In order to discuss this topic, I would like to propose the use of the following two theoretical tools: the concept of the dramatic project and the concept of focus-and-shade.
The concept of dramatic project allows us a theoretical approximation between the sociometric instruments and the theatrical aspect of psychodrama. The dramatic project is an application and expansion of the “criterion” concept of the sociometric test within the social, group and psychodramatic contexts. It is based on the hypothesis that the forces of attraction and repulsion (forming a field of relationships) are established in function of a multitude of interdependent criteria, which collectively catalyze the group.
This catalyzing effect involves not only a teleological variable (or in other words, the global objectives of the group), but also a set of partial goals of different levels, as well as an arsenal of established instruments that are applied by the group in order to make the realization of their goals viable. Beyond the material means, resources of an ethical, aesthetic, behavioural, relational, etc. order are also included within this set of instruments. The totality of these components constitutes the dramatic project of the group.
The dramatic project as a reference presides the distribution of roles among the various group members, creating the conditions for the individual actions to jointly lead to the desired objectives. It defines expectations regarding the behaviour and the ways in which tools such as norms, values, technology, creativity, leadership, power, etc. are going to be used.
I would like to add here that, since the dramatic project is an essentially collective phenomenon (the building – by many hands – of a collective product), casual individual “dramatic projects” (attributed to a specific or particular group member) do not fit into this perspective of the dramatic project. Thus, when we try to understand a phenomenon through the prism of socionomy, it is important to take into consideration the dramatic project of the examined entity; this will allow the evaluation of those aspects of the tele-relationships that will mark the role-performance.
On the other hand, it is also important not to fragment the object of our examination, neither to look at its decomposed parts in isolation from their global, direct and dynamic reality. For this reason it is appropriate to look at the concepts of focus and shade, when working with the idea of the dramatic project.
The term focus was introduced by Moreno (11) in connection with the concept of psychosomatic roles. According to him, within this role category, one of the partners (the infant) is unable to fully apprehend the relational other (or “Thou”) in its totality; he will perceive only those fragments of the other, which the infant’s neurological maturity allows. It is this partial perception what Moreno called focus.
This Morenian categorization is actually a bit unfortunate, because – due to its imprecise formulation – it lead to a deviation in the scientific posture of psychodrama in the sense that it allowed taking into consideration only one part of the relationship (the child) instead of looking at the relationship as a whole.
As a consequence, the multi-polarity of the role concept (which is at least dual) also became jeopardized, once the assumption was taken that a role could be understood considering only the perspective of one of the people involved. This is a theoretical mistake.
Focus is also often used in theatre as one of the main tools of scenic communication.
Let us imagine a stage with various actors on it, each one of them performing their character. Simultaneous micro-scenes unfold on this stage. A strong light beam can be projected onto one of these scenes, directing the spectator’s attention towards it, leaving all the other scenes in dim light, in the shade.
This resource (the use of dim light) can also be applied when the actors are in a waiting posture within the scenic space, or it can be used to provide continuity for the presentation, while the change of costumes or scenery takes place.
This strategy can be considered as a technical alternative: when not being involved in the action, instead of leaving the stage (moving to the sides), the actors may remain on the stage, but will be in the shade, or “out of focus”.
The implicit meta-message within this setting (scenery) is that while certain things happen in a certain place, in the same time others are also happening in another space, and these latter are also part of the plot. Since it is impossible to look at everything at the same time, we need to choose where to direct (focus) the attention.
This interaction between focus and shade can be seen as a form of editing reality, which allows us to overcome the risk of the Cartesian style fragmentation (or, to be more precise, the distortion of the Cartesian thinking). Within this interaction the part clearly belongs to the whole; in other words, we are reminded that although the attention is directed to a specific aspect, there are also other aspects that are part of the examined fact, without being dissociated from it.
Through the above conceptual considerations I intended to establish the pretext of this – still preliminary – reflection regarding the diverse forms of action within the professional space of psychodrama.
In order to map out this diversity, I will first look at the various “dramatic projects” established within the different forms of psychodrama practice, trying to identify what is in the “focus” of each one of these projects.
The principle idea is that a psychodrama director needs to establish and/or direct himself towards a specific focus within his work. In other words, he aims to enlighten a specific facet of the situation representing the object of the psychodramatic work. This doesn’t mean however, that he will deny the existence of other aspects; he will only leave these in the shade (or occasionally even to the side), while prioritizing the chosen facets.
This option of the director also determines his choice of the technical resources that he will use within the work. Consequently, it also defines the theoretical requirements of the psychodramatic work, not only stimulating the director’s cogitation, but also his motivation for the research of the bibliography, and possible complementary skills.
When striving for a greater interchange between the different versions of psychodrama, initially there will probably be more to exchange between those areas which have the same focus, compared to those that prioritize different focuses.
The reason for this is that approaches with the same focus share their fundamental assumptions; while in the case of approaches with divergent focuses, there are exactly these basic assumptions that are argued.
Diagnostic psychodrama: focus on pathology
The intention within this approach is to take the complaint of the subject (individual or group) and to re-describe it in terms of previously established categories; these categories are the instruments and at the same time the fruits of the investigations.
Such categories will shape the tools through which knowledge is obtained (dia = through; gnosis = knowledge), and – based on other, similar cases - propitiate a guideline for the treatment.
The diagnosis can focus on the individual, the group or the relationships.
When focusing on the individual, at least two separate models can be adopted: the psychiatric and the psychological model.
The psychiatric model corresponds to the traditional medical perspective that works with nosological categories, trying to include the patient into one of them; through the means of this categorization, it tries to establish a therapeutic conduct and prognosis.
In this case, the use of psychodramatic resources will replace the conventional form of anamnesis and clinical observation, and will provide a richer and more dynamic knowledge compared to the purely verbal interview.
The psychological model focuses on an aspect, which is included in the psychiatric evaluation as a simple item of inventory: the psychological characteristics of the subject.
The aim in this case, is to provide a description as detailed and precise as possible of the personality traces as well as the psychodynamics of the individual in question.
Needless to say, that personality and psychodynamics can be evaluated according to different theoretical references. In a psychodramatic diagnosis, the psychodramatist can resort to – at his personal discretion - any of these available theoretical reference points, or to a mixture of these; he can even try to apply a socionomic perspective.
However, this effort to apply a socionomic point of reference will also imply an attempt to find an alternative psychiatric model, through the definition of a psychodramatic psychopathology.
When shifting the focus from the individual to the group, it is possible to apply the same basic diagnostic format, by looking at the group as an individuality in itself that transcends the members (elements) of which it consists. It is clear however, that categorical models cannot always be transposed from one universe to another in the same format as they were originally conceived.
Thus, the diagnostic categories used for the definition of individual pathologies, can only be used for the description of groups if appropriately “recycled”.
Alternatively, new categories need to be created that are appropriate to the new scope of investigation (the group); in this case the group diagnosis will not only have its own language, but also its specific procedures.
Similarly to any other form of intervention, in order to succeed, diagnosis will depend on this mapping which, if not established previously (as it would be most desirable), it should be done as the therapeutic process advances. Furthermore: the better the precision and validity of diagnosis, the bigger the chances for helping the patient.
This diagnostic perspective ignores some of the basic assumptions of existential philosophy and breaks away from phenomenology, which are usually attributed to psychodrama. This is due to the fact that, within the diagnostic approach, the nosological instances are considered to be the “essence”: the complaint of a specific patient represents a particular case of a general occurrence.
“Existence” - while it is a uniqueness of the subject - remains in the shade; the focus is directed onto the non-unique, onto the category.
In our everyday practice, the psychodramatic technique of “interviewing a character” has a diagnostic focus; originally however, this technique had the function of warming-up the protagonist and/or the function to bring out the subtext of the text.
Within its diagnostic application, the interview is carried out by the director while the protagonist is in the dramatic context; however, this interview happens without actual dramatization. The questions simply represent a form of interviewing which is different from what would be used in a usual verbal anamnesis: we don’t only question the character representing the client, but also his/her partners (counter-roles) – this will create the conditions for obtaining clearer information regarding the problem which we are investigating.
A possible difficulty that may occur in this kind of interview is that – under the weight of the obtained information, without arriving to formulate a diagnosis, and under the tacit obligation to “pay back” these information earned with hard work - the director may end up with very few options for as how to proceed with the enactment.
Even if he manages to draw a conclusion (diagnosis), the director will need to confront another dilemma, since merely telling the diagnosis to the client will not solve the problem.
According to both the medical and the psychological operational model, once the diagnosis is defined, we should move on to the therapy; in other words, once the illness is defined, we have to prescribe the medicine. And that suggests to the psychodramatist that – in order to proceed with his work - he should resort to another “focus”.
Gestalt psychodrama: focus on the perception
Within this section I use the term gestalt in order to establish and in the same time to clarify a confusion.
Gestalt therapy, proposed by Fritz Perls and developed by his school, introduced numerous aspects that don’t just exclusively belong to the Gestalt approach.
The Gestalt theory distinguished itself by discovering the general laws of perception - perception being the main object of its investigation. The epistemological postulates of the Gestalt theory are in contraposition with those of the atomism (from the end of the 19th century, these latter were very influential for the development of scientific psychological research).
The thesis of Gestalttheorie is that the mind functions through configurations: stimuli are organized by the person who perceives them in such a manner that they “acquire” a form. Certain forms impose themselves onto the person, because within the field of the object the stimuli are already arranged in a sufficiently structured manner. In other cases, when on the “objective” level (the field of the object) the stimuli are arranged in a more ambiguous and less structured manner, the perceptive organizations will reflect much stronger the “subjective” structures of the person.
The way an individual moves in the world is marked by the form the world is perceived by him.
According to the Gestalt theory, this model can be also applied to other areas of the psyche, such as the memory, intelligence, learning, thinking, self-image etc.
Any behavioural change (this being the aim of both therapy and pedagogy) is conditioned by a reconfiguration which the person should carry out concerning himself, others, the world and the relationships. Such modifications of percept would have immediate effects on all other mental processes, including the feelings.
As part of this general reorganization, and as a result of the change in the way the individual “sees” things, the behaviour will also change.
By providing their clients the possibility to focus on (to shine a light on) certain aspects of life that are in the “background” (or “shade”) and so change them into “form”, gestalt therapy attempts to revolutionize the relationships of the individual with himself and also with his environment.
The therapeutic work proceeds with the revision of rigid perceptive structures – the body, prejudices, information, the understanding of the world, etc. - in such a way that new information is incorporated into these structures and new configurations are built.
As perception essentially has a subjective component (it is impossible for the “exterior” environment to exclusively determine the structure of what an individual perceives), any change within the person will necessarily determine a new Gestalt for the previous perceptions about the world.
This effect is circular: a change in the perception, leads to a change in the individual, which in turn changes the perception, and so on. It is impossible to determine where the beginning of this process is.
This perspective can also be adopted in psychodrama: the psychodrama session enfolds, having as its objective to guide the participants towards a reconfiguration of their perception regarding their life and their problems.
This actually corresponds to the explicit desire of many clients, who are looking for therapeutic help in order “to know themselves better”, “to understand themselves better”, or “to perceive things better”.
When the dramatization in itself is not sufficient enough to achieve this result, psychodramatists often resort to the phase of sharing, transforming it into a phase of comments, discussion and reflection. In these cases the therapist will “point out” and acknowledge certain aspects of the client’s behaviour that became evident in the previous stages of the session. Highlighting these aspects complements the subject’s experience from the stage, by showing him a different, new and reorganized structure, which is sufficiently strong to unchain a re-creation of his percept, with all the above presented effects.
It is also usual to pair up this approach with diagnostic psychodrama; in this case the client will review both the diagnostic conclusions and observations made by the therapist. It is expected that once his perception of the problem has been changed, the client’s reactions to conflicts will also change.
One of the most frequent hindrances to the efficiency of this method is when the therapist – thanks to his experience and technical abilities – manages to obtain an understanding of the phenomenon in question, but without ensuring that the structure formulated by him is also understood by the client.
Or, what is even more intriguing is when the client manages to see what is demonstrated to him, but without this new understanding having any visible influence on his behaviour – at least not immediately.
For a further theoretical deepening of this approach, we will need more contributions from the Gestaltists and other related researchers.
Even though through the implementation of the socionomic conceptual system (as a factor that structures a new Gestalt) we can reach an understanding of the individual, certain technical, communicational or even theoretical obstacles will still need to be overcome, in order to advance further.
Reparatory psychodrama: focus on the history
According to the more popular psychological and psychotherapeutical currents, the problems that individuals need to confront originate in their personal history, in facts that happened a long time ago. These approaches tend to emphasise the more primitive episodes: the earlier an experience, the greater its influence on the later development.
As a consequence, these approaches attempt to find out what happened in the early stages of life (of a person, a couple, a family, a group, an institution, a community, etc.), which would justify the blunders of the present.
This approach is so strongly rooted in our culture that many people when seeking therapy and being asked what brought them to it, do not refer to their present everyday conflicts and difficulties, but they complain about a “problematic childhood”, “problems within their primary family”, “childhood traumas”, and so on.
However, in its early stages of development psychodrama wasn’t so concerned about these historical aspects; this perspective was incorporated into psychodrama during its later development. Nowadays this approach has become so important that many psychodramatists mistake it for the actual idea of psychodrama.
Williams (12) pointed it out that Moreno himself preferred a “horizontal” approach; it was Zerka’s great interest for psychotic patients (thus bringing into the foreground the psychiatric focus in the use of psychodrama) that contributed to the development of a “vertical” approach. Within this context, by verticalization we mean the historical-etiological research; what gives an investigation a vertical character, is the ability to transcend the superficiality, to transcend the more apparent.
Moreno also proposed the concept of “second time”; when resuming this concept, Fanchette (6) considered it to be the basic structure of the psychodramatic method. According to Fanchette, under certain circumstances, the voluntary repetition of a traumatic event will allow the individual to overcome and master it; this process is similar to the shamanic dances of primitive man that were used to exorcise his fears and to dominate the powers of nature, which he was confronted with.
This is one of the modalities of reparatory action in psychodrama: to identify crucial events or incidents and represent them on the stage. Re-experiencing the feelings that are associated to this event will allow a fading of its strength and a decrease of its relative importance in the present life. In this case we work with mere repetition.
Another alternative is to reproduce the event within the dramatic context, but this time looking for a different outcome from what happened for the first time. When a new ending can be experimented with, the fragility of the client – revealed by his failure to satisfactorily solve an adverse past situation – will give way to the power of the present (with the help of the other group members, including the professional team).
This effect can be achieved through a simple catharsis; in the here-and-now of the dramatic context the client is enabled to “get out” the intense feelings of the original situation, which were blocked and repressed. The “purification” achieved through this process liberates the client, who acquires the conditions for performing his life without the weight of this useless burden.
There is also another possibility for finding a new solution to the old conflict; a solution that is different from the one that the client presented. At a certain point of the story we start to re-tell it, leading it towards a new ending, which is happier that the previous one.
It is important to remember that the traumatic event had happened in another context: technically speaking, in the social context. As such, by definition this event is situated in the realm of “real”(ity) in the sense what Moreno attributed to this term. The reproduction of the event however, is within the dramatic context, in the “as if”, within the realm of the imaginary.
Therefore, the enactment of this event will necessarily involve re-creation. As a consequence, one may question whether what happened in the past is exactly and correctly told by the client, as well as whether the scene presented on the stage faithfully reproduces the fact which it intends to represent. We may also question whether this intention is feasible.
However, what is really important within the dramatic context is that the essential outlines of the past event are produced in such a way that this will generate the same emotions as the ones originally evoked by the event itself. This is sufficient in order to obtain the effect of repetition-reformulation.
When investigating this crucial scene, there is a choice of using two different “focuses”. One of them adopts the Cartesian epistemological reference of the cause-and-effect relationships, searching for that initial event that can be considered the first link within this causal chain. In this case, we talk about regressive psychodrama, which intends to recede in time and through a sequence of scenes arrive to a nodal scene. After having reached this objective (nodal scene), it returns to the initial scene (representing the current conflict), re-examining the problem under a new light directed on reparation.
The second possible focus discards the idea of causality and considers the scene as merely paradigmatic. In other words, in this case there is no “determinant” of the present difficulties. These difficulties are seen as the visible manifestations of a complex of historical forces, forming an integrated and lasting system. The “traumatic” event is simply a symbol/synthesis of the way these forces act and are structured. Therefore, this event is not necessarily the oldest that we can arrive at.
Technically speaking, it may have the same value as a totally and assumedly imaginary or fictitious scene, because the structure of relationships can also become apparent under such circumstances.
In case of both focuses, the psychodramatic experience is considered as a possibility to repair something that was born awry, and which currently manifests itself in difficulties, causing both physical and psychological pain and suffering.
In reparatory psychodrama the psycho- or socio-pathological aspect is in the scene at all times, although a previous diagnosis is not always considered essential. The symptoms can be considered as a guide that will lead to the real problem (a problem that is situated beyond the symptoms), these symptoms being always referred to the history, to a broader temporal process.
Pragmatic psychodrama: focus on the there-outside
In contrast with reparatory psychodrama, which considers the present difficulty to be a particular manifestation of a background problem, pragmatic psychodrama prefers to look at the client’s complaint as a problem that needs to be solved.
This approach does not distinguish between the symptom and the illness; the latter is considered to be the symptom itself. It does not talk about pathology (neither of individual nor group pathology), but considers the presented complaints to be a situation of impasse or a lack of ability.
Therefore, the director suggests the problematic situation to be brought into the dramatic context, in the most direct and “objective” way as possible. Through the use of various resources – including scenic multiplication, which is the main tool of reparatory psychodrama – this approach tries to make an adequate equation of the problem, investigating its antecedents, amplitude and its implications.
By using the dramatic context as a laboratory for experimenting with proposed resolutions, the climax of this kind of work is the formulation of various hypotheses regarding possible solutions. The intention is to achieve a resolution within the dramatic context that is satisfactory enough in order to be carried forward and applied within the social context. This form of work was described in various protocols and demonstrated on films by Moreno.
However, beyond being a research tool for the better understanding of problems and an attempt to find solutions, psychodrama also has other applications within the pragmatic focus. There are situations for example, where the problem as well as its practical solution is already clearly defined, and so what is necessary is to prepare the client for the satisfactory application of this solution.
In this case we talk about spontaneity training that is carried out in the laboratory of roles (role-playing). The applied procedures are already more or less defined; what is required from the client to whom they will be applied to is not only to recognize the expectations, but also a certain degree of ease and freedom in order to handle the matter.
Feelings that may obstruct a good performance are only dealt with on a more superficial level, the intention being to leave the path unobstructed, while there is no attempt made for a deeper and more profound understanding of the meaning of these feelings. What is important is to evoke “good feelings”, to encourage spontaneity.
Play is a healthy exercise for the fantasy, which enriches the repertoire of alternative responses; one of these responses may prove to be useful one day for the client. It also has an encouraging effect for the effective application of some solutions, of which the client already has got a glimpse, but for various reasons (timidity, fear, insecurity, lack of spontaneity, etc.) is unable to apply them.
Due to its similarities to the behavioural approach (being in its descending phase of its curve of prestige), pragmatic psychodrama gives the gooseflesh to certain professionals and has lead to numerous criticisms. According to this criticism, it is a superficial approach because it would not go to the heart of the problem and because it looks for quick and immediate resolutions, without any perspective for real change within the path of the client’s life. The counter-argument is that any alteration within the sequence of facts may result in an inflection (change) of the causal chain and it may reflect in the phenomena (even the emotions) that are interconnected with the causal chain. Furthermore, when successfully applied, pragmatic psychodrama liberates spontaneity and creativity.
Spontaneous theatre: focus on the creation
In the scenes that are put under this spotlight (focus) the main intention is to propitiate the opportunity to create – within the scenic space – a dramatic representation.
In creative psychodrama the role of the director consists in the facilitation, stimulation and implementation of creation. He facilitates the embryonic ideas brought to the session being made into scenes, and as these are enacted, he will encourage the search for new ideas in order to allow the gradual building up of the plot. The solution of the scene, or closure of the narrative, is not considered as a suggestion or guideline for the future that should be adopted in the social context; this solution only serves the dramatic context.
In its form, spontaneous theatre is similar to entertainment-theatre (or art-theatre), searching for resources of development and improvement. At a superficial glance it may look as a theatre in the style of histrionic infantile games, without any major implications, responsibility or seriousness. In spite of this appearance however, spontaneous theatre constitutes a respectable and widely applied form of therapy and learning.
While this working modality may privilege the protagonist as the focus of dramatic production, it will not concern itself with his psyche as such. The protagonist’s feelings, fantasies, reactions, etc. represent the raw material for the creation of the plot, however, they do not consist the object of analysis, trial, judgement or interpretation at any moment of the session.
The therapeutic-pedagogic effect consists in the mere participation in a collective creation process, associated with the effort of investigating reality through these collective acts. Using a classic expression, it is the process what matters, not the product.
The underlying conflict – the condition for the construction of a dramatic text – is defined as the scene builds up, while the effort to construct a plot enables an investigation of reality as well as the investigation of its real contradictions.
The working hypothesis is the following: even though the apparent content of the dramatic account (story) may seem imaginary (with fictitious characters, scenes and facts), through this story we can identify those relational structures that reside in the life of the people participating in the session, and therefore, in the life of the protagonist itself.
Furthermore, when enacting the maps of their realities, through the spontaneous creation of scenes, people can question them. The great gain however, is not the conscience of the conflict in itself, but the opportunity to do something about it in a creative manner, and without an apparent obligation.
The assumption is that experimenting with different attitudes and believing in their capacity to create and test how joyful creation can be, is a transforming experience for the participants. In this respect it doesn’t matter too much what modality of scenic representation we use: lyrical, epical or comical.
Some authors made references to the ancient Greek tragedy, whose literary structure contains a dialectic play as an important element of linking up the narrative. With this, they warn against certain risks such as chaotic and unstructured representations where the characters enter and exit the scene without any engagement to the collective production, as if it was a spontaneous act (laissez-faire directional style), or melodramatic, messianic or paradisiacal narrative.
As the objective of this chapter is to explore this particular focus characteristic to the spontaneous theatre, in the following I will look in more detail at some its most important aspects.
Psychodrama and the theatre of spontaneity
It is inevitable for us, psychodramatists, to discuss the questions and issues regarding the relationship between psychodrama and theatre. There are various approaches to this relationship: at one extreme we have the radical premise that psychodrama and theatre have nothing in common, while on the other extreme there is a tendency to form psychodrama schools that have theatre as their main emphasis. The former of these extremes seems to represent an attitude of “I don’t know and I don’t care about it”, while the latter an attitude of “I don’t know about it, but I like it”. And within this continuum we will also find psychodramatists who have or had some connection and involvement with theatre.
Spontaneous theatre was born out of an aesthetic anxiety, as a consequence of questioning the classical theatre, and a proposal of a new alternative.
The theatre of spontaneity is considered to be the root of psychodrama. As Moreno started to recognise and discover its therapeutic effects, he gradually transformed the original theatre of spontaneity into ‘classical’ psychodrama (by classical I mean the form of psychodrama as it was practiced by Moreno).
Nevertheless, the theatre of spontaneity continues to be the basic technique for what, in a general sense, we include under the label or umbrella of psychodrama. In this respect, spontaneous theatre is not just simply a particular modality or technique within the wide spectrum of possibilities in the psychodrama practice, as people often assume.
Psychodrama, in its more precise definition, can be understood as the theatre of spontaneity applied with the objective of providing growth to the individual members within a group. In this respect, psychodrama differs from sociodrama, which also uses the spontaneous theatre, but its subject is a pre-existent, “natural” group. Sociodrama doesn’t necessarily follow therapeutic aims; its objective is the growth of the group as a whole.
The working hypothesis for the above considerations is that psychodrama - which embodies the theatre of spontaneity - actually does not differ fundamentally from classical psychodrama (especially if we also consider that it is a by-product of classical psychodrama); it just enhances its profile and its practice, and revitalizes its concepts. It also leaves to the side (in the shade) some of the previously over-valued aspects of classic psychodrama, and brings into the spotlight (focus) some other aspects that were disregarded by it.
Let us now see some of the characteristics of the spontaneous theatre.
The dramatic action
Just as in the theatre, in psychodrama action is fundamental. Since the theatre of spontaneity is a form of dramatic art, it cannot exist without action. However, it isn’t just concerned with any action – and this is where psychodrama differs from other action techniques.
By definition, theatre presupposes two fundamental components: the stage and the audience. On the stage stories are acted out by actors, and these stories are watched and seen by the spectators. There are numerous possibilities to create links between these two elements, but we can never give up one for the other, because if this happened, theatre would cease being theatre (that is, a place where we watch) and would change into something else.
What defines the specificity of the spontaneous theatre (even when recognizing and preserving its theatrical essence) is improvisation. In its closest form to classical psychodrama, it does not have a pre-written text: the script is co-created by the actors and spectators as it is being enacted. There are however, also other possibilities, such as working with already written texts, interpreting and enacting them (as for example, in drama-therapy, or in Brecht’s ‘Learning Play’); or when the presentation is done only by professional actors (for example, playback theatre).
Under ideal circumstances, the enactment is characterised by the protagonist’s state of being-out-of-himself/herself; in other words, a rupture with rationality and control, an adventure into the unknown, into the irrational. Participants of dramatizations often report about this experience of transient “madness”, about their sense of loss for the content, a loss of factual memory regarding of what happened during the scene.
Theatre of spontaneity requires full involvement from all group members, with a shared responsibility for what is going to happen, both on the stage and the auditorium. This involvement usually results in powerful experiences, with all participants feeling touched or moved, with all contributing and taking a share from the enactment, and experiencing some sort of potentially transforming impact. The intensity of these experiences may vary, depending on the aesthetic power of the “spectacle”.
When achieving this degree of involvement (characteristic to the theatre of spontaneity), psychodrama becomes more active, displaying a greater degree of participation of all group members, and an elevated level of emotional and aesthetic involvement.
It is not only the protagonist who is in the focus of the group, but also those participants who enter the stage in order to perform the other required roles (antagonists or supporting characters); and even those who remain in the audience but are strongly connected to what is happening on the stage. Thus, the therapeutic potential of the action is maximized.
Co-creation
In the theatre of spontaneity the act is the participation; act may or may not involve speech, but it is certainly more than just words. However, this is not a solitary act; through over-exposure or unilateral denudation and de-contextualization, a solitary act would have the risk of turning into exhibitionism or moral suicide. The act is a collective process of constructing an art product, an improvised theatrical performance.
In order for this to happen, we need to overcome the transferential hindrances and reach a telic level, without which co-creation cannot take place. Joint creation is actually one of the characteristics that define a tele-relationship. (Aguiar, 1990)
This experience provides the not always conscious discovery of ways for living together; each moment of this experience demands a flexible, inventive and engaged participation in the group process, with a balanced way of addressing both collective and individual needs, an equilibrium that is not based on rules of how to live well, but is based on spontaneity and creativity. The existence of this potential has been recognised by psychodrama.
This effect can be further increased, in the sense that, the perspective and the approach characteristic of the spontaneous theatre favours the participation of everybody in the creative process, giving a great opportunity for inter-personal relationships to develop and to be better understood; a task with invaluable pedagogical and therapeutic power.
The horizon of the content
The content represented in the theatre of spontaneity is always and necessarily a topic or theme that is connected to the personal life of each participant as an individual, a content interconnected with certain relevant aspects of community life. It doesn’t matter if this content is wrapped in the “real facts from the life of the protagonist”, “a collective quotidian anecdote” or an “assumingly fantasy story”.
From a holistic point of view, the differentiation between the whole and the part, between the past and the present, as well as between the fantasy and reality, is only an imperfect ability of the human mind. This human mind is unable to understand totality without searching for some logical devices that, on the pretext of facilitating comprehension, end up making comprehension even more difficult, by causing fragmentation and creating serious problems when these pieces or fragments need to be reunited.
Therefore, an issue brought into a session by an individual, can be seen as something that belongs only to him/her (molecular view), or it can be seen as an expression of a transpersonal whole that reaches beyond the life of the individual (molar view).
Whichever way it is presented, the story narrated on the stage is always the fruit of the imaginary, even if it claims or aspires to faithfully reproduce real life events. At the same time, even if in the moment it is understood as if its starting point is the “total imaginary”, this story is inspired by “real” life.
With all my respect for Moreno, I think that his pretension to cure through the repetition of traumatic events within the scenic space only takes into consideration the most obvious and gross aspects of the psychodramatic potential. I believe that, strictly speaking, nothing repeats itself: dramatization is a creation - in the here-and-now - of a new story, even if it claims to reproduce the old. Far from being a limitation, I believe that the lacking aspects in Moreno’s approach are actually liberating, because they open up a much wider horizon: everything that is created is able to put the group (as a whole and as individuals) in touch with deeper and more profound aspects of the reality of their life.
Since the perspective is always analogical, it is possible (at least in theory) to obtain an image of the system represented through the dramatization; to obtain a picture of some of the forces that are involved, that interact and to a certain extent explain those facets of life that were brought into the focus in that moment of the dramatization.
Art as a reference point
Spontaneous theatre is first of all a form of art. As any other forms of art, it is a process that addresses reality, aiming to reach a certain kind of understanding or knowledge. However, since it is not based on systematic observation or the instruments of reasoning, art is aiming to obtain a different kind of knowledge than the scientific methods.
Art is also different from modern science. Since the latter addresses unique phenomena, it cannot rely on methods of induction and repetition as the Cartesian epistemology did. Looking at new issues and objects of the scientific universe, this new kind of science uses a rational methodology that allows the investigator to capture the phenomena and describe them mathematically.
In contrast with this scientific approach, the fundamental condition or criteria of art is to prioritize the intuitive, the original expression and the aesthetic as ways of eliciting feelings, and through this to enable the individual to experience, but without necessarily using reason. This experientially gained knowledge can have the same or an even stronger transforming effect than rationally obtained knowledge.
However, the therapeutic effect of art (both for its creator and consumer) is only secondary, because the main objective of art is art itself.
So, what does it mean to adopt art as a reference point for the therapeutic practice?
First of all, it means that creativity should have a privileged space within the therapeutic situation. In his work the therapist should be daring and sensitive to the uniqueness of each moment; he/she should be able to transform this sensitivity into proposals for action, thus creating a climate that is strongly characterised by creativity. At the same time, the client should be also encouraged to abandon his/her repetitive ways of action and thinking and to become more and more daring. Art cannot exist without a daring and bold attitude and without “self-surprises”, that is, the antithesis of routine. This is also true for therapy.
In the more specific case of the theatre of spontaneity, this creativity is implemented through techniques that are characteristic to this artistic modality. The range of these techniques incorporates both the fundamental psychodrama techniques as well as newly developed ones, that is, resources that are in full evolution and transformation.
The function of spontaneous theatre is to structure a situation in such way, that it doesn’t leave room for routine, because anything that resembles routine can endanger or jeopardize the session.
In case of the warm-up exercises for example, using them repeatedly, would put in risk the warm-up process. Based on his knowledge gained through his own practice (that serves and supports creativity and improvisation), the director is required to use his/her sensitivity in order to perceive what every moment demands, and to respond to these demands with maximum inventivity. This is a very specific form of artistic expression, which has as its objective exactly the facilitation of creativity.
The approach of the spontaneous theatre opens the doors of aesthetics in psychotherapy. If this aesthetic criterion is incorporated in the practice of the psychodrama therapist, it will influence the therapist’s ability to create a form of communication that is “straight to the point” and to propitiate an intense emotional experience, that is, to develop a profound contact with the aspects of reality explored in the session.
In order to achieve an aesthetic effect (on which the intensity of the participants’ experience will depend), every small detail is important. On of them is to avoid the risk of getting into a melodrama which can very easily happen when working with emotional distress. What distinguishes an experience with aesthetic quality from melodrama is exactly the way how the contact with reality is established, or in other words, the wisdom of how to accomplish this contact (not necessarily cognitive wisdom).
And all this leads us to a new and great challenge: in order to develop an art-psychodrama (or psychodrama-art) we need to invest a lot in its technical aspects, but taking good care not to create a gap between the theory and practice.
A rational complement
Another question that I would like to discuss here is, whether it is sufficient to propose an artistic activity without complementing this proposal with other things. By “other things” I mean an extension of this proposal into a way of understanding behaviour (a kind of art psychology or psychopathology based on art), or a cognitive dessert following an action based, emotional meal.
This is the opinion of a respectable number of doubtful educators. These are mainly professionals who use Piagetian elements in their work, and based on their research regarding intellectual development and the acquisition of knowledge and mental abilities, are convinced that the learning process cannot be complete without reaching a higher level of conscience, that is, reason.
From a strictly and purely artistic point of view, once communication and the research of reality are done with appropriate instruments, such a rational formulation becomes unnecessary; any attempt to translate these discoveries into another form of communication, would bring about an impoverishment.
It would be similar to try and explain a joke. The hilarious effect of jokes results from the connection of some factors that cannot be controlled rationally, such as the manner of the narrator, the atmosphere of the group in that moment, the way the joke is told, the sequence of stories, and many other factors. The content, by its nature is extraordinary and surreal: it needs to be understood in the moment when it was told; trying to intellectually understand a joke, would strip it from its humour. The same is true for dance, music, painting, sculpture, cinema, theatre and literature that uses words in its own and original way.
Art critique only makes sense, as a reference to the significance of a piece of art-work, looking at it as a historical phenomenon. The considerations and reflections of art critique are directed to the technique: onto the stage wings behind the scenes and not the footlights. This kind of art critique is for museum and exposition curators and for the organizers of festivals, but not for the consumer public and not for the artist either (except when it contributes to his work by providing him with technical and historical supplementary information).
From this artistic perspective we will need to reconsider the traditional necessity of many therapists to make interpretations (regardless of their theoretical background). And this also leaves open the question regarding the phase of sharing, often considered both by the participants and the professionals as a phase for comments, as a moment of analysis, of punctuation, of devolution and of practical suggestions.
Conclusions
Without doubt there are numerous other aspects of the psychodramatic work with an emphasis on the theatre (and especially on spontaneous theatre) that raise interesting issues, but do not fit into this chapter, either because of this paper’s physical limitations or because its objectives. I believe however, that through the controversies and challenges that they have arisen, those few aspects presented here can already give us a lot to think about.
Now I would like to return to the question of the different focuses within the psychodramatic work. We, professionals, move with more or less flexibility between these alternatives, favouring one or another focus in different moments of our work. All these focuses represent an infinite number of conceptual and technical problems that would need to be resolved in order to achieve their compatibility with the so called basic psychodrama, as well as to improve their effectiveness and efficiency. Being stuck on only one of these focuses (and unable to shift for another) is in contradiction with the very principle of psychodrama, that is, spontaneity-creativity.
Also, if in its relationship with the shade, we let the focus turn into exclusive reality, or if we let it become an organically dissociated fragment, it will lose its essence.
In the future I would like to see more mutual contributions among the psychodrama researchers: I envisage persistent experiments within the various types of focuses, I envisage the creation of new focuses and the intense exploration of the various possibilities that these focuses offer. If all these contributions would be communicated in their status nascendi, this could lead to a further deepening of all the various approaches.
This interchange however, shouldn’t necessarily exclude ideological confrontation; the choice of focus is only a minor issue that leads us to the evaluation of objectives and means based on ethical, political, religious, cultural, philosophical, etc. criteria.
Also, when analyzing them from the perspective of their scientific productivity, methodological consistence, epistemic coherence or any other parameter that can be applied to scientific processes, we should respect the uniqueness of all the various focuses, without trying to homogenize them. Not to mention that psychodrama can also be looked at from a non-scientific, but artistic perspective, in which case its quality will be evaluated based on aesthetic values.
Or, it can be even viewed from the point of view of a relationship ethics.
References
1. AGUIAR, M. (1990) O teatro terapêutico (The therapeutic theatre), Campinas, Papirus.
2. AGUIAR, M. (1991) A evolução dos conceitos de tele e transferência (The evolution of the concepts of tele and transference), Round table discussion at the 4th International Psychodrama Encounter, São Paulo, 3-6 February, 1991; unpublished paper.
3. AGUIAR, M. et.al. (1995) Teatro espontâneo: Reflexões sobre uma experiência (Spontaneous theatre: Reflections on an experience), In: Leituras, no.8.
4. BALLY, G. (1973) El juego como expression de liberdad (Play as an expression of freedom), Mexico, Fondo de Cultura Económica.
5. DAVOLI, C. (1994) O teatro espontâneo e seus terminologias (The theatre of spontaneity and its terminology), In: Leituras, no.5.
6. FANCHETTE, J. Psicodrama y teatro moderno (Psychodrama and modern theatre), Buenos Aires, La Pleyade.
7. HOLMES, P. and KARP, M. (1992) Psicodrama – inspiração e técnica (Psychodrama – inspiration and technique, 1991), São Paulo, Ágora.
8. MERENGUE, D. (1994) O estar-fora-de-si protagônico: Algumas anotações (The being-out-of-self state of the protagonist: notes), In: Petrilli, S.R.A. (1994) Rosa-dos-ventos da teoria do psicodrama (The compass card og the psychodrama theory), São Paulo, Ágora.
9. MORENO, J.L. (1954) Fundamentos de la sociometria (Who shall survive? The foundations of sociometry), Buenos Aires, Paidós, 1972.
10. MORENO, J.L. (1973) O teatro da espontaneidade (The theatre of spontaneity), São Paulo, Summus, 1984.
11. MORENO, J.L. (1975) Psicodrama (Psychodrama), São Paulo, Cutlrix.
12. WILLIAMS, A. (1989) The passionate technique: Strategic psychodrama with individuals, families and groups, 1989), London and New York, Routledge.
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário