I have been long interested in SCT (Agazarian) as a theory, and for about last year and a half I have
invested in learning it. I tried to use with my groups, with some success, and also with awareness of
needing to learn more. As time goes by, and I work on developing my theory papers, I am becoming
increasingly aware of my wonderings about SCT not only as my Group theory, but perhaps a Critical
Purchase on a whole. In this paper, I will try to put into words:
 some explicit reasons as to why SCT seems to fit this broader application
 some SCT concepts that stand out for me as especially helpful in the context of CPE
What I need from you:
 Reflection on what I shared – does it make sense to you? Do you, from the context of your own
supervisory practice, resonate with my exposition of the concepts?
 Questions/feedback/suggestions that would help me further this work.
 Your own experience: have you ever seen somebody using one and the same theory for both Crit.
Purchase and Group Theory? …How did it go?
Exploring reasons for a broader use of SCT as Critical Purchase:
My primary educational theory is Transformational Learning (Mezirow, Cranton, and myself).
1. Transformational Learning (TRF-L) places heavy influence on an individual: Even though it does
incorporate social/communal/cultural awareness, its primary focus remains individual-centered. I
myself as an educator also has a propensity to focus on individual student: e.g., I am still working on not
slipping into IS during IPR. SCT is powerful ally for me in this work because it really helps me to broaden
my perception horizon, by shifting my focus from a person to a system. It does so not merely by revealing
a person as a part of the system (e.g., FST does that), but revealing the person itself as a system. (This also
connects strongly to my trauma-informed personality T. which underscores the multiplicity of self.)
 A good example of how SCT’s shift from a person-centered to a system-centered perspective
helps with learning is by helping students to not take things “just personally” (which is a source
of a lot of anguish and suffering in the context of learning, most notably in the area of
initiating/receiving critical feedback).
2. TRF learning theory also places a strong emphasis on the cognitive/rational, conscious, and…. path
of learning and growth: This overemphasis (and its gradual correction) has been a part of ongoing
evolution of the Mezirow’s theory, as others brought in emotional, soul, and social awareness (Dirx et
al). As a part of my own trauma history, I myself as an educator tend to go “into head” as a way to feel
safer. ACPE, even as it emphasizes a whole-person learning, has the majority of its learning modalities
and competency assessment tools based on the cognitive, explanatory, and conscious ways of learning.
SCT is a great help for me in remedying this pull to the head, because SCT insists that effective learning
and integration can only happen when comprehensive (rational/left brain) understanding is joined with
apprehensive (sensory-emotional/right brain) experience – and, it does not just postulates it as a value, but
provides specific protocols for activating the latter and connecting the two. (This too connects strongly
with my personality theory, and also to the contemplative side of my theology.)
3. TRF learning is a very “active” theory: it focuses on what educator could do to help students have
transformational experiences. In SCT terms, we would call it a focus on the “driving forces”: the things
that help make TRF learning happen! As a young educator, I also am often tempted to be over-invested
and over-functioning in my students’ learning, making agendas for what, how, and how fast they should
be transformed. SCT helps me see this exhausting tendency in a larger context and to counteract it by
calling my attention to the alternative avenue of change: not by increasing the driving forces, but by
systematically weakening the “restraining forces” that inhibit group/student development (This, once
more, has strong connections to my Buddhist/Cistercian theology that emphasizing the disciplines of
not-doing and un-doing.)
In conclusion: I am thinking about using SCT as a larger Crit. Purchase (and not just group theory)
because it been influencing my thinking not only in the context of working with groups, but with
individual students in my educational practice.
What has been of use: SCT conceptual framework and methods
SYSTEMS: as energy-organizing, self-correcting, goal-oriented entities that go through predictable
phases & subphases of development, each featuring typical patterns of thinking, feeling, and behavior.
I.
Authority Phase (with subphases of Flight and Fight): developmental goal is system survival
II.
Intimacy Phase (Enchantment and Disenchantment): dvlp. goal is system development
III.
Interdependent Work/Love/ Play Phase: dvlp. goal is system transformation
My awareness of these phases influences my supervisory assessment and focus of intervention. E.g., in
the initial phases of group formation, it is not effective to work on difficult issues of change: because the
system is primarily focused on who has power, how (or whether) it is shared, what are safe and unsafe
ways of relating to authority figures and each other, what does it take to make it through the CPE unit
(i.e., focus on survival), its members will be not be ready for having their views and habits challenges and
changed (i.e., transformation). An attempt to tackle the issues of change could potentially slide into
scapegoating. My vignette about racism debate breaking out during the Autobiography presentations (very early
in group development for Extended Internship unit) is a very good example of that: while the issue of race and racial
injustice is a very important issue for my educational practice, I have chosen to only “contain” that issue at that
time, and make an intentional return to it later, when the group matured and was less preoccupied with issues of
survival. At that time, they were more ready to hear and learn from each other. Additionally, my awareness of
the key relational issues associated with each phase—e.g., communication patterns that establish a
pecking order, tendency to create id-patients/scapegoats, 3 key sources of anxiety, 2 ways of dealing with
frustration—give me specific ways of engaging my students, individually and as a group, in the work of
deepening their self-awareness and increasing their interpersonal and pastoral skills.
ANXIETY – In SCT, anxiety is understood in a very specific way: it is a signal that a misinterpretation of
reality is taking place and generating a negative emotional response: e.g., we have mistaken a rope for a
snake, and got frightened. As such, anxiety is not conducive to good education: a distorted perception of
reality is an unreliable context and conduit for learning, because learning has to do with discovery and
ongoing testing of reality. Effective education, therefore, requires a modification/undoing of anxiety, so
that we could be reconnected to our common sense and intuition, and thus, recover our ability to be
“researchers and explorers” of our experience in the world. Anxiety has three specific sources: our
thoughts, bodily sensations, and feelings of uncertainty.
- Thoughts generate anxiety via “negative predictions,” “interpretations,” “mindreads”: our brain
does not make the difference between the feelings generated by actual experience in the present,
and our memories of the past or fears of the future (this connects to my Trauma-informed theory too)
-
-
Bodily sensations create anxiety because they contain the meaning that is not easily accessible to
the conscious mind, because often they are outside of our full control, and because nearly always,
they serve as a container for the experience we are not ready to feel. Our lack of sensory-emotional
awareness results in the automatic fear of sensation arising in response to the unfamiliar
communications from the body.
The feelings of uncertainty generate anxiety because they take us beyond the limits of what we
know, to the “Edge of the Unknown.” Being confronted with the unknown, we have a choice
between avoiding or approaching. And in unfamiliar situations, we are hardwired to look for
things we should avoid (this is a healthy evolutionary response): thus, when we are at the edge
of the unknown, our avoidance responses are stronger than our approach responses. One way
we engage in avoiding is by explaining (rather than exploring): when we rush to explain, we
rationalize, rather than stop to check out, whether or not there is anything in the here-and-now
context that we truly need to avoid (whether we are facing a snake or a rope).
SCT differentiates between the feelings of anxiety (not helpful) and apprehension (helpful), which is
understood as the expected response to uncertainty and the unknown. Apprehension could be
intentionally vectored away from the state of reactive anxiety & towards the stance of proactive curiosity.
In anxiety, we bury our head in the sand. In apprehension, we pull it back out and don on a researcher’s
hat. Doing that changes our energy from flight to exploration, shifts our inner experience from passive
to active, and makes us realize that we have a choice to not make ourselves unnecessarily afraid.
The distinction between anxiety and apprehension, together with specific SCT protocols for undoing
anxiety, is very helpful for my supervisory practice. It allows me assess whether my students are in a
state conducive to learning (and whether I myself is in the state conducive to the work of supervision):
when anxiety enters the scene, our perceptual horizons narrow, and the actuality of our experience is
overshadowed by projections based on our previous (usually negative) experiences – thus, making the
system closed to any new energy/information. Anxiety is a powerful “restraining force” to learning.
In contrast, when anxiety is modified to the state of apprehension, as I practice with my students the
skills of paying attention to the content of our thoughts, of listening to the messages of our bodies, and
of staying at the edge of the unknown, while mobilizing our energy in the movement of curiosity and
exploration, we are both ready and actively engaged in the work of learning.
Learning about and learning to work with their anxiety in educational setting has direct positive
implications for pastoral care in the clinic Heightened anxiety and fear of the unknown is an ever-present
reality in the hospital settings. When CPE students develop the skills of recognizing and modifying
anxiety response, they have a tremendous gift to offer to the patients and staff with whom the minister.
Much in the art of offering of pastoral care could be boiled down to the ability to recognize and gently
work on weakening the strong currents of anxiety in the situations of crisis and need.
FUNCTIONAL SUBGROUPING: is the most distinctive feature of SCT and a method for discriminating
and integrating differences (instead of scapegoating them). In Functional Subgrouping (FS), people are
taught to intentionally come together to explore similarities. FS is an alternative to Stereotypical
Subgrouping (SS), a habit of enacting the fundamental human tendency to separate around differences,
and try to forcefully integrate (or when that fails, eliminate) the unacceptably different part of the system.
The work of FS is done in a very distinct way. First, the issue that gives rise to conflict is named clearly
for the group, and the group is invited to “take sides,” to identify the side of the difference they find
themselves resonating with, and thus, discover themselves as members of a particular subgroup. Second,
the two subgroups do the work of exploring their respective positions in each other’s presence.
The actuality of the work of subgrouping is based on repeated practicing of the skill of “joining and
building” on one another’s contributions to knowledge: one person speaks, offering a piece of
experiential information that s/he knows about the issue; another person actively listens and reflects back
the heart of another’s message (without interpreting or parroting)—until the person who is being listened
to, feels truly understood; and when that happens (and only then!), the second person adds a piece of
what s/he knows about the issue and invites others to join in the work by asking “anyone else?”
Because each subgroup works alone, i.e. only doing “joining and building” with the members who share
similarity of feeling and understanding, an interpersonal space is created where we feel safer and where
it is easier to cooperate. Because each subgroup works separately but in the other subgroup’s presence, the
subgroup that watches cannot help but listen and discover emergent similarities in feeling and knowing.
No energy is wasted on trying to defend our own positions while trying to correct or convert others. A
clear structure is provided to foster active and non-defensive listening. The requirement of testing and
fine tuning one’s understanding with the other—until s/he feels really and truly understood—creates
conditions not just for enhanced of intellectual understanding but for deepened emotional attunement:
it feels good to be understood! By exploring the differences within the apparently similar (within each
subgroup) and the similarities in the apparently different (between each subgroup), the differences are
contained and integrated in the group as a whole, resulting not only in less conflictual climate but
genuine increase in understanding, greater emotional safety, resonance, and sense of belonging (and
therefore group cohesiveness), and an opportunity for growth and change. Functional subgrouping,
when done well, is a powerful driving force for transformative learning.
Educationally:
- On the level of individual learning: nobody works alone – TRF learning is made easier, because
nobody is stuck in the hot seat.
-
On the level of the dyadic engagement, this teaches the fundamental skills of pastoral care:
o centering in oneself
o active listening
o reflecting back the heart of emotional message
-
On the level of the group as a whole, it contains the difference and the conflict it gives rise to
o give equal access to voice to the conflicting sides
o gives safe environment for exploration of what one knows with the like-minded group
o create conditions for genuine listening to the different-minded group
o allows to contain the conflict…and gradually integrate the differences, finding a new
middle ground
Clinically, once more, profound modifications:
- this is the fundamental skill of pastoral care – the ability to hear and reflect back the heart of
emotional message…to help the other feel heard and understood…and check if there is a
misunderstanding.
- Ability to minister to the Different?
-
A more advanced pastoral skill of attending to the “complex family/staff dynamics”
I am here and I am very tired. The dream I had speaks to this enormous level of strain and all sorts of
delays due to the circumstances I could not predict. I am in the driver seat (!), somehow there is a
conversation between me and Mark that it is I who needs to drive, I cannot be driven like before,
mindlessly just riding along in the passenger’s seat, but my own driving is difficult…and it has less to
do with my driving per se and more to do with all the external hold-ups, other people. I do so get hung
up on other people – but I do not want to give to pharmacy still that much power – it is about my
relationship with me, a cognitive component (subsystem) of an insecure role that externalizes onto others insecure
aspects of relationship with the self (SC Core Skills, Mind Reading). And so, that is where the work that
needs to be done. ----------- But for now, for this one hour I want to vector my energy into the group
that works on SCT section for High Point.