Abstract
The conversations recorded during a face-to-face discussion group utilizing
a modified Ullman-Zimmerman method of working with dreams were recorded,
transcribed, and then analyzed for types of and volume of group members'
responses to the dream metaphor presented by the dreamer and the dreamer's
comments about the groups' responses. This same dream was presented to a
number of persons participating on an electronic bulletin board interested
in dream content and process. The responses from the bulletin board participants
were presented to the dreamer, and both the participants' responses and
the dreamer's comments were analyzed. Similarities were found in the issues
discussed and judged accuracy of responses, but substantial differences
were found in the volume of comments generated (both participants' and dreamer's)
by the two methods. Possible causes for these differences are discussed,
and implications for future research are presented.
Introduction
Within the realm of working with the meaning of dream content, there are
two major divisions: one is associated with a clinical framework, primarily
involving the dreamer in a one to one analytic therapeutic relationship,
and the other is associated outside the realm of the therapist's closed
office door. The recent explosion of literature dealing with dream work
is testimony to both the public's interest in dreams, and the evolving techniques
for the general public to work with dream content.
One of the techniques for working outside the therapist's office has been
developed by Montague Ullman, M.D.; this methodology is described in Ullman
and Zimmerman's Working With Dreams (1979),
but since this had been a dynamic evolutionary methodology, it has changed
slightly over time, and updates to the original process can be found in
the first chapter of The Variety of Dream Experience
(Ullman, 1988). Ullman firmly believes that the ability to work in a
meaningful way with dreams can lead to a therapeutic process and healing
experience without "the formal trappings of a therapeutic arrangement"
(Ullman, 1988, p. ix).
Ullman attaches great importance to getting the dream work process into
the realm of interested concerned dreamers, and I questioned whether this
process could be expanded beyond a face to face group dream work conference.
The logical extension of more public participation is to a wider geographical
area; computer networks provide a means for this extended communication,
and there are several reasons why such a conference would be valuable. There
are two populations that could benefit from computer conferences: the homebound
or partially disabled who now use computers for communication, and those
persons interested in working with dreams who are so geographically disbursed
that they can not attend face to face workshops. The extension to an electronic
conference seemed to be the next step. One initial purpose for this study,
therefore, was to answer the question "Can the U-Z technique be used
on an electronic communication network?"
Assuming that it would be possible to conduct some form of a U-Z electronic
workshop, and that the conduct of the workshop was justified, the next general
questions were associated with the two processes: (a) Would the therapeutic
benefit attributed to face to face dream work be present in an electronic
communication network; (b) If benefits were present, how were they different
or similar, in what way would they be manifested, i.e. determine the extent
of changes in the nature of the highly personal information that is usually
exchanged; and (c) would it be possible to isolate reasons for any differences
measured?
The Ullman-Zimmerman (U-Z) technique for the conduct of a dream workshop
usually involves a group of eight to ten persons who meet to discuss a dream
presented by a participant. After the dream has been presented, each group
member acts as if he or she had dreamed that particular dream and has the
opportunity to report on the thoughts, feelings, concerns, or associations
engendered by the dream. The original dreamer then has the opportunity to
share with the group the pertinence of the comments developed. This description
is an oversimplification, as there is a specific protocol that must be followed,
but there are usually many insights that result from this exchange of personal
information.
The traditional location for the discussion of dreams has been in the office
of the clinician, where therapeutic practices may employ an exchange of
information between a therapist and client which utilize the client's reported
dream content as a central focus for the discussion. Skilled analysts have
usually been trained in some particular "school" of dream interpretation
such as Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian, etc., although the borders of these
territories have become less rigid as time has passed. A major asset of
the U-Z process is that it is not necessary for the participants to be schooled
in any particular discipline; lay persons can contribute greatly to the
dreamer's understanding of meanings most appropriate to the dreamer.
I have found no research that has touched specifically upon the development
of an electronic conference for the conduct of a dream workshop. Although
workshop dreams are discussed, there is little research on the nature of
the dreams presented in these workshops. A great deal of medical dream research
is concerned with associating dream content and pathological conditions,
(Smith, 1986 or 1987), or in dealing with issues
of classification (Smith, 1984 or 1986).
Hycner (1982) and Kvale
(1983) provide guidelines for the phenomenological analysis of interview
data which can be applied to working with workshop dream content.
Electronic communication does alter the nature of information exchange (Baron,
1984), and there is some concern that technology may alter one's perspective
(Gratz and Salem, 1984). Some of these concerns
have been the object of study (Fields, 1987)
Process
- Intended procedure for network participation.
Originally I had intended to follow a sequence of posting a notice in the
Dream Network Journal, asking that experienced dream group workers contact
me, determining a proper network on which to conduct the study, and then
proceeding. I had requested the posting of the notice, but due to publication
dates, the notice had not yet been printed. It was my intent to assemble
a group of interested dreamers, decide on the most appropriate network for
the conference, and create the conference that would be restricted to the
interested dreamers.
For an entirely unrelated project, I secured a list of conferences accessible
through PeaceNet, and found a conference called "alt.dreams,"
located on a network called Usenet, a network I had never accessed. Usenet
is unique in structure. It began when two universities using an operating
system called Unix wanted to share information, and therefore they established
a small joint communication network, but other universities wanted to join
in, and the network grew tremendously. It is unique in that there is no
regular governing board that is responsible for its operation. All the activities
are monitored by volunteers, and there were 691 active conferences when
I first accessed the network. Since there was no one to contact for information,
I decided to try posting a notice to this
conference, indicating my interest to conduct a study, to see what type
of a response I might get.
The original face-to-face (FTF) conference at Saybrook had eleven participants.
Two Saybrook students (who had not been a part of the original group and
who knew nothing of the dream) had wanted to be a part of the study, and
since neither the dreamer nor I would be acting as group members, eight
interested participants from the network would be ideal. As soon as I received
seven responses indicating interest in joining the group, I posted the original
dream, as the network seemed to be quite active, with postings every day
and evening.
- Experience level.
Participants were not familiar with the Ullman-Zimmerman process, and only
a few had been active participants in group dream work. None had ever worked
with the process of taking someone else's dream as their own, so even though
I had posted specific instructions about starting the reporting with "If
it were my dream," quite a few of the postings immediately asked questions
not appropriate to the process. With those persons who had agreed to participate
in the study, the matter was clarified, but there were also some who had
read the posting, had not indicated an interest in joining the study, but
who also posted comments about the dream
- Following the U-Z protocol.
Briefly, there are several stages to the process: (1) the dreamer presents
a dream to the group, (2) group members may question the dreamer about content
for purposes of clarification, (3) the group members take the dream "as
if it were their own" and present their thoughts, feelings, and what
the dream metaphor might mean to them, (4) the dreamer may respond to the
group members' projections, and (5) there may be additional discussions
by all.
It was almost impossible to follow the U-Z protocol exactly, particularly
in respect to segment (5) and somewhat to (3), always reporting the dream
"as if it were my dream." There was one "my friend thinks"
comment, but as I read the response, I realized that because the computer
responses are posted to the network without the dreamer's presence, the
process automatically sets the dreamer aside temporarily, and it really
matters little to the dreamer whether responses are in the first person
or if they were written incorporating a third person's ideas that might
resonate with their own. All references were to "Jane's dream."
In the U-Z process, after the dream has been presented, group members have
the opportunity to ask the dreamer questions to clarify specifics about
the dream (one can not ask the dreamer what he or she thought the dream
meant), and on the computer network, I accepted those clarification questions
and forwarded them to the dreamer, posting the replies shortly thereafter.
When inappropriate questions were asked, I was able to advise the computer
conference member that the question may be a good one but not to be asked
at the present time, but they were commented upon at a later date.
Because the dreamer was not participating directly via computer, it was
necessary for me to act as a relay in both submitting the computer postings
to the dreamer, and in posting the dreamer's comments back to the participants.
Because the dreamer did not participate directly on the computer, there
was no opportunity for stage (5) activity. Feedback was limited to relaying
the dreamer's comments back to the computer group. It was not limited operationally,
it is just that no members posted additional items for discussion by the
group. In a closed conference, I believe there would be much more opportunity
for additional communication
- Processing the transcriptions.
The initial dream as recorded was transcribed and presented to the computer
group. This transcription was further analyzed to break down the dream description
into meaningful statements or side remarks. Meaning units were then identified
by a sequence number, and the Dreamer's comments are identified as D-xxx.
Questions to the dreamer are coded QM or QF (Question,Male or Question,Female)
and responses are coded RM or RF (Response,Male or Response,Female), and
responses are further identified as originating from the face to face (F)
conference, or from the computer network (N). The following coding system
therefore applies to the initial transcription:
\ ....... \ Non-meaningful remark
/ ....... / meaningful remark
D-xxx Original Dreamer remark
C-RF-xxx Computer Net Female Remark
C-RM-xxx Computer Net Male Remark
F-RF-xxx Face to Face Female Remark
F-RM-xxx Face to Face Male Remark
F-D-xxx Dreamer Response to Face-to-Face Remark
N-D-xxx
Dreamer Response to Computer Remark (Numbers above 100)
Questions, remarks, and responses were coded sequentially, indicated by
beginning and ending slash "/" marks). Non-meaningful content
(indicated by reverse "\" slash marks) were not counted in any
word count analysis. With this coding it is possible to analyze the different
types of content with reference to source, so that it became possible to
compare the number of meaningful original statements, the number of corresponding
related replies, and the number of responses deemed meaningful to the dreamer.
The original transcription is labeled Appendix A, Appendix B contains the
dreamer's remarks broken down into meaning units, and Appendix C contains
the computer conference transcript.
- Assigning meaning units.
Determining how much information constitutes a "meaning unit"
is not a simple matter, and reflects the viewpoint of the analyst. If the
units are small in content, it provides a larger quantity to work with statistically,
but it makes subsequent grouping of statements and responses more difficult.
There were some obvious groupings, however, and the analysis process was
started. Only after the individual exchanges were grouped together by attempted
keyword category did the difficulty of coding become apparent. The original
breakdown into "meaning units" seemed to be much too fine, in
that the segments seemed to be too numerous and without visible structure
under which to group items. This necessitated going back through the whole
series of transcriptions and expanding the content of each meaningful unit,
thereby reducing the overall number of analysis units.
As responses were collated, however, relationships or equalities of metaphor
began to appear, but with these major patterns, small subtleties also appeared,
and it became apparent that the meaning units were now too coarse, resulting
in the requirement for the process to be repeated a third time, returning
to the format of a larger number of meaningful units of a more detailed
nature. Although the third and final coding was very similar to the first,
the third coding was done with the perspective of having worked with the
overall material several times, resulting in the ability to see how each
statement could fit in the overall analysis.
This process of assignment is definitely a matter of judgment and perspective
on the part of the investigator, and it is doubtful that every observer
would choose exactly the same meaningful units. The guidelines that I established
for myself were as follows: Whenever a specific paragraph, sentence or part
of a sentence expressed one integrated thought or feeling, I assigned it
as a meaning unit; if there were nuances involving feeling, they were coded
as a separate meaning unit; in general, any specific thought or feeling
that was expressed was treated in the same manner.
An example of the difficulty of assigning comments to specific classifications
can be illustrated by considering the following sequences (original coding
references):
(N-RM-076) / Putting Mike, my "dead" ex-husband, in the closet,
reminds me of the expression "skeletons in one's closet".
(N-RM-077) / I feel the emptiness of butchered carcasses. There is nothing
left inside Mike. I feel sad. Mike is really dead. What's left is really
a shell.
(N-D-208) / That's true, that's true and it's what needs to happen, and
it is also sad. And it's true that part of me is dead with that, like with
any long relationship. I think the part of you that was in the relationship
dies when the relationship dies.
N-RM-076 was coded separately because the implication is that there are
past activities that have been or are being hidden from view. Should such
a remark be associated with "Mike's death," "closet,"
or "relationships?"
In N-RM-077, what is missing? Why is he a shadow of his former self? Does
this comment belong under "Mike's death," "butchered carcass,"
or something under relationships or emotions? N-D-208 not only speaks to
the presented comments, but also goes on to expand on ideas that involves
relationships. Does this mean that the prior comments should all be grouped
together under relationships?
The net result was that iterative processes resulted in a different coding
that recognized the individual elements as being specific meaning units.
- Assigning content categories.
As the dream plot, group responses, and dreamer's comments were assembled,
certain keywords and categories began to appear. If a specific statement
engendered a direct matching response, there was little problem is assigning
a category for the response. This category assignment process was also iterative.
Sometimes the category was immediately apparent. but at other times, although
a keyword might seem to indicate immediate assignment to that keyword, the
categories were so overlapping that the response might be assigned to a
category other than indicated by the keyword. In three instances, the statement
properly fit two categories, because two ideas might have been contained
in the single statement, and the eventual coding and assignment, although
different than the above, was indicated in two places.
There were also many items that had to be assigned to a "General"
or miscellaneous category where there were not enough references to constitute
a separate group. In contrast, the responses assigned to "Masculine"
are few in number but seemed to be an independently important issue.
The dreamer's responses varied from being quite specific in responding to
a particular group member's comments to a general acceptance or denial followed
by other comments. It would have been very difficult to clearly outline
all the key words for references without going through a distillation process,
and it is doubtful that one would have had the ability to compare projections
and dreamer comments on a one to one basis.
- Comparison assignments.
It is to be expected that the projections of the individual group members
would vary, although there were the obvious groupings referenced above.
When a response occurred which bore a direct relationship to the initiating
remark, it was immediately evident that these items were related, and the
coded statements were paired together. As mentioned above, however, often
the statement was one of general comment then followed by a stream of consciousness
engendered by the prior remark. When comparisons were attempted between
the group member's projection and the dreamer's responses, there may or
may not have been a one to one relationship. In these many instances, the
succeeding comments have been paired with the initiating remark, as they
seem to have resulted from the initial coupled coding. Combined FTF and
NET postings sorted by assigned keyword, are located in Appendix
E.
- Table of comparisons.
Eventually, after several iterations of comparing responses and iterations
of keyword classifications, it was possible to summarize these responses
in a table of comparisons (Appendix F).
The elements of the table and their classifications are as follows:
GROUP: Statements were classified sequentially, with coding to indicate
the source:
(F-xx-xxx) Face-to-Face conference,
(N-xx-xxx) Computer Network,
(x-Qx-xxx) Question,
(x-Rx-xxx) Question,
(x-xF-xxx) Female,
(x-xM-xxx) Male.
DREAMER: Responses or comments:
(F-D-xxx) Face-To-Face, (N-D-.xxx Computer Network).
HIT: If there was an immediate matching comparison that could be coded as
a clear confirmation, it was coded as a "Hit." Likewise a direct
denial was coded a "Miss." In many cases, although there was an
indicated coding that matched a remark to a response, if it was the result
of the stream of consciousness type of continued remark, a hit or miss was
not involved, so no entry appears. In a few cases a "N/A" for
not applicable applies. N-D-127, 178, and 179, due to reassignment of response
numbers during an iteration, do not contain a response.
INFO: During the iteration process, it became apparent that many additional
valid items of information were being given by the dreamer. If the remark
pertained to the initial telling of the dream, it was coded "Plot."
If additional information was presented, a "Yes" coding was tabulated.
KEYWORD: This assignment was for the general category or cluster the comment
or remark was assigned to. In a few instances, there are multiple assignments.
M F: Male or Female - Sex of the individual group member's comment or sex
of the initiating group member's comment resulting in a dreamer's response.
If there was no identifiable sex identification, coding was "N/A."
- The nature of the iterative process.
In processing the dream material, one does not always see a one to one relationship
between the dream plot as presented, the projections of the group, and the
comments of the dreamer. One of the particular elements of interest to me
was to see if the same types of responses to specifics of the dreamer's
plot would be engendered by the two methods. This required an initial breakdown
of the dream plot into subject areas. The initial coding process treated
each individual part of the dream plot as a meaning unit, but when responses
were compared, they did not necessarily address a specific small meaning
unit. This was the initiating factor starting the iterative process.
The building of the final comparisons had to be done by sections, again
in an iterative process. In the case of the FTF transcription, all dream
plot material, group projections, and dreamer comments were in one block
which could be coded and the individual meaning units assigned to a tentative
subject area. With the computer responses, each individual's contribution
was coded in sequence, individual after individual, until all network projections
were assembled. Next the dreamer's responses were sequentially coded, and
the responses allocated to the appropriate participant's projection that
initiated the response.
Each participant's projection and dreamer's response were then added to
the proposed tentative subject area. After the coded statements were all
assembled under the proposed subject areas, it was possible to see how and
where projections and answers either did or did not fit together. It is
only by detail study of one condition does one arrive at a perspective from
which a second structure can be built, and in this analysis the process
was repeated three times. The first attempt to construct meaningful units
resulted in their being too detailed with too many categories, the second
grouped ideas together in a less detail manner, but also resulted in the
loss of subtleties that I felt were important, so a third analysis was required
to produce the final coding so that comments could be evaluated, compared,
and classified.
The selection of the categories for keyword also involved an iterative process
of selection. It was often very difficult to assign a statement to a particular
category, because of nuances in the metaphor. The closet as a hiding place
for private matters and the closet as a storage place for something you
are finished with are two entirely different concepts, and for classification
purposes, this presents a problem. In this particular place, I believe the
metaphor was being used two ways, and if two different individuals referred
to the two different meanings, both could be correct. There were therefore,
a few occasions where it was necessary to classify a given under more than
one category.
- Change of perspective.
One of the interesting results of this analysis has been that the initial
intent was to produce quantifiable units of information that could be statistically
analyzed, but what has happened is that while that result has been accomplished,
a wonderful rich tapestry of a human story has evolved with a richness that
might not have been appreciated with the mere recording of the conversations.
The very act of intense analysis, of pulling apart the comments and re-cementing
them in a different order, has produced a story that is possibly richer
than the Original.
Findings
This study was not concerned with comparing dream content against other
standards, so was not classified utilizing coding systems such as that proposed
by Hall & Van de Castle
(1966). The parameters chosen were for the purposes of comparing the nature
and quantity of participants' responses that the original dream plot engendered,
and quantifying the dreamer's comments on the participants' responses. As
has been mentioned, the final choices of parameters was based on subjective
decisions resulting from the iterative process of working with the data
phenomenologically. Tables 1 and 2 summarize the comparisons found in Appendix
F.
Table 1
Tally of Responses
Face-to-Face Computer
Number of Participants 14 19
---------------------------------------------------------
Questions Asked 21 4
Participants' Responses 58 117
Hits 36 64
Misses 5 9
New Dreamer Information 46 124
Table 2
Classification of Responses by Subject Matter
Face-to-Face Computer
Number of Participants 14 19
----------------------------------------------------------
Closet 3 14
Ending 13 7
Exposed 8 8
Family 10 10
Feelings 13 58
General 22 21
Masculine 3 0
Sister 11 16
Ratio of Hits/Misses 7.14 7.11
- Statistics.
One hardly needs statistical treatment to see that there are substantial
differences in the numbers of replies from the two different processes,
but to analyze the extent of these differences, they were subjected to a
chi-square distribution analysis, comparing the actual number of responses
with the expected number of responses in proportion to the numbers of participants.
The results of this computation are presented in the tables 3 and 4. An
important note: initially, responses were coded for all categories with
respect to male and female but were later joined. The raw data summary is
presented in Appendix G, because there are some
interesting observations based on this data, although they were not subjected
to chi-square distribution analysis.
- Results
Testing the null hypothesis that there is no difference between the way
the two groups would respond leads to the necessity to reject this hypothesis
at the levels indicated in Table 3. There are substantial differences in
the quantities of responses of the two groups. There were many similarities
in the nature of the items commented upon, as evidenced by non-significant
chi-square values found for most of the categories. There was, however,
a very great statistical difference in the subject area of feelings. The
chi-square calculations are listed in Appendix H.
Table 3
Tally of Responses
computed critical Prob.
chi-square value (df=2)
Questions Asked 5.62 4.605 .10
Participants' Responses 56.48 13.815 .001
Hits 25.97 13.815 .001
Misses 3.72 3.219 .20
New Dreamer Information 81.59 13.185 .001
Table 4
Classification of Responses by Subject Matter
computed critical Prob.
chi-square value (df=2)
Closet 13.34 12.02 .10
Ending 0.15
Exposed 0.79
Family 0.99
Feelings 53.90 24.32 .001
General 1.71
Masculine 1.92
Sister 4.60
Quantity of Responses:
It is apparent that there are different processes involved in responding
to the two presentations (verbal and written) of the dream. One consideration
is obviously the time constraint placed upon the FTF conference participants.
With a specific agenda to be accomplished within the very limited time frame
of the hour meeting, verbal responses were limited, as was the ability of
the dreamer to share observations. With the computer network, however, participants
had the opportunity to respond to whatever degree preferred, and a review
of the actual postings (Appendix C) will show the wide variation in the
length of postings made.
The one category that did not conform to this general activity was in the
number of questions asked. There are several possible reasons for this.
The first is there is a general propensity to keep asking questions of the
dreamer and not starting the phase of starting projections. During personal
communication with Dr. Ullman, he has pointed out that this is a recurring
problem with group dreamwork and the leader must be aware of this operational
problem. The second is that the posting to the computer network consisted
of the dream and the initial FTF questions and answers. The network participants
there had the benefit of this information. The third possible reason is
the it might have been a little more difficult and cumbersome to get a question
answered on the network, because the dreamer was not actually on the network
and I had to relay the questions and answers.
Hits and Misses:
The ratio of hits to misses was virtually the same, 7.11 for the FTF group
and 7.14 for the network. I interpret this to mean that the actual mental
process of working with the dream content is similar, therefore yielding
a similar ratio of hits to misses. Even though the volume of network responses
was greater, the quality of responses was similar.
New Information:
One measure of the effectiveness of group members' comments was the number
of responses elicited from the dreamer. When the dreamer voluntarily presented
additional comments, they were coded as new information. The dreamer's replies
to the network were substantial and varied in content. A great deal of information
was added, and there could have been two major reasons for this. The first
is associated with the time available for response, and the second may have
been associated with the passage of calendar time. The replies to the FTF
participants had to be made immediately after hearing the projections. With
the network, the dreamer would not only have had the responses in hand as
written comments and the opportunity to compose a leisurely reply, but also
the benefit of reflection over a longer period of time. I know that I personally
will gain additional insights into the meaning of a particular dream as
time allows me to process the content.
This was particularly evident with the remark made to one of the later network
postings, where the dreamer commented (to be discussed more fully later)
that a subsequent dream had occurred that put closure on the issues presented
in the dream being studied.
Keywords:
Note that most of the keyword subject areas showed no significant difference
between the two processes. I interpret this to mean that in general, the
mental process and quality of responses were similar to situation with hits
and misses. There were only two subject areas, "feelings" and
"sister," that were statistically significantly different.
Male-Female Differences:
As was briefly mentioned, the data was originally tallied using the additional
classification of male and female so that unusual response patterns could
be seen more clearly. This original data is presented in Appendix F, and
there are several interesting ratios. All of the responses of the FTF group
relating to sister were originated by females, whereas 30% of the sister
network postings were from males. The vast majority of the remarks concerning
feelings and were made by the network participants, and this discussion
of feelings was continued by the dreamer in replying to network comments.
The absence of male figures was commented upon in the FTF group yet was
not mentioned by network participants. This classification was included
because although the comments were few in number, they seemed important
to the dreamer.
In classifying new information supplied by the dreamer, a problem arose
due to the stream of consciousness type comments of the dreamer. They were
delivered to the group and in most cases one could not trace the source
leading to the comment. There were 8 new bits of information attributed
to males, 5 to females, and 33 unknown. With the network, each response
was identifiable because the replies were addressed to a specific person
(22 to females and 102 to males).
Metaphoric Process
The dream presented a very clear set of icons about personal issues in the
current life of the dreamer, issues that she was apparently ready to deal
with: the relationship to her ex-husband in the past, present, and future;
co-dependency issues in maintaining a prior marriage status quo; family
issues centered on parents and their different points of view and standards;
and probably most important, the assessment of the desirability of future
relationships, both as to kind and emotional depth. Using the metaphor as
a checklist, participants were able to offer their projections about what
he or she thought the metaphor offered. The dreamer was able to integrate
these responses into a meaningful cohesive assessment of her current life
situation.
The following section presents an overview of the issues the dreamer was
dealing with. I have taken segments from various responses and placed them
in somewhat logical order. The comments are approximately 98% verbatim,
but where I have selected a segment, I may have changed the introduction
slightly or removed parts of the segment. It does, however give an overview,
in the dreamer's words, of the emotional issues being processed.
- Excerpts from Dreamer's Comments.
- Putting him in the closet was about not really being totally ready to
accept the fact that the relationship is over
- I find it difficult to accept that anything is completely finished
- I actually was the one who chose to leave the relationship
- I have never actually regretted my decision, given the way we were together.
- I wish the marriage could have worked out differently,
- I was in England for six weeks and made three attempts to get together
with him.
- In past times he had obviously wanted to see me a lot
- Now obviously the interest is completely gone on his side.
- It was just a realization that it is over in every way
- I think that closet and that little room was definitely symbolic of my
childhood
- I met him when I was 17 in high school
- I think it was also him saying goodbye to the past.
- I was angry with him on my last visit
- He never took initiatives, he never really said what he wanted, he never
took hold of things, and he was always in a reactive mode.
- What was upsetting was that we never ever talked about our relationship
- how it just evaporated - we never really talked about , we never really
could talk about it.
- I think that I am angry about our inability to talk about it and finish
it off, have it really complete
- My reaction to that was I just have to accept an incomplete, and cut it
off
- and then be cold, because I can't have any more frustration about wishing
it could have been talked through better.
- To take this cold attitude was the only one I think I could find that
would work for me, although it didn't feel very good either.
- there is something about me that holds on and hangs on, and I find endings
per se difficult
- I am finally getting complete on coming to terms with my divorce.
- I started to come to terms with it about six or eight years ago, and I
am beginning to come complete on it now.
- I think a lot of what I hold on to has been the fantasy of what it could
have been and how wonderful it was when it really never was or in many ways
wasn't.
- I have put those feelings about the past into more of a sense that they
were more of a fantasy and a wish to think of marriage as an attempt to
play house or whatever.
- It wasn't really a very delightful relationship.
- I think it has just been a fantasy that I have hung on to about when I
was married that he was this or he was that.
- I think that was how I wanted to think it was, and it wasn't like that
at all.
- And that's what feels cold, since I am a feeling kind of person it seems
very cold to state that as a fact, but actually it is a fact.
- I don't have anyone in my life at the moment who now plays the part that
he played for me when I was young and got married
- I don't know that I want anyone to have that kind of part anymore, because
I am a much more fully developed person, and I have come into my own, I'm
my own person.
- I built my life around him and there is the convention of being the wife
- now I don't want that, it is not what I am looking for
- and the thought of it makes me feel dead inside even that it would be
like that.
- I have had some rewarding relationships in the last few years, and the
one thing I am really scared of having is one that's dead like that was.
- My mother has these romantic fantasies about marriage, even though she
has had a pretty bad marriage herself and she is still married,
- and that sort of irritates me
- this whole romantic sentimentalism that there is around marriage that
many people hold when their marriage is really not good is not something
that I would really want.
- I would rather be single any day rather than have that kind of marriage
- I made a stand to be single and feel good about it,
- that is not to say that I would not want to ever be married again.
- I think what is on the table for discussion is my coming to terms with
the fact that I have no one in my life with whom I have that really strong
romantic feeling that I had when I was young.
- I am much more realistic about relationships now and discriminating, and
much more independent.
- I think coming to terms with that really is important as that is how I
am now that I am in my 40's.
- Coming to terms with that is facing a reality.
- The romance of youth in the way I had it is gone.
- It's not even that I want it back because I think it is false.
- I may even choose to be single for the rest of my life, although I can
always imagine having affairs from time to time with different people, which
may be very significant.
- Sometimes I do wonder; on the one hand I really do not want that kind
of romantic fantasy kind of relationship,
- and on the other hand sometimes I think maybe these kinds of feelings
are still viable but somehow I can't have those kinds of relationships.
- Some of the times I think it is not realistic or even desirable, and other
times I think maybe it is but not for me.
- I just sometimes wonder to what extent I can have something that is meaningful
and alive with someone without loosing my identity and keeping my independence.
- Can it really be alive and fun without getting into the rituals of marriage
that I want to avoid, like carrying out a role of being "wife."
- even with the person that I am sharing my life with right now, a man,
I see myself going into (the role?) from time to time and liking it
- and then also knowing it could be deadening because the form of the relationship
can get more important than the actual relationship.
An interesting element was associated with presence of comments by several
participants dealing with the metaphor of the closet as a place to hide
things about feelings or the relationship. The dreamer denied conscious
awareness of any such possibility, yet during replies to network participants
commented about her anger, an element not touched upon by anyone nor overtly
present in the metaphor of the dream. Anger was a feeling that was not expressed
initially but was revealed during one of the stream of consciousness type
responses.
- Completion of the Metaphor.
In one of the network postings, the dreamer made the following comment:
This may be an appropriate time to mention that a week or two after I had
this dream, I had another dream where I was in the dream with my mother's
sister who has just recently died in her 60's. In the background there was
a church and a coffin was being carried into the church. She and I were
talking and it was clear that it was Michael's coffin being taken into the
church for what looked like a proper burial.
This is a wonderful example of how the initially powerful metaphor was represented
with a sense of closure, possibly reflecting the processing that had taken
place during the intervening time. In any event, the dreamer found the process
to be powerful and productive.
Other Considerations
- Face-to-Face Dream Group.
A major shortcoming of the limited time one-hour frame in which to conduct
the U-Z protocol is that participants do not have the opportunity to make
leisurely projections, nor does the dreamer have much time to share feedback
with the group, so some content is obviously not shared. The current U-Z
protocol stresses the feeling aspects, and it is interesting to see the
disparity between the feelings responses between the two groups. A normal
U-Z dream group requires approximately two hours for participants who are
familiar and interested in working with the process, so one can appreciate
the abbreviated nature of this particular session.
- Network Participants.
The conference on which this dream was posted is a most unusual one. The
network is called "UseNet," an association of Unix users, whose
primary members seem to be universities. The network has many conferences
and this network is accessible through other networks through "gateways,"
a method of connecting computer networks together. PeaceNet, the organization
on which Saybrook is located, has a gateway to UseNet, so PeaceNet users
can read and post replies to conferences on UseNet.
Probably because it is so diverse, with nearly 700 ongoing conferences,
the postings cover a wide area of topics. My impression of the participants'
subject matter of postings on alt.dreams, the name of the dream conference
on which this dream was posted, is that there is a great deal of enthusiasm
and somewhat less organization. For example, the following is a list of
topics recently on the conference:
alt.dreams
1 RE: reading in my dreamssssss 6 ciav03@vaxa.strath.ac.uk
2 Death in dreams 8 dxandy@cs.widener.edu
3 Re: Reading in dreams 1 prune@athena.mit.edu
4 Death in Dreams 4 Paul.Fortman@samba.acs.un
5 An odd dream 5 gapickrell@happy.colorado
6*Hypnagogic Spiral to Oblivion 3 prune@athena.mit.edu
7 Sleep and dreams? 3 rk3h+@andrew.cmu.edu
8 <None> 0 cidzerda@blackbird.CalPol
9*Vitamin B6 and a strange exper. 3 art@mentor.cc.purdue.edu
10 Controlling your Dreams 1 soe@public.BTR.COM
11*Dreams, OBE's & stuff 6 brian@tadsrc.uucp
12 alt.dreams is good for you 0 jroche@cix.compulink.co.u
13*Re: Memory since alt.dreams 3 lazarus@wyatt.ksu.ksu.edu
14 Re: Future Wife? 0 gerry@dialogic.com
15 Recurring dreams 0 Paul.Fortman@samba.acs.un
16 Re: Talking in your Sleep 0 wjb@hplvec.LVLD.HP.COM
17 strange..? 1 mauls@warwick.ac.uk
18 Postings from Io 0 mauls@warwick.ac.uk
19*lucid/continuous dreaming 7 maulv@cu.warwick.ac.uk
20*Death in dreams - almost 2 stuart@nntp-server.caltec
21*Nightmare 0 cidzerda@blackbird.CalPol
22*Nightmare 0 cidzerda@blackbird.CalPol
23*Dreams reflect your state of mi 0 mauls@warwick.ac.uk
24*Dreaming superiority 3 mauls@warwick.ac.uk
25*gold mining dream 0 eda352xbp2@vx24.cc.monash
26*towering infernos and intrigu 0 viki@crash.cts.com
27*Not An Apology 0 prune@athena.mit.edu
28*Point-of-view 1 kaye@borage.cc.uwa.oz.au
29*Multiple roles 0 cdfk@otter.hpl.hp.com
30*Auditory dreaming 1 rrobin@bluemoon.uucp
31*Astral Nasties (was Falling) 1 jroche@cix.compulink.co.u
32*Re: More Childhood Stuff 0 jroche@cix.compulink.co.u
33*Frightening Dreams 0 justin@nanometrics.portal
34*Re: What do you think? 0 silva@park.bu.edu
35*Re: How do blind people dream? 0 Margaret.Bullock@f402.n25
**** End of Topics ****
As one can see, this is a most diverse list. I was interested to learn how
and why alt.dreams was started and posted a notice requesting information.
I received a response from a Mr. Jack Campin, who lives in Scotland, and
was the originator of the conference. Copies of our e-mail communications
concerning its founding are located in Appendix
I. From the nature of the postings and the supplied information, it
appears that the current network postings do not quite follow the original
intent, but for the purposes of this study, it provided a platform to see
if the electronic communication aspects were feasible at all.
The other comment pertains to the type of participant. Looking at the e-mail
addresses of the above list, one can see that they are primarily associated
with academic organization and are located world-wide. The participants
in this particular study had the following addresses and relationships:
1. lenv@terminator.cc.umich.edu.bitnet
Univ. of Mich Student, math & physics, 24
2. stephens@latcs1.oz.au.UUCP, La Trobe University,
Melbourne Australia, Honor Student, Computer science
3. flick@sunburn.West.Sun.COM.UUCP
Crossroads Communications, Phoenix, AZ
4. helen@seismo.gps.caltech.edu.bitnet
Cal. Institute of Technology
5. howard@53iss6.waterloo.ncr.com.UUCP
NCR Canada, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
6. lhn@atherton.com.UUCP
Atherton Technology, Sunnyvale, CA
7. davisd@ucs.orst.edu.UUCP
Oregon State University -- UCS - Public Safety
8. cwailand, Saybrook Institute Student, Hawaii
Although none of these participants except cwailand had done group dream
work, their responses were obviously pertinent and extremely helpful to
the dreamer's process.
- Emoticoms.
Within the community of active computer bullentin-board users, a convention
has become established for using standard keyboard characters to enhance
remarks by adding a code to indicate emotions or to add a remark so the
preceeding written statement can be modified as if spoken with voice inflection.
If you look at the communication posted by DavidE, you will find the following
near the end of his comments:
"Poor Jane, somebody give her a cuddle for me please. :-( ",
"What? I'm wrong? Ah well, give her a cuddle anyway :-) "
The little hieroglyphic designs at the ends of the lines,
[the " :-( " representing "unhappy", and
the " :-) " representing "happy"]
are examples of these emoticoms. They are meant to be viewed from a 90 degree
angle and generally bear a loose connection to the situation, such as
:-):-):-) for a loud guffaw or (:-( for very sad. For a full list of emoticoms,
see Dvorak & Anis (1990, pp. 821-824).
Implications for Future Research
- Classifications.
There are several issues and questions raised by this study:
First, it would have been valuable to have had other persons score the responses
and also classify the remarks. There is no question that this is a very
subjective process, and my particular choices may be subject to criticism.
I would answer such possible criticism by stating that I believe the actual
choice of keywords for grouping responses and the resulting classification
system is not as important as consistency in applying the same coding standards
to both groups.
There were many judgment calls in trying to assign the dreamer's comments,
because the nature of analyzing a stream of consciousness leads one into
conflict about how to categorize a response that bridges multiple concepts.
Either-or assignments were difficult, sometimes it was necessary to select
"both." What is important is that both groups commented on the
same types of issues and were similar in their ratios of hits to misses.
History effects:
It is very hard to sort out whether the increased comments of the dreamer
in replying to network responses was due to the increased number of responses,
or whether the dreamer simply became more aware of the issues as time progressed
and these increases in awareness, because they were reported late, were
reported in a stream of consciousness answering network comments. Probably
both occurred. It would be necessary to reverse the order and have an equivalent
dream first posted to a network and then in person to have a basis for further
comparison. Before one could make any judgments, it would probably be necessary
to analyze the interactions of several FTF dream groups conducted on the
same time frame so as to establish some sense of a baseline.
- Auditory versus visual processing.
There is a question dealing with the optimal way of working with dream content.
Even with the U-Z method, where the primary communication is by sound and
sight, it is sometimes helpful to see a transcript of the dream as it was
written. One of the network participants specifically referred to the dreamer's
choice of words. In this study, the written material presented to the network
was, in fact, a transcription of the verbal recordings made at the group
dream meeting. Would the responses have been different if the dreamer had
participated directly in the network and posted her dream plot directly
on the computer conference? Would elements be lost or gained if the primary
communication medium were print rather than voice?
Conclusion
It is apparent that the participation in an electronic conference for dream
groups is possible and that processing dream metaphors at a distance yields
the same content processing as that encountered in a FTF dream group. What
is not known is whether such conferences could be sustained and whether
elements of trust could be developed in a regular group. I have been most
fortunate in having had the dreamer's permission to post her dream on the
network, and I believe the responses were helpful to her.
Continue to Refernces
Return to Table of Contents