Zusammenfassung
Der Artikel analysiert das komplexe interaktionelle und neurobiologische Geschehen der psychodramatischen Spiegeltechnik. Im Zentrum stehen die neurophysiologischen Unterschiede zwischen der distanzierten Beobachterposition einerseits und der involvierten Position als Protagonistin eines Spiels andererseits. Im Spiel stehen subcortikale Aktivitäten in Stamm- und Mittelhirn (Amygdala) im Vordergrund, was mit der Aktivierung von Affekten und emotionalem Erleben verbunden ist. In der Beobachterposition treten dagegen Denk- und Mentalisierungsvorgänge in den Vordergrund, die auf Aktivitäten im Neocortex beruhen. Im Lichte der neurobiologischen Vorgänge erweist sich die psychodramatische Spiegeltechnik als ideales Instrument, um Affektregulation zu fördern.
Abstract
This article analyzes the complex interactional and neurobiological processes of the psychodramatic mirror technique. Focus lies on the neurophysiological differences between the detached position as observer and the engaged position as protagonist of a role-play. Playing is foremost connected with subcortical activities of brainstem and midbrain (amygdala), which entails affect activation and experience of emotions, while the observers position is primarily associated with activities in the neocortex, especially of the mentalizing and reasoning systems. Regarding these neurobiological processes, the psychodramatic mirror technique seems to be an ideal instrument to foster affect regulation.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Notes
In Kapitälchen geschriebene Affektsysteme benennen biologisch fest vorgegebene neurophysiologische Affektareale
„The SEEKING system is a spontaneous, unconditional behavior generator that takes animals to places, actively and inquisitively, where associated learning mechanisms allow them to develop knowledge structures, to guide their foremost evolutionary action tools (inbuilt emotional systems) to create more structures – more higher mental processes – which facilitate survival.“ (Panksepp und Biven 2012, S. 136)
„This harmoniously operating neuroemotional system drives and energizes many mental complexities that humans experience as persistent feelings of interest, curiosity, sensation seeking, and, in the presence of a sufficiently complex cortex, the search for higher meaning.“ (Panksepp 1998, S. 145)
Hier handelt es sich um das Verhältnis zwischen Gehirnmasse und Gesamtmasse des Körpers, die sog. Enzephalisation
„The neocortex does not provide its own motivation; the neocortex is activated by subcortical emotional systems.“ (Panksepp und Biven 2012, S. 102)
„The neocortex – the source of our human intellect – is the servant of our emotional systems“ (Panksepp und Biven 2012, S. 103)
Testpersonen wird ein Video gezeigt, das eine mit zwei Bällen Basketball spielende Gruppe zeigt, die Testpersonen sind aufgefordert, die Anzahl der Ballwechsel zu zählen. Mittendrin läuft eine als Gorilla verkleidete Person durch das Geschehen. Die meisten Testpersonen haben den Gorilla beim Zählen nicht wahrgenommen.
„The Social Engagement System is an integrated system with both a somatomotor component regulating the striated muscles of the face and a visceromotor component regulating the heart via a myelinated vagus. The system is capable of dampening activation of the sympathetic nervous system and the HPA axis. By calming the viscera and regulating facial muscles, this system enables and promotes positive social interactions in safe contexts. The somatomotor component includes the neural structures involved in social and emotional behaviors. Special visceral efferent nerves innervate striated muscles, which regulate the structures derived during embryology from the ancient gill arches. The social engagement system has a control component in the cortex (i.e., upper motor neurons) that regulates brainstem nuclei (i.e., lower motor neurons) to control eyelid opening (e.g., looking), facial muscles (e.g., emotional expression), middle ear muscles (e.g., extracting human voice from background noise), muscles of mastication (e.g., ingestion), laryngeal and pharyngeal muscles (e.g., prosody of vocalizations), and head-turning muscles (e.g., social gesture and orientation). Collectively, these muscles function as neural gatekeepers detecting and expressing features of safety (e.g., prosody, facial expression, head gestures, eye gaze) that cue others of intention and control social engagement within the environment,“ (Porges 2009, S. 41 f)
„Taken together, the available empirical findings reveal important differences in the neural systems involved in first- and third-person perspective taking […]. One key region that might facilitate self-versus-other distinctions is the right tempoproparietal junction (TPJ). The TPJ […] seems to play a decisive role in self-awareness and the sense of agency. Agency (i.e., the awareness of oneself as the initiator if actions, desires, thoughts, and feelings) is essential for successful navigation of shared representations between self and other.“ (Decety und Lamm 2009, S. 206)
Der neurologische Mechanismus, der alle inneren und äußeren Wahrnehmungssignale daraufhin überprüft, ob die Lage sicher oder gefährdet scheint. (s. Porges)
„We propose that three major functional components dynamically interact to produce the experience of empathy in humans:• affective sharing between the self and the other, based on perception-action coupling that lead to shared representations;• Self-other awareness. Even when there is some temporary identification, there is no confusion between self and other;• Mental flexibility to adopt the subjective perspective of the other and also regulatory processes.”(Decety und Jackson 2004, S. 75)
Verbunden mit deutlichen Aktivitäten im dorsomedialen präfrontalen Kortex, am temporoparietalen Übergang, an Precuneus, Posteriorem Cingulum und am Temporalpol. (Lieberman 2013, S. 116)
„The surprising thing is that even though social reasoning feels like other kinds of reasoning, the neural systems that handle social and non-social reasoning are quite distinct, and literally operate at odds with each other much of the time. In many situations, the more you turn on the brain network for non-social reasoning, the more you turn off the brain network for social reasoning. This antagonism between social and non-social thinking is really important because the more someone is focused on a problem, the more that person might be likely to alienate others around him or her who could help solve the problem. Effective non-social problem solving may interfere with the neural circuitry that promotes effective thinking about the group’s needs.“ (Lieberman 2013, S. 8)
Literatur
Bateson, G. (1981). Ökologie des Geistes. Anthropologische, psychologische, biologische und epistemologische Perspektiven. Frankfurt a. M.: Suhrkamp.
Chabris, Ch, & Simons, D. (2011). Der unsichtbare Gorilla. Wie unser Gehirn sich täuschen läßt. München: Piper.
Corballis, M. (2011). The recursive mind. The origins of human language, thought, and civilization. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Decety, J., & Ickes, W. (Hrsg.). (2009). The social neuroscience of empathy. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Decety, J., & Jackson, P. L. (2004). The functional architecture of human empathy. Behavioral and Cognitive Neuroscience Reviews, 3(2), 71–100. doi:10.1177/1534582304267187 .
Decety, J., & Lamm, C. (2009). Empathy versus personal distress: Recent evidence from social neuroscience. In J. Decety & W. Ickes. (Hrsg.), The social neuroscience of empathy (S. 206). Cambridge: MIT Press.
Fosha, D., Siegel, D., & Solomon, M. (2009). The healing power of emotion. Affective neuroscience, development & clinical practice. New York: W.W. Norton.
Grawe, K., Donati, R., & Bernauer, F. (1994). Psychotherapie im Wandel. Von der Konfession zur Profession. Göttingen: Hogrefe.
Hutter, C. & Schwehm, H. (Hg.) (2009). J.L. Morenos Werk in Schlüsselbegriffen. Wiesbaden: VS-Verlag.
Kahnemann, D. (2012). Schnelles Denken, Langsames Denken. München: Siedler.
Klein, U. (1996). Rollenkategorien menschlichen Handelns. Ein Beitrag zur Handlungs- und Rollentheorie im Psychodrama. Psychodrama, 9(1), 145–165.
Klein, U. (2010). Das Spiel mit der Komplexität. Zu den systemischen Grundlagen szenischer Arbeitsformen. Familiendynamik, 35(3), 196–209.
Klein, U. (2012). Die Neurophysiologie der Bühne. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 11(2), 207–215. doi:10.1007/s11620-012-0147-8 .
Klein, U. (2014). Wat den een sien Uhl, is den annern sien Nachtigal... Zum Verhältnis von Psychodrama, Systemtheorie und Systemischer Familientherapie. Zeitschrift für Psychodrama und Soziometrie, 14(2), 179–191. doi:10.1007/s11620-014-0249-6 .
Lieberman, M. (2013). Social. Why our brains are wired to connect. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Maturana, H. (1982). Erkennen: Die Organisation und Verkörperung von Wirklichkeit. Ausgewählte Arbeiten zur biologischen Epistemologie. Braunschweig: Vieweg.
Moreno, J. L. (1939). Psychodramatic shock therapy – a sociometric approach to the problem of mental disorders. Sociometry, II(1), 1–30.
Packer, D., Kesek, A., & Cunnigham, W. (2011). Self-regulation and evaluative processing. In A. Todorov, S. Fiske, & D. Prentice (Hrsg.), Social neuroscience. Toward understanding the underpinnings of the social mind (S. 147–159). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J. (1998). Affective Neuroscience. The Foundations of Human and Animal Emotions. New York: Oxford University Press.
Panksepp, J., & Biven, L. (2012). The archaeology of mind. Neuroevolutionary origins of human emotions. New York: W.W. Norton.
Petzold, H., & Mathias, U. (1982). Rollenentwicklung und Identität. Von den Anfängen der Rollentheorie zum sozialpsychiatrischen Rollenkonzept Morenos. Reihe Bibliotheca Psychodramatica (Bd. 7). Paderborn: Junfermann.
Porges, S. (2009). Reciprocal influences between body and brain in the perception and expression of affect. A polyvagal perspective. In D. Fosha, D. Siegel, & M. Solomon (Hrsg.), The healing power of emotion. Affective neuroscience, development & clinical practice (S. 27–54). New York: W.W. Norton.
Porges, S. (2010). Die Polyvagal-Theorie. Neurophysiologische Grundlagen der Therapie. Emotionen, Bindung, Kommunikation und ihre Entstehung. Paderborn: Junfermann.
Stern, D. (1991). Tagebuch eines Babys. Was ein Kind sieht, spürt, fühlt und denkt. München: Piper.
Suddendorf, T. (2014). Der Unterschied. Was den Menschen zum Menschen macht. Berlin: Berlin Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Klein, U. Zur Neurophysiologie des psychodramatischen Spiegelns. Z Psychodrama Soziom 14, 201–211 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11620-015-0293-x
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11620-015-0293-x
Schlüsselwörter
- Psychodrama
- Spiegeln
- Mentalisieren
- Affektregulation
- Theory-of-Mind
- Auto-Tele
- Involviertheit/Distanziertheit
- Externalisierung
- Beobachter
- Affektive Neurowissenschaften
- Sozial-kognitive Neurowissenschaften