Below is just an explanation of a very small portion of the valuable insighs provided in this article. In seems to be generally true that the most painful experiences of our lives, as we go from childhood to adulthood, will tend to be repressed so we can bear up under their burden. The result, however, is that the adult's competencies that have any association with those burried earlier experiences are competencies limited in proportion to how much the early experiences are repressed. Consider person M, who, as a child, had to bear up under extremely painful sibling comparisons. Person M will repress memories of being regarded as inferior and thus have less competence for competition as an adult. So what would be person M's likely unconscious plan when an adult? It would seem to be that of continuing the development of one's competitive competence while protecting oneself from a recurrence of painful past experience. One way to do this would be to The first part, a, would seem to be the conscious goal while the second part, b, would be the unconscious goal. Unconscious plans are subordinate to conscious plans. That is, unconscious plans only become clear and apparent ONCE ONE HAS ESTABLISHED the goals of the conscious plans. So it may be difficult for anyone to imaginatively see beyond the conscious plan into the unconscious plan of oneself or of another. In a group setting, this mixture of conscious and unconscious planning in one individual, person M, could reveal itself as a very dependent attitude, an attitude in which the planner tries at the beginning of the group's existence to solicit much support and helpfulness from others. Goal a, part of the conscious plan, is to succeed in a noncompetitive effort to gain much support while adopting a dependent stance in relation to others. Consciously person M thus appears noncompetitive. And this consicous plan is dominant over the unconscious plan since conscious plans typically are dominant over unconscious plans. But this conscious solicitation of support in an effort to create a noncompetitive surround is also part of an unconscious plan to prepare the environment for tests in which the planner then becomes, after having established a climate of support and safety, competitive with her supporters, such competition being the unconscious goal b. By contrast, consider another person, N, whose childhood pain was associated with failed attempts to be intimate with siblings or peers. This person, that is, was repeatedly met with slights and was left feeling helpless and defenseless when in need of others' support. Person N is likely to later adopt a "counter-dependent" conscious approach with others in which there is no early expression in a group setting of any need for intimacy or support from others. Appearing at first to not need others at all, person N would consciously present himself or herself as highly competitive with and fully independent of others. Here the unconscious plan is revealed after having found persons with whom to fight. The unconscious plan is fully revealed only after being reassured in competition matches that one can fight back and not be overwhelmed by helpless neediness for others. Once assured that one can safely protect oneself and that one's need for self-protection is respected by others, person N can then reveal his or her unconscious plan of being able to turn to others for support and intimacy. Do M-and-Ns Really Melt--in Your Group? Now the interesting thing is in considering what happens when M an N meet in a group or meet as new acquaintances. Actually M and N have completely contradictory unconscious plans and will not be likely to melt easily together. In a group M and N would compete in their efforts from the very start to take the group in entirely opposite directions. M wants to establish a climate of support so that competition is safe for M. N wants to establish a climate of competition so that seeking support is safe for N. What is important for group leaders to understand is that both M and N have valid reasons for taking their opposite positions given their past hurts. And both M and N are striving for the same common human ground but must come at the problem of finding the commonality with different emphases placed first. Both want support and competitive competence. And both want these to be safe human experiences that do no injury to theselves or others. This article is rich with further valuable insights. Among these many other insighs is the understanding that the most difficult problem for a group leader is entailed in the reality that to pass the early tests of a subgroup of Ns is to fail the tests of a subgroup of Ms and vice versa. I wonder if any of the Control Master therapists who read this forum would care to add to or correct any of the above text. And I would especially welcome any general guidelines in how CM therapists go about the process of inferring the likely unconscious plans of their patients. This has always seemed to me to be the most obscure part of CMT--how to formulate early hypotheses about a patient's most likely unconscious plan. There are, of course, many other kind of patients and other kinds of plans than those described above for M and and N. And knowing the likely goals of someone's unconscious plan is, in particular cases, no easy task for the inexperienced.
(a) arrange for very supportive relationships with others and then, ONCE THESE ARE ESTABLIHED,
(b) begin to express competition and rivalry.
Whether a leader can help a group manage these contraditions will depend on how well the leader can avoid taking sides by even slightly and subtly favoring either Ms or Ns. A leader needs to be able to show even-handed acceptance of contradictory plans and feel secure in understanding both sides fully knowing that there is not one right way to act as leader. The pressure on a leader to act more favorably to one or another side is enormous. Either trying to "make peace" or engaging in "counterattack" are counterproductive and interfere with the leader's task of helping all sides see the underlying validity and common human ground in the differences between persons that are more apparent than real.
Replies:
|
| Behavior OnLine Home Page | Disclaimer |
Copyright © 1996-2004 Behavior OnLine, Inc. All rights reserved.