Pergamon

The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 23, No. 3. pp. 197-198, 1996 Copyright 0 1996 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved

0197.4556/96 $15.00 + .OiI

PI1 SO197-4556(96)00030-S

A STEP IN THE RIGHT DIRECTION

JONATHAN FOX, MA, TEP”

I think the authors have it exactly right: a prime theoretical difference between psychodrama and drama therapy hinges on the place of the imagination. Although both methods certainly are grounded in a positive concept of-as if-psychodrama is without question the more reality-based. It has helped me to think about this matter in terms of what I call the primary and secondary dramatic metaphor. The pri- mary dramatic metaphor refers to a human being’s fundamental creative capacity to pretend and to know that he or she is pretending. Without this capacity, reality has no boundaries. Playful communication turns into threat and healing fictions become psychosis.

The secondary dramatic metaphor refers to the ca- pacity to narrate an event, visualize an image, or in any manner use our imaginative capacity. It seems that human beings have an innate urge to express themselves, and in wondrous variety. It is what all children have until trauma and/or adulthood (more or less) stifles it out of them. Expressing one’s past and current experience, umwelt and eigenwelt, in vivid, spontaneously-felt terms can be thought of as second- ary dramatic metaphorical adequacy. So is being able to envision the future. The-as if-capacity seems to me more fundamental to mental health than the imag- ining capacity; thus first and second dramatic meta- phor. There is a third dramatic metaphor, which is metaphorical linguistic expression, such as: my life is a burden-or-I could fly away on wings of desire. Both psychodrama and drama therapy often make use of this kind of metaphor in the staging of their enactments.

Psychodrama places great stock in an individual’s capacity to negotiate successfully the domain of pri- mary dramatic metaphor. A protagonist who cannot role reverse, for example, will not be encouraged to move on to the expression of narrative or image. In- stead, the psychodrama director will work painstak- ingly in an intrapsychic manner until the patient gains enough sense of ego-boundary and confidence to role reverse effectively. Only then will the director en- courage a further unfolding of the patient’s experi- ence. Conversely, the psychodramatist who moves ahead with a drama even though the protagonist can- not adequately role reverse can be considered to be misusing the method and risks a contra-indicated outcome.

A second manifestation of this emphasis in psy- chodrama on the primary dramatic metaphor is the custom of beginning a session with a reality-based interview (Moreno located this initial stage on the step leading to the psychodrama stage, thus emphasizing its distinction from the [secondary dramatic meta- phor-oriented] action proper). The interview phase in psychodrama seems to me an important part of the method. It seems to me that Kedem-Tahar and Kell- ermann, who refer to-imaginary material-being the focus of the beginning phase of a classical psycho- drama, have got it backwards. The-imaginary phase-is customarily in the middle. The authors are fully aware of the importance of cognitive integration at the end.

Drama therapy, on the other hand, does not place emphasis on the primary dramatic metaphor. A drama therapist will move directly to the secondary dramatic

*Jonathan Fox is Director of the School of Playback Theatre in New York, Editor of the Essential Moreno: Writings on Psychodrama, Group

Method and Spontaneity and author of Acts of Service: Spontaneity, Commitment, Tradition in The Nonscripted Theatre.

197

198 JONATHAN FOX

metaphor. Such being the case, there is often, as I understand it, no special need to explore a specific actual experience or even the experience of one indi- vidual. Rather, group explorations are often encour- aged in which participants connect to a group- generated secondary dramatic metaphor in a way that appeals to each, a practice that is likely to make the psychodramatist uneasy. In my view, sociodrama has had an uncertain history in the psychodrama move- ment precisely because of the psychodramatist’s dis- comfort with group explorations on the level of sec- ondary dramatic metaphor in situations when there is little opportunity of solid grounding through estab- lishing each participant’s adequacy in making transi- tions on the level of primary dramatic metaphor.

Playback Theatre, with which I have had the most experience, operates similarly to drama therapy. A teller is invited to tell any real story, which is then acted out by others. The assumption is that there is value in seeing the enactment regardless of the precise grounding of the teller. There is no role reversal. Of course, the more knowing the teller is of the primary dramatic metaphorical process, the more likely the story will connect with the experience and under- standing of those acting and witnessing, but the con- ductor of the session accepts the story as is, without need to work with the nature of the teller’s perceived primary dramatic metaphorical inadequacies (in ex- treme cases, however, I think most conductors, many of whom trained in psychodrama, would be unwilling to go ahead with a totally ungrounded story without some kind of special intervention).

Psychodrama’s methodological rule of priority, in which primary dramatic metaphorical adequacy must precede secondary dramatic metaphorical exploration, allows, it seems to me, a greater context for strong emotions than a method that does not have such clear frames of procedure. A deep catharsis will be invited only with careful preparation, and followed by slow decompression, as Goldman and Morrison (1984) suggest in their theory of the psychodramatic spiral. Such methodological rigor gives psychotherapist, pa- tient and group confidence to go to, particularly, the deep and painful places.

Kedem-Tahar and Kellermann’s discussion of the history and social context of drama therapy and psy- chodrama is adequate as far as it goes, but, in my view, certain aspects of the sociopolitical context merit further discussion. First, psychodrama’s domi- nation by a monomythic founder has been a curse as

well as a blessing for later generations, whereas drama therapy, although suffering from the absence of a clearly defined identity, benefits from a wonderful plurality of founding theorists who are putting their creativity to making new methodological discoveries and building a body of research about their findings.

Furthermore, the context of training has been dif- ferent in each field. The diligent work of the indepen- dent American Board of Examiners of the ASGPP, since its founding in 1975, has helped maintain a rela- tively high status for psychodrama in the field of men- tal health, such that psychodramatists are often paid, I believe, at a higher rate than drama therapists.

There are differences, also, in terms of populations served that stem from this discrepancy in status. Drama therapists often must work with the severely disturbed in institutional settings, whereas psychodra- matists have a wider range of opportunity, working not only in psychiatric hospitals, but also in private psychotherapy and in other community settings.

Whether these personal impressions are accurate is perhaps a question for research. What is the philo- sophical and practical effect of differences between psychodrama and drama therapy in training and cer- tification? Is drama therapy’s narrower scope of prac- tice a consequence of newness as a field and the per- haps mistaken decision to allow easy access to the credential or, instead, is it based on sound philosoph- ical and methodological principle? The authors do not take up these questions.

Of course, in this time of change in mental health, the opportunities for psychodramatists have been rap- idly changing, and it is not clear what the outcome will be (although the picture does not seem particu- larly rosy for either profession). There may be more scope for growth outside of psychotherapy, in which case the job will go to either the psychodramatist or drama therapist who can adapt most successfully to an educational market.

In sum, Kedem-Tahar and Kellermann have given us a good start on establishing an understanding of valid distinctions between the two fields. Their con- tribution will help foster, I earnestly hope, a period of energetic dialogue, mutual respect and sense of ulti- mate comradeship.

Reference

Goldman, E., & Monison, D. (1984). Experience and process. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.