Using
Psychodrama to Expose Intolerance
towards
Homosexuality
Dr.
From: The British Journal of Psychodrama and
Sociodrama,
(2002),
Volume 17, Number 2, p. 19-35.
ABSTRACT
This article
seeks to answer the question “How effective can psychodrama be as a tool to
address social issues?” The authors, two theatre artists undertook a project to
confront the issue of intolerance toward difference related to sexual
orientation. They conducted a psychodrama workshop for students at the
Key words: psychodrama, homosexuality,
homophobia, intolerance, university campus,
A Need Arises
In 1998, Mathew
Shepard, a 21 year old, gay college student, became the victim of an appalling
hate crime in
Paula
Salvio, a professor in the Education department, suggested calling upon the element
of live theatre. She believed that actors could perhaps address the issue in a
form that would be entertaining as well as instructive. The group agreed that a
series of short plays might provide a more palatable format for their goal of
taking an active role in the creation of a more compassionate community.
Salvio
called upon one of the authors,
Kaye
had attended two workshops conducted by Dr.
As
Kaye reflected on his own life, he saw how many of these fears lay below the
conscious surface. He recalled the moment when, as a college student, he
finally became aware of his own oppressive, homophobic attitudes. This occurred
when a close friend revealed that he was gay. At that time Kaye realized that
he had freely used derogatory and hurtful comments about gay people, with little
or no thought to their potential impact. This reflection confirmed his belief
that the only way to effectively change homophobic attitudes was through
individual awareness of homophobic behavior. He had witnessed the effectiveness
of psychodrama in the realm of self-awareness, and proposed exploring ways to
use the various techniques to address this issue. Excited by the prospects of
this unique approach, the committee helped to raise the funds to invite
Scheiffele to the UNH to begin this process.
Scheiffele had
previously used psychodrama with psychiatric patients, as well as with students
and educators of diverse backgrounds. For years he had been experimenting with
applying psychodramatic techniques to theatrical art. Though psychodrama is
mostly known as a form of group psychotherapy, it was originally developed at
the Theatre of Spontaneity in
The Workshop
An
invitation to attend the workshop was extended to all students in the Theatre Arts
department and to other student and community organizations who
had an interest in this experiment. The result was the creation of a diverse
group representing different ages, backgrounds and sexual orientations. All
those participating expressed an interest in learning about classical
psychodrama as well as a desire to explore more effective methods to address
issues related to gender and homophobia. The emphasis on the first day was the
introduction of classical psychodrama and sociometry as conceived by
Warm-up
The
first task was to create an atmosphere of trust and safety conducive to an
honest exploration of self and relationships with others. To this end we
initially used action sociometry, which is often used as a warm-up to
psychodrama, and has been designed as a tool to both diagnose and improve group
dynamics. The Theatre students, in
particular, responded well to the psychodramatic philosophy which prefers to do
everything in action. We began by posing different questions to the group and
members placed themselves in the room according to their answers, either along
a line or dispersed in a square with several dimensions. On the surface, our
group seemed to be of similar opinions on many issues. For example, when asked,
“Do you think homosexuality is immoral?”
all the participants gathered tightly on the “no” side of the line. As the questions posed became more in-depth
and provocative, the true diversity of the group became apparent.
One
question that proved to be particularly revealing was “How uncomfortable are you when you see two people of the same sex
holding hands?” The group was dispersed throughout the line. Several
students, however, asked for clarification. It became evident that for most of
us the answer to this question depends on the gender of the “couple.” The sociogram revealed that the group was far
more comfortable with two women, rather than two men, holding hands. The greatest
polarization occurred when participants were asked if they would feel
uncomfortable if they were to hold hands with a person of the same sex, in
public. Most of the group found themselves on the “very uncomfortable” side of
the room, a few on the opposite side, and practically no one in the middle.
This dynamic illustrated how even those of us who do not consider ourselves
homophobic, were fearful of being perceived as homosexual, and thus subject to
being on the receiving end of homophobia.
|
X X XX X X X X X XX |
Uncomfortable Comfortable
Fig
1: Linear Sociogram: Participants illustrate their response to the question
“Would you feel comfortable if you were to hold hands with a person of the same
sex, in public?” by occupying a space in the room that corresponds to their
response.
Comfortable with two females holding hands
|
Uncomfortable with two men
holding hands |
XXX X X X X X X X X |
Comfortable with two men holding hands |
Uncomfortable with two females holding hands
Fig
2: Two-dimensional Sociogram (using vertical and horizontal planes):
Participants illustrate their response to two related questions: “How
uncomfortable are you when you see two males holding hands?” and “How
uncomfortable are you when you see two females holding hands?” While at least
two people were comfortable with both males and females holding hands (top right
corner), most were uncomfortable, to varying degrees, with the idea of two men
holding hands. Three of the group members (top left corner) were completely
comfortable with two women holding hands, while completely uncomfortable with
two men.
One
of the discoveries that we made repeatedly was that gender issues and
homophobia could not be separated. Of
course homophobia is used against both men and women. When we introduced more
specific behaviors that elicit homophobic responses, such as hugging or kissing,
they consistently appeared to be more tolerated in women. Soon, we discovered
that homophobia was directly linked to the socialization of children into the
established norms of gender behavior. Children who do not conform to the norms
of their assigned gender are often labeled as “gay” in a derogatory way.
Variations of “fag” are the most widely used put-downs on school playgrounds.
Building
upon this discovery, the group engaged in an “empty chair” exercise. The
participants were first asked to imagine a boy sitting in the chair. They were
then asked to assume the role of someone who teaches him “what it means to be a
man.” These roles included teachers, parents, peers, and media images, such as
the Marlboro Man. The process was repeated to explore female role
socialization.
Discussion
at the conclusion of this exercise underlined just how rigidly the lines of
established gender roles are drawn, even today. It became clear to the group
that any person, regardless of sexual preference, who did not conform to these
standards, was subject to becoming a target of homophobia. For example, when
the fictional boy in the empty chair was imagined to be playing with a doll, a
participant entered the exercise playing the role of his father and immediately
berated him for being a “sissy.” “You
don’t want people to think you’re some kind of a fag. Do you?” exclaimed the
“father.”
In
keeping with the principles of psychodrama and after presenting the existing
stereotypes, participants were encouraged to put forth their own visions of
positive role models. They stepped onto the stage, and tried to say something
supportive and helpful to the child. This turned out to be surprisingly
difficult for the participants. We became more aware of how we can have a
positive impact when we take on the role of teacher/parent/peer. Many of us
realized how much more we could contribute to overcoming gender related
oppression. For this to happen, however, we first need to confront the negative
patterns that have resulted from our own conditioning.
The impact of media-generated images of femininity and masculinity became even more apparent in a sculpture exercise. The participants created two statues, one to embody masculinity and one for femininity. They then added a single statement which they could imagine their character saying. We discovered that the vast majority of these images were icons produced by our bombardment with media images.
When
portraying femininity, for example, most of the group struck poses suggested by
the covers of glamour magazines (see photo 1). When portraying masculinity,
most of the images were a product of film and television, ranging from WWF
wrestlers to John Wayne (see photo 2). The group discussed how these images
were being sold to us as role models whose power we should aspire to obtain.
However, our next exercise revealed that even for the few of us lucky enough to
become like one of these unobtainable images, there is usually an enormous
price to pay. For example, women starving themselves
in order to appear thin, and men ignoring their feelings and body sensations in
order to appear tough. While still in character we asked each person in the
sculpture to say something that their character might be thinking in the
picture, but would not dare say. This revealed that under every façade
of strength there is an unacknowledged vulnerability. Many female characters,
for example, expressed fatigue from constant dieting and the energy expended in
keeping up the image. Male characters
revealed a longing for the chance to stop having to prove their masculinity.
Enactment
The
next step in our process was to actually do a full classical psychodrama in
order to demonstrate how the basic techniques are ordinarily applied to
interpersonal issues. After the group had had the opportunity to see exactly
how a psychodrama worked, we intended to apply this method to our topic. The
group chose Jane* as a protagonist. She wanted to explore her relationship with
her father, who was not supportive of her educational efforts in Theatre. The
protagonist was invited to choose a location where she would feel comfortable
to talk to her dad, and in psychodramatic fashion, she was instructed to “set
the scene”. That is, to use any props and furniture to bring the location of
the living room to the stage and make it as real as possible. In psychodrama
the protagonist usually sets her own scene, since she is the only one who knows
what the location looks and feels like. This served as her warm-up towards
being fully in the scene as if it were happening in
the here and now.
We then had to meet her father. Again, since she was the only one who knew her father, she had to take on the role herself first and was “interviewed in role-reversal” by the director to get information about her father. This gave Jane the opportunity to establish how the role of the father should be played. Having chosen a group member to assume the role of her father a conversation began between Jane and her father, in which she was invited to tell her father how she felt. At the beginning there were many role-reversals, since every time when the actor/auxiliary ego didn’t know how to respond as the father, Jane was role-reversed into the role of the father and asked to respond from that perspective. After some time the actor playing the father was quite immersed into the role, and the conversation was in a flow with few role-reversals.
It soon became clear that additional people were
needed to be present. As before, the protagonist introduced them in rolr-reversal; she then chose actors for the roles of
brother and stepmother. The scene continued to explore different facets of the
relationship and the protagonist was encouraged to express herself openly and
completely. The conversation with her father eventually ceased to progress.
This was because the father was played realistically, offering little
understanding or compassion for the protagonist’s plight. At this point the
director decided to enter, what
Surplus Reality uses the full power of dramatic enactment to make the scene real, as if it were happening right now. This gives the protagonist the benefit of an interaction, which will probably never happen in real life. Through this technique Jane was able to experience a deep catharsis by expressing to her father her deep love of theatre and her need to pursue a career in some facet of it. In reality, her anger at his resistance always overpowered her ability to express what she most wanted to say to him. At the end of the psychodrama, Jane allowed herself to be vulnerable with her now supportive father. She was able to fully express her love for both theatre and for her father, something Jane said she had never been able to do in her adult life. This process goes to the heart of psychodrama’s effectiveness in healing. As Zerka Moreno observed:
“We know from psychodrama that the greatest depth of catharsis comes not merely from re-enactment of the past, however traumatic or instructive, but from embodying those dimensions, roles, scenes, and inter-actions which life has not, can not and probably never will, permit” (Moreno, 1971, p. 43).
Through
Surplus Reality we create those experiences that are missing from our lives. We
use theatrical techniques to make these moments real, to the point at which
they actually become part of our psyches.
Sharing
In
the last phase of psychodrama, sharing, the group members talked about how they
were moved by what they saw and how it related to their own lives.
Later
the protagonist reflected on her experience as follows: “I liked how you
created a safe and trusting atmosphere in the workshop. I was able to work
through some built up feelings about my dad. I really felt that I could say
everything I had wanted to say to him for so long, as well as see things from
his perspective which I felt I hadn’t really been able to do before.”
Homophobia
in our own Lives
With
a basic understanding of the mechanics of psychodrama established, the group
was poised to explore the issue of homophobia further. We began by asking a simple
but direct question: Is there any way in which homophobia has affected you,
directly? Because only one of the workshop participants identified themselves
as gay, most of the group initially assumed that this form of prejudice did not
directly affect them. After deeper consideration, the group members soon
revealed example after example of moments in their lives when they played some
role in a homophobic situation. These instances were sometimes quite subtle;
for example, many in the group recalled being present when derogatory remarks
were made about a gay friend. In these moments, the workshop participants
remembered staying bitterly silent, or in some cases, actually joining in,
feeling shame and remorse afterwards. Many members of the group were surprised
by how many of these moments they had forgotten. They expressed shock at the
number of cases they had simply tucked away as another everyday occurrence.
One
participant had completely forgotten an experience, which she then recalled as
quite traumatic. A few years earlier, Jill had gone to a party at a popular
sorority. She had arrived with a female friend. Not being acquainted with those
present at the party, she and her friend conversed in a corner of the room.
After a short time, a contingent of the sorority hosts descended upon them. The
two women were asked to leave the party because they were “obviously gay,” and
were making the rest of the revelers uncomfortable by their presence. “My
friend and I were actually waiting for our boyfriends. I was so shocked I
couldn’t speak. We left the party.” As she recalled the event, she felt anger,
not only towards the people at the party, but at herself for not confronting
them. This became one of the events we considered to recreate as a psychodrama.
In this case, we would give Jill the opportunity to explore why she was unable
to say what she really wanted to say, and we could give her the chance to say
it now in an enactment.
The
second scenario chosen focused on a situation that one of the participants was currently
facing. When Dylan returns home from college, he spends a great deal of time
with his closest friend from high school. He often finds himself falling into
behavioral patterns established during these younger years. This frequently
centers on much masculine posturing. Dylan’s older sister is openly gay, but
his friend is unaware of this. The friend repeatedly makes derogatory and
hostile remarks about homosexuals. Dylan has avoided confronting his friend
about the behavior and has purposely kept his sister’s sexual orientation a
secret. He retold the story with a mixture of anger and shame (toward his
friend and himself).
As the psychodrama progressed, Dylan’s inability to confront his friend’s blatantly homophobic remarks became more and more evident. The group observed his failure to address the issue with the friend throughout, which resulted in an affirmation of their oppressive attitudes. In the discussion that followed the scene, Dylan was both amazed and distraught by the fact that the actor, playing his friend, had effectively silenced him. He revealed to the group his anxiety over being perceived as gay. Each time the opportunity arose to confront his friend (and defend his sister) he stopped at the point when he felt he might incriminate himself. At this point it was decided to choose another actor to be Dylan’s “double”.
The
double in psychodrama has to enter the protagonist’s world in order to be his
companion and to express some of the feelings and thoughts the protagonist
might not be expressing freely. The protagonist, however, is always in charge.
If he agrees with a suggestion made by the double, he repeats it in his own
words; if he disagrees he simply changes the statement to reflect his truthful
viewpoint. The double is instructed simply to follow her intuitions and express
whatever comes to mind from within the role of the protagonist, knowing that if
inaccurate, the protagonist will still be able to use her suggestions towards a
fuller exploration of his issues. Using the double to help him along, Dylan was
then better able to express some of his feelings towards his friend.
The result of the enactment was Dylan’s realization that his friend's display of homophobic behavior was not only constraining his sister and other gay individuals, but also himself; he was silenced by this behavior. This was a discovery of great magnitude for him. In the sharing session that followed the scene, other participants offered numerous situations when they failed to speak out, due to their own fear of being perceived as outside of their social circle’s “norm.” For everyone in the group, the psychodrama provided the chance to witness how many of us unwittingly play roles in our own self-oppression because of our deeply rooted desire to fit in and not be perceived as "abnormal." It is only through such realizations that any true progress can be made toward our ultimate goal of building a more compassionate society. As Moreno stated:
“The cardinal concern of professional psychotherapy has been, up to now, the mentally disturbed group. But is not the chief concern of a sick society its ‘normal’ group? Is not its normal group responsible for the general, social and moral decay, for wars and revolutions which bring untold misery upon mankind?” (Moreno, 1957, p. 25)
In psychodrama healing does not only occur for the protagonist, but also for the actors playing auxiliary roles and for the group, as a whole. We were frequently amazed to realize after a psychodrama that the actors playing roles went through their own therapeutic process and seem to have been the perfect choice for their role (Moreno refers to this as "tele" between the protagonist who chooses and the actors who are chosen).
For example in the last psychodrama, Carol was chosen to play Dylan’s homophobic friend. Earlier in the workshop she had commented that she often feels judged when expressing her masculine side, as when she was rejected at an audition for acting too manly. Playing Dylan’s friend in the scene gave her a chance to indulge her masculine side, even exaggerate it, without worrying about being judged. It was obvious that she took great pleasure from her performance (see photo 3, person in the center).
According
to Moreno, playing roles different from our normal lives is one of the benefits
of psychodrama and enlarges our role-repertoire. For him, mental health is not so
much about conformity to some standard of normality, but more about the ability
to spontaneously access and express many different roles and emotions. The
director, for therapeutic reasons, sometimes assigns specific roles. However,
if we trust the process and allow it to unfold, it is uncanny to see how actors
often end up in the ‘right’ roles, which benefit their own healing process as
well as support the protagonist (Moreno 2000, p. 119f).
Discussion
The workshop concluded with one of the most difficult questions posed to the group: How could we use what we learned, to create a public theatrical event that would effectively address the problem of intolerance toward difference? Many in the group had expressed how the two-day event had fundamentally changed, not just their view of this issue, but their entire perception of intolerance and the destructive role it was playing in their lives. They also discovered for themselves a more constructive perspective on the dynamics of divergent attitudes. One of the students, nine months after the workshop concluded:
“I felt that I had a greater understanding of how people
think and act, and how the differences in people don’t mean that they are
‘bad,’ it just means that they are looking at the world through different eyes.
I feel less judgmental of people with different opinions, and more interested
in understanding their perspective.”
Would
it be possible to move an audience to such a degree? The catalyst for this
newly found awareness was psychodrama’s ability to create a truthful and
profound empathy for both the “oppressor” and the “oppressed”. This is one
effect that separates psychodrama from similar approaches, such as Augusto
Boal’s Theatre of the Oppressed in which another effective process for
addressing social issues is offered (Boal, 1979, 1995). Based on workshops
attended that were conducted by Boal and other Theatre of the Oppressed practitioners,
the authors concluded that Boal’s techniques create great sympathy for the
plight of the oppressed, while the oppressor’s position remained largely
mechanical and steadfast. This is a necessity, because the purpose of his work
is to stimulate a dialogue about possible solutions that will overcome the immovable
obstacle, namely, the oppressor.
“From the moment at which the spect-actor replaces the
protagonist and begins to put forward a new solution, all the other actors
transform themselves into agents of oppression, or, if they already were agents
of oppression, they intensify their oppression, to show the spect-actor how
difficult it is to change reality. The game is spect-actors – trying to find a
new solution, trying to change the world – against actors – trying to hold them
back, to force them to accept the world as it is. But of course the aim of the
forum is not to win, but to learn and to train. The spect-actors, by acting out
their ideas, train for ‘real life’ action; and actors and audience alike, by
playing, learn the possible consequences of their actions. They learn the
arsenal of the oppressors and the possible tactics and strategies of the
oppressed.” (Boal, 1992, p. 20)
The result of this dynamic is that the actors
tend to gravitate toward characterizations that are distinctly “black” or
“white”. In psychodrama the purpose depends on finding not only a solution but
also a deeper awareness of one’s self and others. Through this heightened
understanding comes empathy for both “oppressed” and “oppressor”; due to the
fact that in role-reversal we can actively experience the world from another’s
point of view. This aspect leads to characters that live in the infinite world
of “grays”. Often this reveals ways in which the so-called oppressors are
acting from their own feelings of oppression. It allows us to come to terms
with the fact that we all potentially play the role of oppressed and
oppressor. Through this empathy, we can see ourselves reflected in a full
spectrum of attitudes, including those we desire to emulate as well as those we
desire to be rid of. In the end, understanding where the oppressor comes from
might just also lead the way to find solutions to the situation; though one
should not assume that every difficult situation has a solution.
With
this in mind, the group concluded that the most beneficial application of the
two-day workshop would be to simulate the entire event in a compacted form.
This would require keeping audience size small enough so that they could
actually take part in a series of sociograms, which would immediately open up a
dialogue on the topic. Flowing from these opening discussions, a psychodrama
would be constructed, utilizing an audience member’s situation, which was
reflective of the topic. The one fundamental change would be an option to use
the actors as the antagonist and protagonist, and the audience members as
auxiliary egos and doubles. This format would free the audience members from
the pressures of having to perform, while capitalizing on the actors’
performance skills to truthfully enact the story.
From
this beginning, the newly formed student group WildActs, a social issue theatre
troupe at UNH, has been experimenting with this approach. They have applied it
to campus issues ranging from harassment and substance abuse to students’
anxiety over returning home for vacation. This work has taken place both under
rehearsal and in performance conditions. The group has found that applying the
psychodramatic techniques utilized in the original workshop to be extremely
beneficial in the creation of fully scripted material. For example, WildActs
was asked by the Assistant Director of Student Life to create a short piece
dealing with time management (a major factor in student success). The group
recorded psychodramas from their own experiences and then proceeded to
transform this raw material into a formal script. The
Conclusion
What
began as an effort to discover a more effective way to address a specific
social issue has evolved into an exploration into the far-reaching applications
of Jacob Moreno’s Theatre of Spontaneity. At the
beginning of this process we were uncertain as to psychodrama’s effectiveness
as an actual theatrical performance format. The power of this method to awaken
a new and deeper level of self-awareness in the actor became evident to us.
This, in turn, allowed her to bring the truth of her own behavior to the
surface as an element of performance and/or script development, as well as
personal growth.
We
belief that only through an individual’s ability to recognize his or her
personal connection with an issue, like intolerance, can significant social
change actually take place. Rather than asking people to feel sorry for a group
of other people and preaching to them about correct behavior, their
motivation for change can be catalyzed by empowering them to look at the price
they themselves pay for conforming to gender roles and homophobia.
At
the Association of Theatre in Higher Education national conference in
Washington DC, and with other groups at UNH, we have continued to explore the
use of psychodrama to address the original issue of intolerance toward
difference. Inspired by the workshop, one of the participants is now going to
graduate school in drama therapy to work with children and adolescents, and to
incorporate tolerance building. Another participant, who works as a Peace Corps
volunteer, is currently applying this process as a method to help empower women
in an African Village. Each time, the technique has rendered similar results;
powerful revelations based on an opportunity to truthfully examine all the
roles that make up the complex play of oppression. This kind of work captures
the heart of
This
workshop was a transformative experience for the entire group, much superior to
conventional interventions, such as presenting lectures or traditional plays.
As one member wrote afterwards, “It was a turning point in my life.” The impact
of the event was created by the power of a truly living theatre, brought into
existence by the courage of the actors to truthfully reveal the depth of their
own attitudes and emotions. We experienced a compassion that must be lived to
be fully understood. By starting to grapple with their own attitudes and
behaviors, the group agreed that they had taken a meaningful step towards
confronting the problem of intolerance in their own community.
*
all names have been changed to preserve anonymity.
Boal, Augusto (1979) Theater of the Oppressed.
Boal, Augusto (1992) Games for Actors and Non-Actors.
Boal, Augusto (1995) The Rainbow of Desire: The Boal Method of Theatre and Therapy.
Fox, Jonathan (ed.) (1987) The Essential Moreno.
Moreno, Jacob Levy (1946) Psychodrama: First Volume. (Seventh Edition 1985) Ambler, PA: Beacon House.
Scheiffele, Eberhard (1995) The Theatre of Truth: Psychodrama, Spontaneity and Improvisation; the
Theatrical Theories and Influences of Jacob Levy
Scheiffele, Eberhard (1999) “Theater of Spontaneity.” Austria Kultur 9:5, p. 7.
Eberhard Scheiffele, PhD, CP, PAT, is a theatre artist, psychotherapist, and scholar. His dissertation entitled "The Theatre of Truth", written at the University of California, Berkeley, focused on Jacob Moreno's theatre of spontaneity and psychodrama. He is certified by the American Board of Examiners in Psychodrama, Sociometry, and Group Psychotherapy. While his first love remains acting, his experience also includes working in private practice and for agencies as a psychotherapist for children, adolescents, and adults. He has over 15 years of teaching experience in mathematics, philosophy, theatre arts, and psychology, at universities in California, Pennsylvania, Texas, Michigan, Germany, and Russia. His research and experiential workshops have been presented at universities and regional, national, and international conferences in theatre and psychotherapy all over the United States, Canada, Germany, Norway, Portugal, Greece, Austria, Russia, Siberia, and Senegal, West Africa. He has been published in Research in Drama Education, Journal of Group Psychotherapy and Psychodrama, Dramascope, amongst others.
David Kaye MFA is a graduate of the professional theatre-training program at Brandeis University. Prior to joining the University of New Hampshire (UNH) he was the Director of Theatre in Virginia. He serves as Co-Director of the Acting/Directing program at the UNH. He is the National (US) Chair of the Association of Theatre in Higher Education's (ATHE) Acting Division and the regional representative for the ATHE Director's Focus Group. As a produced and published playwright, he was awarded the Zornio Playwriting Prize in 1998. His most recent work, "And God Said (!@#?!)" was performed at the Montreal International Fringe Theatre Festival. He has also written, directed and produced television programs for broadcast on the American Public Broadcasting System. He has not only worked as a professional actor, director, and designer for a number of companies but also worked as Artistic/Producing Director with the Hackmatack Playhouse, the Maine Stage Company, and New York City's Julian Acting Company.