![]()
Part I
Setting the scene
![]()
Chapter 1
Framing creativity
Anna Chesner
Creativity and spontaneity
The central philosophical concepts in psychodrama as developed by J. L. Moreno are creativity and spontaneity. These twin forces are deeply connected with each other. Spontaneity is the way of being that drives creativity and allows it to emerge. The opposite of spontaneity is being stuck in what Moreno terms a “cultural conserve” (Moreno, 1940, in Fox 1987, p. 46). Moreno depicts a cycle of spontaneity and creativity that leads sometimes, through habit, to cultural conserves and at other times, through a process of “warm-up” or inner preparation, to an increase in spontaneity and the breakthrough of lived creativity.
Psychodrama theory distinguishes between impulsiveness, which is a state of being driven by impulses without reflection, and true spontaneity, which includes elements of reflection and personal choice in the moment. There are strong connections between this state of being and mindfulness, another discipline which integrates sensory, mental and physical elements with an emphasis on moment-to-moment awareness.
Psychodrama psychotherapy rests on the principle that human beings in their true nature have access to creativity and the capacity to be in the moment, spontaneously meeting the world with what it presents to the best of our ability in any moment. We can assess our state of well-being and fulfilment in life in terms of the degree of creativity and spontaneity in our lived experience. This impacts our relationship with self, other and the world.
The importance of warm-up is well known by athletes, musicians, dancers, artists and theatre practitioners. Moreno takes the concept into everyday life. All creative acts emerge through a process of warm-up, an internal and external preparation for a state of spontaneity and readiness, out of which something surprising and fresh can arise.
As a theatre-based model of psychotherapy, psychodrama thinks about the human being in terms of role, understood as a way of being, or “the functioning form an individual takes” (Moreno, 1961 in Fox 1987, p. 62). Habitual ways of being have a tendency to lead to cultural conserves, and ultimately to a limitation in our role repertoire. An increase in spontaneity opens the possibility of expanding our lived role repertoire and engaging with life in a more varied and vital way and with a sense of being more present in the moment.
Encounter
Despite the theatrical base of psychodrama, great emphasis is placed on authenticity and the concept of encounter. Moreno’s poem Invitation to an Encounter describes this with visceral directness:
A meeting of two: eye to eye, face to face.
And when you are near,
I will tear your eyes out
And place them instead of mine,
And you will tear my eyes out
And will place them instead of yours,
Then I will look at you with your eyes
And you will look at me with mine
(Moreno, 1915, p. 2)
There is an affinity between the work of Moreno and his contemporary Martin Buber, whose philosophy of dialogue and the distinction between the I-thou and I-it relationship fit well with psychodrama. In both philosophies we find an existential world view and a celebration of the person-to-person authentic encounter. Already in 1914 Moreno, in his pamphlet Invitation to an Encounter, describes the encounter in terms of a meeting of two in silence, a look or a conversation. I quote it here in the original German:
Das heilige Feuer, das diese Schrift atmet, ist die Einladung zu einer Begegnung. Auf Gasse oder Markt, im Garten oder Gemach: wo auch immer mein Antlitz und das deine aufgeht, bereiten wir uns zu einem Schweigen oder zu einem Blickwerfen oder zu einem Gespräch.
(Moreno, 1914, p. 5)
Here Moreno invites the reader to three aspects of the encounter: a silence, a glance, a conversation. The verbal conversation is mentioned third of these three kinds of encounter, and this reflects Moreno’s interest in the embodied and non-verbal domain. This early poetry is a powerful evocation of the philosophy that underpins psychodrama as it developed throughout Moreno’s life.
Expressionism
The style of Moreno’s early writings and the rawness of his ideas place him within the Viennese expressionist movement. The quality of intensity that characterises this style of theatre and art is recognisable within the method of psychodrama, even as it has developed since then. As a movement, it favoured the expression of the inner world of the artist, through bold strokes and colours, and represented a socially critical world view, embracing the depiction of the dark side of humanity and society. One of the founders of Expressionism, Ernst Ludwig Kirchner, wrote:
With faith in progress and in a new generation of creators and spectators we call together all youth. As youth, we carry the future and want to create for ourselves freedom of life and of movement against the long-established older forces. Everyone who reproduces that which drives him to creation with directness and authenticity belongs to us.
(Kirchner, 1906, as quoted in Dempsey, 2010, p. 74)
These words of Kirchner are very much within the tradition and spirit of Moreno’s thought.
The philosophy of psychodrama, and of the related disciplines of sociometry and sociodrama, is holistic. Moreno’s aim, expressed perhaps in a grandiose but also truly visionary way, was to have “no less an objective than the whole of mankind” (Moreno, 1978, p. 3). What is important about this in terms of the philosophical underpinnings of the method today is that the lens through which the work is viewed is not limited to the inner world of the individual, nor even to their interpersonal world, but embraces the wider field, including the social and even transpersonal domains. As a cosmic being, man is a creator, and, like Prometheus, has access to the creative powers traditionally attributed to the gods. In Moreno’s poem above he begins by evoking the sacred fire, “das heilige Feuer”. Greek mythology tells us of the creative power of Prometheus, who stole fire from the gods. Moreno was a man with a Promethean vision, with a belief in mankind’s right to fulfil our creative potential. We need to be reflective about how we handle that fire.
Frame in psychotherapy
Let us begin by considering the importance of the frame in general in psychotherapy. This refers to the conditions surrounding the interpersonal dialogue between client and therapist. These conditions are explored, explained and contracted for at the outset of a therapeutic relationship. They include factors such as location, time, duration and frequency of sessions, whether the work is time limited or open-ended, face-to-face or using online or phone technology, fees and methods of payment where relevant, cancellation policies, and an understanding of confidentiality and its limits. There may be further factors such as procedures for contact between sessions, or for risk management.
The frame provides clarity around mutual expectations, predictability, and a protected space for psychological work that allows for and respects the vulnerability inherent in the endeavour of psychotherapy. The psychotherapeutic relationship is bound to be asymmetrical to some extent – both parties are there to focus on the client’s rather than the therapist’s needs, and the therapist is there by virtue of some expertise in the field. The therapist may also gain self-knowledge, learning and a degree of transformation through the work, but this is not the primary purpose of the sessions. This asymmetry being a given, the frame itself is honoured by both parties and is intended to serve the work. In psychodramatic language the frame provides a degree of role clarity for all involved. While the psychotherapeutic journey tends to be a journey into the unknown, or half-known, the frame offers an important element of the known.
The frame provides an essential container for emergent processes. It may at times be resented, attacked, ignored or renegotiated. The way a therapist holds the frame and the way a client adheres to it or struggles with it both reflect something significant about our way of being in the world.
Psychotherapy emerged out of psychoanalysis, and the typical frame in that setting would be multiple sessions per week of 50 minutes duration, with the analyst aiming to be a blank screen, neutral and abstinent from taking any action, in order to allow the transference to develop and be worked through. In modern psychotherapy in the UK the frequency is more likely to be weekly or twice a week with a similar session length. Some therapists offer a 60-minute session rather than a 50-minute session. The “talking cure” sits comfortably within that kind of time frame.
Does this time frame also suit psychodrama psychotherapy and other action or arts-based approaches? Are we trying to fit a quart into a pint pot, or in Morenian terms, are we unquestioningly buying into a “cultural conserve” which will limit the spontaneity and creativity potential of the work? Each practitioner must engage with that question for themselves. For my part, I see the frame as a discipline offering form, within which there is the potential for creative freedom.
Some psychodrama colleagues use a 60-minute or 90-minute frame in order to allow more time to accommodate an action intervention. These are legitimate choices that can be justified in terms of the time required to warm up to a piece of action, to engage with it, de-role it and reflect on it together. However, my experience is that a 50-minute session is adequate as long as the therapist does not over-complicate the action intervention offered and paces the work mindfully and with attunement to the client, within the time frame available.
Rhythm and pace in group psychodrama psychotherapy and in one-to-one psychodrama psychotherapy
Psychodrama was developed predominantly as a group method, and it is only in the past fifteen years that the UK psychodrama psychotherapy trainings have explicitly taught the method as a one-to-one practice alongside group psychotherapy. It is helpful to reflect on the pace and rhythm of these contrasting settings for the clients, how these impact on the therapeutic process, and how therapists need to adapt their own pacing with this in mind.
A typical group session is two and a half hours long, beginning with a check-in and warm-up, moving on to a protagonist selection, contracting for the particular piece of work, then the main action phase, whether focusing on a one-scene vignette or a multiple-scene classical psychodrama, and finally a sharing in which the group members de-role, give role feedback and engage with their personal resonances with the work. It is an intense journey in which the internal world of the protagonist is made visible on the psychodramatic stage. Interpersonal relationships are thus scrutinised in action, and linked with early experiences that were key turning points in the creation of meaning for the protagonist, and the development of patterns of relating that have since become outdated and problematic. Role analysis is used to clarify the context-specific response to particular situations, the feelings and behaviours evoked by the context, and the underlying unconscious beliefs or assumptive world that drive current behaviours and ways of being. There is an opportunity to view the early (locus) scene from outside (the mirror position) and interve...
