Procesos y procedimientos

The belief that drama can benefit the well-being of children is not new. As early as 1930, Ward introduced the approach of ‘creative drama’ in America (Taylor 2000, p. 99).Influenced by the ideas of Dewey and Mearns, Ward argued that creative drama contributed to children’s physical, intellectual, social and emotional development. She promoted the power of creative drama to enhance skills which the society of her time viewed as important; communication skills, concentration, co-operation, tolerance, sensitivity and trust (Taylor 2000, p. 99). Her book Creative Dramatics (1930) outlined her philosophy that the arts add ‘immeasurably to the joy of living’ (Ward 1957, p. 4, cited in Anderson 2012, p. 31).

In 1954, Slade began to develop a view of drama as ‘eternally bound up with mental health’ (Slade 1954, p. 25, cited in Robinson 1980, p. 144). In his publication Child Drama (1954), he proposed that the dramatic activity of children is an art in its own right and separate from the theatre of adults (Robinson 1980, p. 44). With clear influences from the romantic views of Rousseau and Fröebel, he saw drama as having its roots in play and as being a manifestation of the child’s innocence and sanctity (Robinson 1980, p. 44). For Slade, the purpose of drama was to develop the child from within through creative self-expression (Robinson 1980, p. 44).

A few years later, his follower Way advocated the capacity of drama to develop the ‘individuality of the individual’ (Taylor 2000, p. 101). Drawing inspiration from the progressive education movement of the 1960s, his text Development through Drama (1967) placed emphasis on the ‘development of people’ over the development of drama (Way 1967, p. 2, cited in Anderson 2012, p. 30). It suggested exercises that concentrated on ‘speaking’, ‘consciousness of self’ and ‘self-control’ (Anderson

2012, p. 31). Nevertheless, his approach was criticised for removing what is educationally attractive about drama education and for leaving little place for working with others and for building a community (Anderson 2012, p. 31).

Bolton discussed the movement of Personal Development pioneered by Slade and Way (1992, pp. 117-118). He admitted that the ideas they supported, namely self- expression, personal identity, self-esteem, sensitivity, the uniqueness of the individual and the maturing process, were indeed valuable in themselves (1992, p. 117). What he found problematic, however, was the emphasis placed on them (1992, p. 118). Bolton believes that Personal Development should be seen as an ongoing aim in education and that, when it is overemphasised, the following problem arises (1992, p. 118):

(…) there are times when Personal Development, especially in responding to evident special needs of an individual, is uppermost in the teacher’s mind and takes priority over content/form objectives (…). It does not matter a bit whether or not the child has a grasp on the central concept; that the drama has created an opportunity for self-advancement is all that is important. (1992, pp. 118-119)

What Bolton seems to be saying here is that the emphasis on personal development leads to drama being used for instrumentalist purposes. Its intrinsic value is ignored.

Despite these criticisms, the approaches of Ward, Slade and Way have contributed to current thinking regarding the role of drama education in the personal, social and emotional development of children (Taylor 2000, p. 101). In the sections that follow, I will offer the theories of contemporary drama educators to draw links between drama and the various aspects of children’s well-being.

2.5.3.1

Pleasure

Numerous authors agree that pleasure is a primary element in good drama (Winston 2004, Neelands 1998, Fleming 2003, Dickinson et al. 2006) Its playful nature is seen to invite opportunities for entertainment, fun and aesthetic pleasure (Dickinson et al. 2006, p. 12). Fleming (2011) associates the goal of attaining pleasure through drama with the argument about the intrinsic value of the arts. He uses Susterman’s definition of entertainment to draw a connection between drama and well-being.

The aim ‘to provide entertainment and relaxation’ may appear trivial and superficial on the surface but could instead be associated with arguments about the intrinsic value of the art. Susterman (2003) has questioned the widely accepted polarity between ‘art’ and ‘entertainment’, arguing for a deep concept of entertainment with overtones of ‘sustaining, refreshing and deepening concentration’. This type of argument can lead to the linking of

drama to well-being, not necessarily in the narrow sense of using drama as a method to

develop understanding of specific health-related topics, but in the broader sense of contributing to pupils’ social and mental health. (Fleming 2011, p. 9)

The act of performing for an audience in drama can also claimed to generate pleasure. Winston explains that, for children who love performing, the moment of sharing their work is ‘thrilling’ (2010, p. 79). This is not only because they are seen and admired for their accomplishment, but also because this thrill is interwoven with a sense of risk that things might not go as planned. ‘Risk’, he writes, ‘is the rigor upon which their pleasure depends but their level of pleasure will equate with the experience of beauty’ (2010, p. 79). Winston invites beauty into the discussion about drama and pleasure. This beauty refers to both that of the dramatic product, and that of the experience of making drama itself (2010, p. 79).

2.5.3.2

Sociability, social skills and skills of working with others

Various drama theorists consider that sociability is at the core of drama. The pioneer Heathcote articulated the relationship between the two in her 1984 lectures:

If you want to use drama you’re basically looking at social behaviours. You’re not looking at the private person in the private moment; you’re looking at social behaviours. (1984a, p. 4, cited in Anderson 2012, p. 27)

The social nature of drama is seen to arise from the interactions among group members needed to create the artistic product (Bolton 1992, p. 121). According to Bolton, the organised group experience in drama renders it a unique learning context for the participants (1992, p. 121). Winston argues that it teaches them ‘the importance of collective endeavour’ and of ‘sacrificing their immediate self-interest for the good of a shared enterprise’ (2004, p. 53). In order for them to play effectively in the group, they are required to understand and adopt the attitudes of the others (Taylor and Warner 2006, p. 66). This idea is closely associated with the neo- Freudian theory that ‘all human intercourse provides the projection of scattered parts oneself into another person’ (Taylor and Warner 2006, p. 66).

Key to the building of the community spirit in drama is the ensemble approach, which is extensively theorised by Neelands (2009). When working in ensemble- based drama, young people ‘struggle with the demands of becoming a self- managing, self-governing, self-regulating social group who co-create artistically and socially’ (Neelands 2009, p. 182). In order to achieve this, they are required to ‘look for new ways of living together rather than against each other; to find solidarity in their common disadvantage; to create new models of pluralist community’ (2009, p. 176).

The importance of the co-operative activity was underlined by O’Neill and Lambert (1982). They argued that the schooling system encourages students to work individually and to be competitive and possessive about their achievements (1982, p. 13). Whereas this claim was made in 1982, it seems relevant to modern schooling where excessive individualism and competition reign supreme (Layard et al. 2009, Phillips and Taylor 2009). O’Neill and Lambert contradicted this individualistic spirit to the spirit of drama, which works from the strength of the group, draws on a common stock of experiences and in turn enriches the minds and feelings of its members (1982, p. 13).

The social character of drama is also reflected in its symbolic representation of human experiences (Bowell and Heap 2001, p. 21). Bowell and Heap summarise this point elegantly:

(….) drama is essentially about people and their relationships, dilemmas, concerns, hopes,

fears, aspirations, celebrations and rites of passage, all of which create ties which bind them

together. (2001, p. 21, italics in original)

Empathy and compassion (another word for sympathy) are mentioned by Neelands as key principles in drama education (2011). He defines them as follow:

Empathy: caring for others with a forensic curiosity that constantly seeks new ways of being together and creating together.

Compassion: engaging with the world and each other, knowing there may be mutual pain in doing so. (2011, p. 11)

Empathy in drama can be achieved on two levels. Firstly, when playing a role, the child is required to find what she shares in common with the character so that she can incorporate it, regardless of how distant she feels that it is from her own identity

(Winston 2004, p. 55). Secondly, when working in groups, she is required to develop an empathetic understanding of the attitudes of other members in order to work effectively with them (Taylor and Warner 2006, p. 66). Compassion can be encouraged in drama through powerful experiences of dramatic events which, although imaginative, can yield real emotions of sympathy towards others.

2.5.3.3

Self-esteem, self-confidence and sense of achievement

Different writers on drama education claim that drama holds the potential to help children flourish with regard to their self-esteem and self-confidence in different ways. Firstly, the real and imaginary encounters with others taking place in drama enable them to discover their capabilities and potentialities (O'Neill 1995, p. 91). Through the fictional roles and worlds offered in drama, they can realise who they are and who they may be (O'Neill 1995, p. 91). Dickinson et al. call drama a ‘self- realisation’ project, because ‘it draws out strength, it encourages dreams, and it gives you the chance to reach your potential’ (2006, p. 15).

Secondly, the imaginative engagement in drama allows for the loosening of tyrannies that govern everyday life, and particularly that of identity (Winston 2004, p. 13). When taking on the role of someone powerful, the child is respected and listened to by her peers within a fictional context. By internalising these feelings of being respected and of being deemed as an important person, her self-worth is reinforced (Winston 2004, p. 13). Through assuming roles of influential people who change their actions and lives through collective and social action, participants can realise that they can also lead, be assertive and alter the circumstances of their lives (Dickinson et al. 2006, p. 15). In this sense, drama can also give children a voice (Winston 2004, p. 13).

Thirdly, drama can offer children the opportunity to experience a sense of achievement which, according to the theory of Rawls (1972), has a direct input to their self-esteem. In sharing this achievement with an audience, they are offered an opportunity to be seen, admired and praised (Winston 2010, p. 4). As O’Neill articulates it, they can be ‘perceived by others in an entirely new light’ (cited in Winston 2010, p. 69). When sharing a piece of work that the audience and themselves deem as beautiful and good, they identify with it and see themselves as beautiful and good (Winston 2010, p. 79, italics in original). Armstrong refers to Plotinus to make a similar claim:

When we find something beautiful, Plotinus suggests, we don’t just want to keep it or own it. Rather, we want it to take possession of us. We want to be transformed by our encounter with it, so that we too may come to share some of its attributes. (2005, pp. 76-77)

Fourthly, the ‘no penalty area’, a concept introduced by Heathcote, can act as a basis for the reinforcement of children’s self-confidence. It suggests that ‘participants will be able to test out ideas, try them over again, and generally examine them, without necessarily having to fulfil, in actual life situations, the promises they have tried out in the depicted one’ (Heathcote et al. 1984, p. 128). This principle implies that children can experiment and offer their ideas without having to worry about the outcome (1984, p. 130). Every contribution is seen as valid and is accepted by the group, and this provides them with a sense of security and confidence.

Fifthly, Rawls’s Theory of Social Justice recommends that an enduring basis of self- esteem can be established through the person’s involvement in an association (1972, p. 441). By joining a community of shared interests, a person’s actions are found to be rational and are publicly affirmed by her associates (1972, p. 441). Rawls argues

that the internal life of such associations is ‘suitably adjusted to the abilities and wants of those belonging to them, and provides a secure basis for the sense of worth of their members’ (1972, p. 441-442). If we consider a youth theatre or a drama group to be such an association, then it is evident how a basis for the self-esteem of the participants can be realised. Children meet others who share their love for drama. Their actions in the institution are seen as rational, and are affirmed and often praised by their peers. What is essential is that the dramatic activities and ways of working are tailored according to the levels of ability and desires of children. This underlines the importance of the pedagogy of the teacher, and of taking children’s voice into consideration.