“I
Invite Each of us to Speak our Truth”
By Børge
Kristoffersen, Anne Grete Mollan and Audun Mollan Kristoffersen
“I invite each of us to speak our truth.” The line is the very first to
be pronounced at the evening show in the Komödienhaus theater house in Vienna
on April 1st 1921. Alone on stage stands Jacob Levy Moreno. He is
dressed in the costume of the court jester and acts the role of the jester. The
curtain is pulled aside. On stage is a king’s throne, on its side a king’s
crown and cape. The background for this scenic image is the political situation
in Austria at the moment. The country is in political turmoil, lacking in
government and leadership. The king’s throne and crown are weighty symbols of
just this: leadership and power. The jester is the one who can speak freely, it
is he who can ask and say what nobody else can. Now he asks the audience about
their ideas and perceptions on the government and leadership of the country,
Austria, a country which is in the process of breaking up. He invites the
audience on stage, invites them to take the role as the new leader, be it he or
she, and through this contribute with new ideas on the government of Austria,
contribute with new actions for a better future. The theatre is packed with
curious spectators. They are government officials, politicians, regular theater
goers, friends of Moreno and friends of friends. The show, which had been
announced in the newspaper days ahead, lasts for two hours. The show received
poor reviews; the critics concluded that it was most likely an April fool’s
Show.
At this point nothing more is to be said about the performance than to
state that it was not April fool. Rather, it marked the beginning of sociodrama
as a dramatic form.[ii]
In this article, the opening line from April 1st 1921, “I invite
each of us to speak our truth”, will be given a central space. With this line as
a reference, we want to discuss what sociodrama – and later on sociopsychodrama
– is and can be, both in theory and in practice. On the basis of the event
“Simultaneous World Sociopsychodrama” on December 21st 2013, we will
discuss sociodrama/sociopsychodrama with reference to questions linked to democracy,
art and understanding of knowledge. The sociopsychodramatic work in Trondheim,
Norway, this evening will constitute the center of gravity in the material to
be explored.
Sociodrama and
democracy
It is, then as now, strange to invite all, “…each of us…” to take part
in a theater play. The opening line from 1921 invited all to take part.
Everybody was invited on stage as potential actors. This was new. The audience
didn’t quite know what they were about to take part in. In Komödienhaus they
had always received theater, never taken part. We all have a need to know what
we are about to take part in, especially (perhaps?) does this apply to the
theater, and not the least for the conventionally influenced Vienna audience of
1921. To them, the thought of taking part in a performance was unheard of. To
participate in an act, takes preparation and warming up. The same goes for
sociodrama. Maybe the audience wasn’t prepared enough for participation the
first time sociodrama was presented? But in sociodrama the whole group is
invited to take part: “The true subject of the sociodrama is the group…[iii]”, Moreno writes.
Sociodrama deals with matters larger than the individual and how this “larger”
influences back on the individual. In sociodrama, collective and social roles
are embodied and in 1921 the topic was leadership and democracy in the Austrian
society. Since then, sociodrama has been linked to democratic participation. To
invite everyone to participate is an example of living democracy. The ideal of
democracy is built on everyone’s right and duty to participate. Such an ideal takes
openness and co-leadership. A living democracy is created through
participation; it has to be created again and again. In this sense, sociodrama
is an example of living democracy, also the one in 1921.
Some years earlier John Dewey wrote on democracy as an idea. In
“Democracy and Education”[iv] from 1916 he writes on how
one can foster democracy through education. With him we meet a democracy term
with two sides. One is linked to political democracy, the other to democracy as
idea. A political democracy includes the right to vote and chose
representatives, while the democratic idea may be understood as a way of living
where people are bound together through exchange and sharing. This is the form
of democracy Dewey considers most important[v]. According to him, the
exercise of democracy is fundamental; it is a right in society which, through
participation, gives the individual the chance to make new experiences.
Experience here is not only everyday occurrences, but results of a series of
occurrences which are linked together through participation and co-creation. On
this basis it is possible to understand the invitation to “…each of us…” on
April 1st 1921 as a democratic practice.
“Simultaneous World
Sociopsychodrama”
Nearly a hundred years after the first sociodrama, on December 21st
2013, “…each of us…” constituted more than 80 groups in 30 countries spread
around the world. Independent of each other, groups met, at the same time and
with the same title, “Simultaneous World Sociopsychodrama”, to investigate
questions like: what can I do for myself? What can I do for my family? What can
I do for my community? What can I do for my country? What can I do for the
world? What can I do for cosmos? The initiative for this worldwide
sociopsychodrama event came from Monica Zuretti in Argentina. She was trained
by Jacob Levy Moreno and Zerka Moreno in 1969/70. On her initiative, groups
were established in Argentina, Mexico, Chile, Uruguay, Brazil, Nicaragua,
Venezuela, Costa Rica, Cuba, El Salvador, Puerto Rico, Guatemala, Ecuador,
Peru, China, New Zealand, Croatia, Israel, Italy, Sweden, Denmark, Finland,
Switzerland, Hungary, Spain, France, Bulgaria, Turkey, Canada and Norway.
Simultaneously, and in sociopsychodramatic form, the groups investigated the
questions above. This also took place in Trondheim, Norway, where a group of 19
participants met from 3 to 6 pm. The gathering was organized by the
“Professional development group for sociodrama, psychodrama and sociometry in
Trondheim”[vi].
Further development of
a form
Over 40 years of practice Monica Zuretti has developed further Moreno’s
sociodramatic work to the form sociopsychodrama. The starting point in
sociopsychodrama is the group’s social and collective roles. At the same time
one works on the basis that these roles are experienced by someone and that
these experiences are rooted in each individual. The basic thought is that
before a social or collective role can be played and put to life in a dramatic
production, there has to exist ideas and images within the group about what
distinguishes and characterizes this role. Subsequently, in this form, it is
not sufficient “only” to play a social or collective role, the role has to be
linked to the experiences of the individual. The work is done on the basis of the
thought that the social and psychological are linked, that individual and
society are linked. This is also Moreno’s basic assumption when he says that
there exists a floating boundary between sociodrama and psychodrama[vii].
Understanding of art
When “…each of us…” is pronounced in a theater, the line falls within
the framework of an art form; the art form theater. In this context the line
also represents a certain view on art. Normally, we think of theater as a
reception form where actors act and the audience receives and experiences
theater. In this understanding, theater is an act for an audience. The play is
experienced by the recipient, the audience. We say then that theater art aids
comprehension through the possibility to experience and feel at a distance,
through our senses. To a lesser extent have we been concerned with what we
experience, sense and not the least learn when we take part in theater; when we
participate ourselves. In sociopsychodrama theater becomes something more than
a performance of a written drama in front of an audience. Sociopsychodrama
opens up to an understanding of art that stresses the perspective of the
participant. To see oneself as co-creator and participant in the work of art and
in culture is, as we have seen, the starting point for sociodrama. Moreno got
the inspiration for such a participant perspective on art from an art movement
he took part in himself in Vienna. The art movement is called expressionism. It
was from this movement the concept of the art of living arose. For Moreno, the
art of living was meeting and old situation in a new way and a new situation in
an adequate way. Later on he turned this into his credo and defined it as
spontaneity. It was within the framework of expressionism that Moreno developed
an understanding of the art of living; to him it represented a view on art[viii]. A characteristic of
the varying forms of expression in this movement was its intention to express
the truth of the situation, the truth behind the masque and the masque play. In
that respect the Vienna culture’s masque play and conventions were a source of
inspiration to art practice for Moreno. The first sociodrama is mentioned here
as an example.
Later on this understanding of art would reach beyond the territory of
art and include life and learning in general. An important source of
inspiration here is the pedagogue John Dewey. Moreno and Dewey inspired each
other mutually. When Moreno moved to the United States in 1925, he said that he
moved to “the land of Dewey”[ix]. Dewey on his part was
member of “The editorial board of Sociometry”[x] in the 1930ies and 40ies on
Moreno’s initiative. In their view on democracy, art, experience and
participation we find common understanding between them. They both had a
participants’ perspective on art and learning; a perspective with particular
relevance to sociopsychodrama. As Moreno, Dewey writes on “Art as experience”[xi].
Art has a central position in what Dewey understands as a living
democracy. The purpose of art is to create experiences, not only for the
individual but for everyone who meets it. Art is created through a production
which ends up in an expression, an expression of art. When the subject (the
audience) meets the expression of art, a relation is established; an
experience. In this situation the subject does and undergoes enough to create
an experience, Dewey claims. Earlier experiences are weaved together with the
new one. Dewey calls this esthetic experience[xii]. In sociopsychodrama the
esthetic experience is created in the participatory production. The production
and the expression of art coincide; they are not separate as we experience them
in receptive art. In sociopsychodrama, attachment, sensing and the expression
of art are woven together in the production itself, in one and the same piece.
In this perspective, “one of us” becomes everybody’s participation in the
production of a piece of art, here and now. “An esthetic experience can be
crowded into a moment only in the sense that a climax of prior enduring processes
may arrive in an outstanding movement which sweeps everything else into it that
all else is forgotten”[xiii]. This was the kind of
esthetic experience that was prepared for in Trondheim on December 21st.
Trondheim, December 21st,
2013
Those who attended “Simultaneous World Psychodrama” in Trondheim on
December 21st were a new group. Some knew several and others knew a
few, several had no previous experience with sociopsychodrama. As we have seen
from the earliest experiences with sociodrama, it takes several layers of
actions before a group can express itself freely and unrestrained; before a
group can “speak our truth”. The context, the atmosphere, how one is met and
how members warm up to other group members; all this works together and
influences what later on grows and is produced in a group. To be met, to create
room for meetings between people, is one of Moreno’s most profound
contributions. Early on he therefore found practice forms that deal with the
interpersonal encounters, concrete encounters, “eye to eye, face to face”[xiv].
The importance of the
meeting
The first and most important when a group meets, is how one is met as a
new member. The obvious and commonplace, like being greeted, to become a name
among other names, to be included in the setting, is of importance to what is
later created in sociopsychodrama, as goes for Trondheim on December 21st.
The first topic in the group work therefore dealt with creating encounters.
Moving around in the room, greeting the others both verbally and non-verbally,
meeting looks, two and two, face to face, breathing at the same rate, becoming
the moment together, touching the other and then going on, creating new
encounters. Through an initial stroke a group may be linked slowly together,
become more relaxed, attached and ready for subsequent productive work.
The second part is to gather the group around a common topic; in our
context around the birth of the “Simultaneous World Sociopsychodrama” event.
Through various narrative entrances based on three images, the background for
the gathering was presented. One image showed the ceremony when Monica Zuretti
was awarded the diploma as sociopsychodramatist in 1969. The other was a poster
of Moreno; in the background we saw an architectural model of his theater as it
was drawn before he immigrated to the US in 1925. At the bottom of the poster, stood
the opening line from the performance in Komödienhaus: “I invite each of us to
speak our truth.” The third was an art poster for the same event. Through
visual expressions and belonging narratives, the group was made participatory
with the background for the event, they were made participants in the questions
which formed the basis for “Simultaneous world Sociopsychodrama”. The
exploratory work could begin.
The
sociopsychodramatic scene
At the sociopsychodramatic scene, a model of concentric circles was
created, circles in the form of cloths in different colors were formed like one
can see circles spread from a center when a stone is thrown in the water. The
center of the model represented the question “What can I do for myself?” In the
following circles followed the questions “What can I do for my family?”, “What
can I do for my community?” and so on. In pairs, group members were invited on stage
to explore the varying questions together. By moving in different circle rings,
conversations were developed and insights gained: where is my commitment at
this stage? Is my focus on the little or the big world? From this conversation,
a new group structure evolved when each person made their choice based on their
commitment here and now. The new structure expanded the group; some placed
themselves close to their community, others saw their efforts in a global
perspective, their questions were related to what they could do for the world.
New conversations arose among those who belonged to the same field of interest.
What characterized their common commitment? Should they cooperate with someone?
With whom? New conversations and choices were made. A third group constellation
arose. The new groups were put to work together creating an improvised
production, creating a scenic image expressing an essence, a common opinion on
what characterized their cooperation. The following presentations were given
different names: Umbutu, The Embryo, Reflection. Each of the scenic
improvisations showed aspects dealing with exposed positions, vulnerability and
dependence in a global perspective. With the help of shawls, props, body and
voice, scenic expressions were produced; a culture can be set alive and a
wounded earth can speak. The scenic productions gave those who were present in
the room, there and then, a common survival linked to questions on cooperating,
on the necessity of seeing oneself outside oneself, as part of a community, as
part of the world.
What is learned and what knowledge can be retrieved from the actions
described above? Is this only an eccentric activity for the especially
interested? According to sociopsychodramatic thinking, it is not. Not only was
Moreno inspired by children’s play and how they learn through staging and
gestalting of experiences from the surrounding world; he was also inspired by
the early Greek thinkers, especially Socrates and Aristotle. With Aristotle we
find the knowledge form phronesis. Through phronesis, the actions described
above may give notions on what kind of knowledge we are talking about.
Understanding of
knowledge: phronesis and our time
Phronesis isn’t commonly known. The term – the practical wisdom – was
formed by Aristotle about 2300 years ago in a discussion about the conditions
for a good life with others. It points to the ability to act in wise ways in
specific situations. Since every situation is unique, rules and handbooks
cannot fathom this wisdom, for phronesis is personal and interpersonal
knowledge developed through experience. Aristotle links phronesis to the
disciplines ethics and politics and considered it to constitute one of three
forms of knowledge. The two others were episteme, theoretical knowledge (true
and universal) and techne, a practical knowledge (proficiency in skills within
craft and art, and in our time engineering and technology). Aristotle saw all three as meaningful in a
balanced society, but phronesis was the most important because the other two
could only find their place through it. Wisdom was important and on the basis
of it, other kinds of knowledge could be obtained[xv]. Phronesis is a forgotten
term, but today we see, through ongoing research, how the term gains renewed
relevance and is discussed from varying professional perspectives[xvi].
In our exploration of “I invite each of us to speak our truth” – on
sociopsychodrama, we have sought support in Dewey’s democratic idea on
everybody’s right to participation as a life form – as the art of living. There
we have seen that people are bound together through exchange and sharing. The
purpose of art in this is to create experiences for those who meet it. Dewey
says that “In short, art, in its form unites the very same relation of doing
and undergoing, outgoing and incoming energy that makes an experience to be an
experience”.[xvii]
In the meeting with art this is called esthetic experience. Here we also
have looked at sociopsychodrama in relation to Aristotle’s term phronesis.
Sociopsychodrama, both in content and form, invites to participate.
Here, interpersonal experiences may be had; questions from varying areas of
life, from the single person to cosmos, may be investigated. Democracy as a form
of living gets an expanded perspective in this. Moreno had a wide and complex
view of life, but the core of his practice was to make experiences with others,
to meet the other face to face. With him, phronesis as a form of knowledge is
expressed as actions, through meeting an old situation in a new way and a new
situation in an adequate way. Not the least have we seen here that several layers
of actions are needed before a group can express itself freely and
unrestrictedly, before everyone in a group can “speak our truth”. In
sociopsychodrama this is an aim.
Conclusion
In sociopsychodrama the art of the moment may take place; there the living
body may find new ways of expression and not the least: one may produce in
interplay with others. By participating with others, first two and two, then
with the whole group, the threads from the evening on December 21st
were wound up. What was experienced through the participation in this
sociopsychodramatic production? In the room of the circle, experiences were
shared, a total of fifteen participants shared during the conclusion. Different
opinions and experiences were expressed. All in all it is possible to divide
the response into three categories. 1) Some responded based on their personal
gain: “this has given me inspiration”, 2) others shared on the basis of experiences
with the encounter, about linking themselves to the world: “I was inspired by
the conversation with the woman at my side…. experienced that we were part of
something bigger…”. and 3) on being part of a participative practice: “…have
experienced to be part of a creative we”, and “I perceive a freedom in being
able to see my questions from varying perspectives, the ones I have inside, the
ones related to my family, community, Norway, the world, cosmos. I have really
learned something I can bring along.” The sharings were the response of the
moment. Later on, a supplementary and nuanced response would have taken place,
but in the room of the circle, there and then, those were the “truths” to be
expressed.
The evening of December 21st in Trondheim started off with
everyone being participants in a larger community. The evening also ended like
that. Through a ritual, the work of the group was linked with the large network
the group was part of. A ritual in the form of small candles was lit for each
of the participating countries. Through the language of the ritual, the work of
the group was linked together in a larger whole.
In a living democracy we need arenas of exchange and sharing.
Sociopsychodrama is a dramatic form where art of the moment may be created,
where new knowledge may be achieved and a living democracy maintained, in one
and the same piece. Nearly one hundred years have passed since Moreno opened
with the line “I invite each of us to speak our truth” when he stood alone on
stage. On December 21st, 80 groups spread out in 30 countries each
in their own way cooperated and created new rooms for exchange and sharing.
Sources:
Baim, Clark and others, 2007: Psychodrama.
Advances in Theory and Practice. London and New York. Routledge
Dewey,
John,1916/61: Democracy and Education. An
Introduction to the Philosophy of Education. New York. The Macmillan
Company.
Dewey,
John, 1934/1958: Art as Experience. New
York. Capricorn
Fox,
Jonatan.1987: The Essential Moreno.
Writings on Psychodrama, Group Method, and Spontaneity by J.L. Moreno M.D. New
York. Springer Publishing Company
Groven, B., 2007: Det doble blikk: Spesialpedagogen i endringstider. Doctoral thesis, Trondheim, NTNU
Gustavsson, B., 2000: Kunskapsfilosofi: Tre kunskapsformer i historisk belysning. Wahlstrøm & Wahlstrøm, Stockholm
Marineau,
Rene, 1989: Jacob Levy Moreno 1889 –
1974. Father of Psychodrama, Sociometry and Group Psychotherapy, London and
New York. Tavistock/Routledge
Mollan, A.G., 2002: En
forståelse av gapet mellom visjon og virkelighet i grunnskolen i lys av
lærererfaringer og teori om det mellommenneskelige. Hovedfagsoppgave pedagogikk Universitetet i Tromsø
Moreno, J.L., 1993:. Who Shall Survive?: Foundations of Sociometry, Group Psychotherapy and
Sociodrama. McLean, Va.: American Society of Group Psychotherapy &
Psychodrama. Original Edition, 1934.
Flyvbjerg,
B.,1996: Rasjonalitet og makt. Det
konkretes vitenskap. Akademisk forlag Danmark
Rasmussen,
B. & Kristoffersen, B., 2011: Handling
og forestilling – forestilling om handling. Jacob Levy Morenos
teaterekspresjonisme og sosiatri. Trondheim. Tapir
akademisk forlag.
Skjervheim, H., 1992: «Etikken og
dagleglivet sin moral» Filosofi og
dømmekraft Universitetsforlaget
End
Notes
[i] This article was originally
published in Swedish in the periodical «Drama Forum» no 1-2 2014. Thie article
is translated by Albert Collett and Børge Kristoffersen
[iii] Moreno 1999, p 59
[iv] Dewey, John 1916, p 61
[v] Dewey, John 1916, p 61
[vi] “Professional development
group for sociodrama, psychodrama and sociometry in Trondheim” aims at further
developing the knowledge about Moreno’s various contributions. The group is
also co-organizer for a sociopsychodramatic education in cooperation with the
PsykodramaAkademin Foundation in Sweden and Centro de Psicodrama y sociodrama
Zerka T Moreno in Argentina.
[vii]
Moreno, 1993, p 59-60
[viii] Rasmussen, B and Kristoffersen, B, 2011, p 98
[x] Fox, Jonathan, 1987, p xvii
[xi] Dewey, 1934/1958
[xii] Dewey, 1934/1958, p 56
[xiii] Dewey, 1934/1958, p 56
[xiv] Marineau, René, 1989, p 48
[xv] Flyvbjerg, 1996
[xvi] Gustavsson, Groven, Skjervheim, Mollan and
others
[xvii] Dewey, 1934/1958, p 48
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario