A self psychology theory of role in drama therapy

The Arts in Psychotherapy, Vol. 25, No. 4, pp. 223–235, 1998 Copyright © 1998 Elsevier Science Ltd Printed in the USA. All rights reserved 0197-4556/98 $19.00 1 .00

PII SO197-4556(98)00018-5

A SELF PSYCHOLOGY THEORY OF ROLE IN DRAMA THERAPY

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE, MA, MFA, RDT, MFCC*

Introduction

focuses on how individuals experience themselves indirectly through the views of other members of the same social group. He writes, “A person is a personality because he belongs to a community, because he takes over the institutions of that community into his own conduct” (p. 202). The self is constructed through a social process which reflects the values and attitudes of a larger community. He defines role as a unit of conserved behavior. The conserved behavior is assigned by society and is enacted through roles. Goffman (1959) concurs with Mead in that people play roles in relationship to their environment and what they want out of the environment. He acknowledges the theatrical nature of life and role playing. He views identity as a presentation of ourselves in role to a particular audience. Goffman defines role as “. . .the enactment of rights and duties attached to a given status” (p. 16). He goes on to define the self as “. . .a dramatic effect arising diffusely from a scene that is presented, and characteristic issue, the crucial concern, is whether it will be credited or discredited” (p. 252). Scheff (1984) emphasizes the “social systemic nature of role playing” (p. 50). The individual plays his role by articulating his behavior with the cues and actions of the other persons involved in the transaction. The proper performance of a role is dependent on having a cooperative audience. Our surroundings enact upon us in a certain way and it is almost impossible to not behave accordingly.

Role playing in a drama therapy process can provide a powerful, transformative experience. This paper examines the meaning of taking on a role and how role playing facilitates healing. A self psychology framework is applied to determine a theory of role for understanding pathology and treatment. I am particularly interested in distinguishing the relationship between roles and selfobjects in the building of a cohesive self structure. It is my intention to formulate a theory and practice based in a role theory that centers on selfobject fulfillment and the articulation of affective states. I will begin by providing a brief overview of how social scientists and drama therapists have defined “role.” It is important to define the terms “role” and “self” within the field of this paper. I will then organize important ideas in self psychology thinking, especially from Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984) and Stolorow, Brandchaft, and Atwood (1987). This will lead into examining the function of roles and selfobjects, as well as how roles contribute to the integration of affect. The goals of therapy will be redefined as integrated with self psychology and role theory. Finally, the function of the drama therapist will be discussed within the parameters of a psychodynamic approach. Overview of Role Many social scientists fundamentally view role as a set of behaviors assigned by society. Mead (1956)

* Christopher Doyle is the Clinical Supervisor at Willow Creek Treatment Center in Santa Rosa, CA. Willow Creek is a residential facility for SED adolescents, offering day treatment services and a nonpublic school.

223

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

224

Like other social scientists, Moreno (1953) saw human beings as role players. He writes: The concept underlying this approach is the recognition that man is a roleplayer, that every individual is characterized by a certain range of roles which dominate his behavior, and that every culture is characterized by a certain set of roles which it imposes with a varying degree of success upon its membership. (p. 88) Moreno (1961) defined role as “. . .the actual and tangible forms which the self takes,” and goes on to say the function of the role is “. . .to enter the unconscious from the social world and bring shape and order to it” (p. 519). An interesting viewpoint crystallized by Moreno (1953) is that the self emerges from the roles we play. In other words, the ego is made tangible through roles. Landy (1986, 1990, 1993) has put forth several definitions of role. In 1986, he wrote that role is a mediator between self and other. In 1990, he viewed role as the “. . .containers of all the thoughts and feelings we have about ourselves and others in our social and imaginary worlds” (p. 230). More recently (1993), he viewed role as “. . .a basic unit of personality containing specific qualities that provide uniqueness and coherence to that unit” (p. 7). He wrote, “In drama therapy, role is the form of one’s dramatic action” (p. 31). In these three definitions, Landy sees role as a mediator, a container and a unit of personality. Landy’s struggle in nailing down a definition of role points to its complexity. Landy seems to agree with Moreno’s view that the self emerges from the role when he writes, “One plays a role, then, to get out of oneself, to locate a form for one’s thought and feeling” (p. 39). Landy and Moreno break away from other social scientists by clearly stating that roles are more than assigned behaviors. Roles portray the particles of the self, along with the expectations of culture and other external forces. Landy (1993) and Moreno (1953) also explore in great depth what it means to play roles in drama. Moreno (1953) writes of surplus reality, a reality which includes the roles we imagine in fantasies, the roles in dreams, the roles we play in psychodrama. These surplus reality roles are no less significant in the creation of personality than roles enacted in life. In fact, Moreno was primarily interested in surplus reality roles as tools for making the unconscious conscious. Like Moreno (1953), Landy (1993) empha-

sizes role playing in drama as a means to contain and express parts of the personality. Blatner and Blatner (1988a, 1988b) write extensively about role playing and role dynamics. Adam Blatner (1985) defines role as “. . .complexes of attitudes, beliefs, expectations, and skills that make up the units of behavior” (p. 13). He goes on, with Alee Blatner (Blatner & Blatner, 1988a), to write, “People play a multiplicity of roles in their lives, and by understanding and becoming creative with these roles, we can learn to make our lives richer and more effective” (p. 20). Role dynamics emphasize our dependence on roles and role playing. Relationships are defined by roles and consist of several roles weaving in and out of one another (Blatner & Blatner, 1988b). Mead (1956), Goffman (1959), and Scheff (1984) focus on how roles relate to society and culture. We assume roles because they are given to us by our community. However, the roles we play also depend upon how we want to be seen by others. Moreno (1953) personalized the nature of role by focusing on its unconscious nature and how role is an expression of the ego. Landy (1991, Blatner and Blatner 1988b) emphasize the direction of Moreno (1953, 1961) and Landy (1993) by pointing out that a personal understanding of the roles we play leads us toward a richer and healthier life. Here is the definition of role that I use for this study: Role is an expression of an aspect of the self. Whether the role is dramatically portrayed in the theater or enacted in daily life, whether it is thought of in a daydream, projected onto an external object or dramatized through improvisation—roles express an aspect of the self. I clearly align myself with Moreno (1953, 1961), Landy (1993) and Blatner and Blatner (1988a) when I say that roles provide tangible forms which articulate who we are. Unlike Landy (1991, 1993), I do not focus on the theatrical basis of roles or roles grounded in world theatre. I seek to explore the inner, personal experience of roles as they aid in self discovery and human development. Moreno (1953) discovered that the self emerges from the roles we play; I am interested in exploring how we can use roles to strengthen that self by building structure and cohesion. I am not as concerned with Moreno’s (1953) views of role taking, playing and creating as I am concerned with what the role means and how the roles are involved as tools for healing the self. An important point to make here is that while we express our self through role, we concurrently express affect through role. It is impossible to play a role

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY without giving voice to emotion, even if the emotion is hidden under defenses. If a person is playing a role, he is also expressing affect through that role. Role and the Self As role is an expression of the self, it is important to define what is meant by the self. In self psychology terms, and probably most simply described, the self is “. . .the center of the individual’s psychological universe” (Kohut, 1977, p. 311). In this view, the self is described as the “I” who says “I am happy.” Kohut (1977, 1984) also writes of the self as the independent center of initiative. Wolf (1988) writes, That part of the personality which confers the sense of selfhood and which is evoked and sustained by a constant supply of responsiveness from the functioning of selfobjects—this providing a continuous matrix of selfobject experiences—we call the self. (p. 38) Stolorow et al. (1987) define the self as the organization of experience. Atwood and Stolorow (1984) have defined self as “. . .a psychological structure through which self-experience acquires cohesion and continuity. . .” (p. 34). In this light, another way of saying that roles express aspects of the self would be this: Roles express the various parts of an individual’s psychological universe. Roles provide a concrete, palpable form for the multiplicity of the inner workings of a person. As roles give form to drama, roles depict the myriad pieces of the reality of who we are. The totality of the various parts of self which are defined through roles is called the role repertoire. The role repertoire is simply all the roles a person has within her psychological structure. As Moreno (1953) points out, roles within the role repertoire include psychosomatic (sleeper, eater, etc.), psychodramatic (a son, a father, etc.) and social roles (the son, the father, etc.). Sternberg and Garcia (1989) write, “Role repertoire is a term used to denote the group of developed roles we use and have used in our lives” (p. 44). I would also include the roles that are not played and are not used necessarily in life, such as roles within surplus reality and the roles which emerge spontaneously in creative enactments. Emunah (1994) writes, “The behaviors, roles, and emotions portrayed in drama become part of one’s repertoire, a repertoire that can be drawn upon in life situations” (p. xiv).

225

The role repertoire additionally contains the repertoire of affective expression. Every role provides containment for an enunciation of an aspect of the self and its corresponding subjective experience. In other words, roles not only express who we are, but they allow us to express the individual emotional nature of who we are in a given moment. Corsini (1966) supports the idea of roles and their relationship to individual expression. He writes, “In role playing we tend to act ourselves” (p. 73). He continues, “Whenever a person roleplays, he demonstrates his unique personality” (p. 76). Landy (1993) encourages this line of thinking when he writes, “. . .even the most outrageous fiction. . .contains some grain of truth as it relates in some basic way to the imagination. . .” (p. 17). These statements point to the fact that through role we declare our self—the outward appearance as well as the inner experience. A Self Psychology Theory of Roles Roles are a natural part of human life. It is through roles that we express our selves; it is through roles that we exist in relationship. I will now describe central components of self psychology thought and outline a role theory based in selfobject responsiveness and internalized selfobject functions. Once a self psychology framework is established, I will discuss roles and their relationship to selfobject functions and affect integration. Self Psychology Basics I assume that the reader is familiar with some central elements of self psychology theory. I will briefly review some chief components. For the purposes of this paper, I do not embrace or discuss all ideas expressed in the body of self psychology theory. Self psychology examines how self structure is built and maintained through the fulfillment and maintenance of selfobject needs. We are born with basic selfobject needs. A selfobject is the experience of a person or thing which functions to strengthen the self (Kohut, 1984). An infant gazing into the eyes of an adoring mother uses the experience of the adoring mother to strengthen its developing self. In this case, the infant experiences the mother as a selfobject. Through a repeated process of experiencing the mother as a selfobject, the infant slowly comes to rely on the mother for nurturing, love and protection. But no mother is perfect. There will be occasions when

226

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

the mother is not available to be a responsive selfobject for the infant. On these occasions, because the infant has already had repeated exposure to a loving and empathically responsive selfobject mother, the infant fulfills his mother selfobject needs for himself. He internally recreates the selfobject experience of his mother and consequently builds self structure. The purpose of therapy in self psychology is to strengthen the self (Kohut, 1971, 1977, 1984). Pathology is created by early empathic failures where selfobject needs are not met (Baker & Baker, 1987). Unmet or overstimulated selfobject needs can be the absence of an essential caregiver, or the caregiver’s lack of appropriate response to human needs, such as to be cared for and loved. In therapy, the client uses the therapist as a selfobject who is experienced as a part of the client’s own self structure. The role of the therapist is to be empathically attuned to the needs of the client and to respond in ways which serve to strengthen the self (Wolf, 1988). Kohut and Wolf (1986) emphasize two phases of empathy: understanding and explaining. To understand means to sense oneself into another’s experience. To explain is to provide a verbal expression of the meaning of the experience from the vantage point of the client’s subjective experience. The feeling of being understood is in itself therapeutic. Simply knowing that one is understood makes one feel better. Wolf (1988) writes, “A person’s sense of self is enhanced by the knowledge that another person understands his inner experience” (p. 36). During the explaining phase, the therapist makes an interpretation related to some experience in the client, such as an event in the client’s life or something related to the transference in the therapy. The role of the therapist hinges on finding out where the client’s selfobject needs were not met in childhood. This discovery is made through analyzing the transference in the therapist/client relationship. The therapist seeks to understand the client and make empathically responsive interpretations (Kohut & Wolf, 1986). Empathic responsiveness refers to a response by the therapist which deepens the client’s sense of self and cohesion. Selfobject functions become internalized through what Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984) called a transmuting internalization. The client uses the therapist as a selfobject and comes to experience his self as more cohesive and whole. The client internalizes functions that were provided by the therapist and moves from needing archaic selfobject fulfillment to more mature

selfobject fulfillment. Archaic selfobject fulfillment refers to the kind of selfobject functions needed by a person in an early stage of self development to feel a sense of cohesion. An example of this might be found in the loving gaze of mother as she looks adoringly at her child. In healthy development, as we mature, we come to no longer need the gaze of mother to feel soothed and whole, but the thought of mother can provide this feeling of cohesion. Eventually, the function of the mother gaze experience becomes internalized and other objects in the environment trigger the comfort that once was attained only through direct contact with mother. Kohut’s (1984) view of transmuting internalization depends on optimal frustration, where a client experiences frustration triggered by a disruption in the therapeutic relationship which points to unmet archaic selfobject needs. The optimal frustration provides a challenge for the client. For example, let us say the therapist comes late for an appointment. This potentially triggers archaic rage in the client related to an absent early caregiver. The client is challenged either to unconsciously repeat the experience of rage or to grow. If the therapeutic bond has not been established, and if there have not been repeated experiences where the client knew the therapist cared, understood, and was on time, the client may experience archaic rage and vent this rage at the therapist when he appears for the appointment. But if a therapeutic bond has been built, and if the client has repeated experiences of the therapist being on time and demonstrating that he cares and understands him, the client may grow. The client might say to himself, “Well, my therapist is late, but I know he cares. He has been on time in the past and will eventually come. I will be all right; there is nothing wrong with me or my therapist— even though I may be frustrated.” In this case, the optimal frustration—triggered by the lateness of the therapist— creates an opportunity for the client to have a transmuting internalization of the therapist selfobject function. The client produces internal self soothing, maintains a cohesive sense of self, and internalizes nurturing functions formerly provided by the client’s experience of the therapist. It can also be stated that the optimal frustration provided an opportunity for the client to learn a new role. Roles and Selfobjects The internalization of selfobject functions through a therapeutic process applies directly to roles. Selfob-

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY ject functions can become internalized through the playing of roles which serve to consolidate the self. Wolf (1988) writes of how selfobject functions can be represented by other objects. Objects in the environment take on selfobject functions as a person develops. Smells from the kitchen, sounds of the television, siblings— can represent mother and her functions. A child can be soothed by eating a meal that calls forth the subjective experience of mother. The meal is not mother but it functions as a mirroring or idealized selfobject. Kohut and Wolf (1986) also address this kind of selfobject fulfillment. They write, When we feel uplifted by our admiration for a great cultural ideal, for example, an earlier uplifting experience of being picked up by our strong and admired mother and having been allowed to merge with her greatness, calmness, and security may be said to form the unconscious undertones of the joy we are experiencing as adults. (p. 50) In this example, the inner admiration for the cultural ideal calls forth the fulfillment of archaic selfobject needs. A client’s experience of playing a role can serve the same purpose. It is a central tenet of this paper that playing roles can provide a selfobject experience. It is necessary to differentiate between selfobject experience and selfobject function. A selfobject experience is the subjective experience of an external object which serves to consolidate the self. A selfobject function refers to any object which serves to create a selfobject experience. The role is the external expression of the self; it is a means for taking a part of the self and giving it form, thus creating an external object from an internal experience. What a client projects onto a role, how he plays the role, what it means to him, can all be looked at in terms of the analysis of the selfobject function. A role in and of itself is not a selfobject. The client’s experience of the role can assume selfobject functions. The playing out of specific roles which elicit selfobject fulfillment provides the opportunity for a selfobject experience and can, in fact, build self structure. If a client plays a role which subjectively confirms his sense of self and gives him an experience of being accepted and loved, then it can be said that the experience of the role can function as a mirroring selfobject. For example, a client can play a nurturing mother

227

to himself as a young child. The role of mother is not the selfobject, but the patient’s experience of playing the role—perhaps of both mother and child—provides the selfobject function of mirroring. Through the playing of the mother role, the patient can internalize this mirroring function and have a selfobject experience. I worked with a client who deeply enjoyed playing his doctor. Many times, at the end of the session, he would request to play his doctor and comment, in role as his doctor, on the therapy session. The playing out of the role of the doctor visibly soothed the client. For the client, the doctor in life was experienced as an idealized selfobject. Playing the doctor role in therapy provided this client with a selfobject experience. He was internalizing this function through playing the role. He later incorporated this role into his life. It is important to note that not all roles fulfill selfobject functions for a client. It is the client’s subjective experience of a role which determines whether it is functioning as a selfobject. This distinction is crucial. If the role is experienced in a way which functions to mirror or idealize the self and creates a sense of cohesion and consolidation to the self while building structure, then it is functioning as a selfobject. It can be argued that not all selfobjects consolidate the self, but for our purposes here, when I refer to selfobjects, I refer to selfobjects which do consolidate the self. In terms of optimal frustration and transmuting internalization, a client can experience a role as an aid toward building self structure. For example, let us say there is a client who has extreme difficulty expressing anger in his life. However, in the drama therapy milieu, he can express anger through roles. Time and time again in therapy he is able to express anger and not fragment. The playing of “angry” roles becomes increasingly comfortable. Life will afford this client with situations where he is challenged to continue to squelch his anger or to learn a new role and let the anger find expression. Because this client has experienced repeated instances of expressing anger safely and successfully through role, he may be more likely to internalize his role playing experiences and apply them to a life situation. I wish to emphasize a further point: The better a client plays a role which serves a selfobject function, the deeper the potential internalization of that function. Emunah (1994) emphasizes this fact when she writes how the “. . .aesthetic perspective will often deepen the psychological content. . .” (p. 111). Emu-

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

228

nah (1994) also writes about the need to develop acting skills so that real life scenes can be played with greater authenticity, thereby deepening the therapeutic potential. Aesthetics are significantly important in drama therapy because they strengthen affect expression and have the potential to deepen selfobject internalization. Roles and Affect Integration A self psychology theory of roles incorporates the integration of affect as central to developing a cohesive self. Roles express the self; affect can be seen as the self being expressed in a specific way. We are always expressing affect through the roles we play. Selfobjects must function to integrate affect. Stolorow et al. (1987) point to affect integration as the purpose of self psychology treatment. For them, affect is central to the nature of selfobject functions. They write, “. . .the fundamental goal of psychoanalytic therapy is the unfolding, illumination, and transformation of the patient’s subjective world” (p. 9). Selfobject functions are those which contribute to the integration of affect into the organization of self experience. Stolorow et al. (1987) continue, “. . .selfobject functions pertain fundamentally to the affective dimension of self-experience, and that the need for selfobject ties pertains to the need for specific, requisite responsiveness to varying affect states throughout development” (p. 67). In other words, our need for selfobject fulfillment is not simply limited to mirroring, idealization, twinship, etc. We need selfobjects to respond to our affective states in ways that enable us to integrate these states into the experience of self. According to this theory, there are four aspects of affect development: differentiation, synthesization, toleration and desomatization/cognitive articulation. In differentiation, the selfobject helps a person perceive and differentiate affect states. Stolorow et al. (1987) write, The earliest processes of self-demarcation and individualization thus require the presence of a caregiver who, by virtue of a firmly structured sense of self and other, is able reliably to recognize, distinguish, and respond appropriately to the child’s distinctive affect states. (p. 70) The articulation of self experience is enhanced when a person is able to know when he is experiencing an

emotion and that this experience is different from other affect states. The second aspect of affect integration is to synthesize the affect states. This describes an ability to accept and comprehend the contradictory affective states as emerging from one self. It is possible to love and hate the same person at the same time, and this experience does not create fragmentation. Affect tolerance depicts the ability to tolerate and hold all the contradictory and powerful affect states. A selfobject in this regard acts as a holding environment for the different affect states. Stolorow et al. (1987) write, Through countless experiences throughout early development, the caregiver, by comprehending, interpreting, accepting, and responding empathically to the child’s unique and constantly shifting feeling states, is at the same time enabling him to monitor, articulate, and understandingly respond to them on his own. (p. 72) When a caregiver is empathically responsive to affect states, “a process of internalization occurs, culminating in the child’s ability to use his own emotional reactions as self-signals” (p. 72). Affect tolerance differs from affect integration in that in affect tolerance, an internalization exists which enables the child to self-contain affect states. The fourth and final aspect of affect development is the desomatization and cognitive articulation of affect. This aspect points to the ability to verbally articulate affect by developing a cognitive affective scheme. At an archaic level, affects are in the body and are expressed only through the body. A person cannot fully articulate an affect state until he can label it. The purpose of a selfobject in this regard is to put words to feelings, thus enabling a person to externalize subjective experience. The naming of subjective experience takes emotions out of the body and into a cognitive framework. Stolorow et al. (1987) write, “The caregiver’s verbal articulations of the child’s initially somatically experienced affects thus serve a vital selfobject function in promoting the structuralization of self experience” (p. 73). They continue to emphasize that psychosomatic symptoms are the result of unarticulated affect, and “. . .when the analyst becomes established as an affect-articulating and containing selfobject, the psychosomatic symptoms tend to recede or disappear. . .” (p. 73). All defenses to therapy are seen as fear of the repetition of early

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY

229

trauma, where the selfobject fails at being empathically rooted in the patient’s affective experience. Alice Miller (1981) also emphasizes the significance of being able to experience and contain one’s emotional states. She points out that affect integration builds self esteem which is based on “. . .the authenticity of one’s own feelings and not on the possession of certain qualities” (p. 39). Although she does not specifically use Stolorow et al.’s (1987) terms, affect differentiation, synthesization, toleration and articulation can be seen as a means to experience oneself authentically. Drama therapy provides an excellent vehicle for the integration of affect. Emotions are expressed through role, and it is a central purpose of a drama therapist to help the client to integrate the role repertoire. As the integration of affect is central to the self psychology discussed here, the integration of the role repertoire is central to drama therapy. I will go on to state that the integration of the role repertoire and the integration of affect can be the same thing. If a client is integrating a role, he can potentially integrate affect. If the client can come to differentiate, synthesize, tolerate and articulate the various roles in the role repertoire, he will have an integration of affect, as well as an integration of the role repertoire.

acknowledge these roles as existing in one cohesive self. Roles which provide selfobject experiences include those which mirror, sooth, and create bonds with other human beings. The second goal is to integrate the role repertoire. Integration of the role repertoire means to differentiate, synthesize, tolerate and articulate the role repertoire and the related affective experience. The therapist helps the client to differentiate his roles, synthesize the roles as emerging from one self, tolerate the roles by not being disrupted by the contradictory and powerful states, and to desomatize and articulate the roles by giving them names and form.

Goal of Drama Therapy

Roles in Self Psychology Treatment

The strengthening of the self is a goal throughout self psychology. A strengthened self has the capacity to be a consolidated self. Consolidation of the self occurs when self structure is built through the internalization of selfobject functions and a person experiences himself with a sense of wholeness and cohesion (Wolf, 1988). Kohut (1971, 1977, 1984) writes of consolidation of the self as experiencing one’s self as whole, arising out of the same self. Stolorow et al. (1987) emphasize the capacity to integrate affective experience. Winnicott (1986), although not a self psychologist, writes of a true self, which is “. . .the inherited potential which is experiencing a continuity of being, and acquiring in its own way and at its own speed a personal psychic reality and a personal body scheme” (p. 242). In drama therapy with a self psychology theory of role, there are two central goals. The first goal is to develop and refine roles which consolidate the self and build self structure. Consolidation of the self means to have an expanded role repertoire inclusive of roles which provide selfobject experiences and to

The use of role to build self structure is an important contribution that drama therapy offers to self psychology. Landy (1991) points out how role significantly distinguishes drama therapy from other forms of psychotherapy. Self psychology in its own right is an important and profound means of conducting psychotherapy. The combination of drama therapy and self psychology creates a form of therapy which uses role as a means of affording selfobject experiences and the internalization of self consolidating functions. Role playing in therapy has long been acknowledged as important. Mead (1956) writes, “. . .psychoanalytic treatment requires the enactment and induction of roles in order to regulate the discharge of affects, resolve differences, and maintain communication” (p. 17). Mead emphasized that each individual is a collection of introjected and internalized roles, and that the enactment of these roles is crucial to individual and social development. Drama therapy gives us access to external expressions of the self which self psychology conducted verbally cannot attain. Emunah (1994) writes:

A Self Psychology Drama Therapy A self psychology theory of role sees the roles which emerge in therapy as capable of providing a selfobject experience for the client. Through roles, we express aspects of our self. Affect is associated with any expression of the self. In this section, I will explore how drama therapy contributes to self psychology treatment. I will also discuss the intersubjective relationship between the drama therapist and her client. This will conclude with an elucidation of the function of the drama therapist.

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

230

Facets of our personalities that have been concealed, from others, and often from ourselves, can be unleashed via the dramatic role. The role enables previously unacknowledged or untolerated parts to be given voice, and at the same time to be contained within the safe arena of the dramatic act. (p. xv) Johnson (1992) echoes this with, “The purpose of drama therapy work of this type is to increase the client’s access to and tolerance of internal states that have for various reasons been cast aside, labelled as unacceptable, or are seen as threatening” (p. 128). Through the playing of roles we are able to unleash parts of our self which we are usually not willing to express. We are also given the opportunity to express parts of ourselves which we long to express but have no other means to do so. Perhaps Moreno (1961) says it best: Everybody is expected to live up to his official role in life; a teacher is to act as a teacher, a pupil as a pupil, and so forth. But the individual craves to embody far more roles than those he is allowed to act out in life, and even within the same role, one or more varieties of it. Every individual is filled with different roles in which he wants to become active and that are present in him in different stages of development. It is from the active pressure which these multiple individual units exert upon the manifest official role that a feeling of anxiety is often produced. Role playing is then a method of liberating and structuring these unofficial roles. (p. 520) Another important aspect that roles bring to self psychology is that roles can express the unconscious. Roles portray the surplus reality that we are aware of as well as that of which we are unaware. Moreno (1953) writes, “Role emergence is prior to the emergence of the self” (p. 76). Wolf (1988), in discussing self psychology, concurs with this when he writes, “To enact is to express in an interpersonal context the meaning of an unconscious or preconscious communication by way of a more or less dramatized interaction” (p. 100). Blatner and Blatner (1988b) address an additional component, “. . .whatever role is being expressed, there is a likelihood that there is also an opposing tendency latent in the patient’s personality” (p. 109). My point in emphasizing these benefits of role

playing is to stress that in a therapy geared toward the enactment of roles, more of a client’s self is made available. Much more information is put out in the open for the client and the therapist to work on—and the work can be done within the symbolism of the role. Through this process, the role repertoire is manifested and given an opportunity to expand. Emunah (1994) emphasizes expansion of the role repertoire along with the development of role flexibility. She writes (1994), “Expansion of the role repertoire involves not only playing a greater number of roles, but playing each role with greater flexibility, commitment, and integrity” (p. 32). Role flexibility is the capacity to play one role multi-dimensionally within changing social constructs. In self psychology thinking, expansion of the role repertoire and role flexibility correlates with having greater psychological depth. The more ways a person has to express parts of the self, the more ways a person has to organize self experience, and in effect, know oneself and share oneself with others. Role playing in drama therapy is also valuable as a diagnostic tool from a self psychology standpoint. Nelson and Strean (1968) write, “. . .we have frequently been enabled to evaluate the ego strength and capacity for object relationships in terms of the client’s capacity to take on the role of more and more people” (p. 274). In a self psychology system of thinking, role playing can help the therapist make client assessments. The drama therapist can examine a client’s level of affect integration through the analysis of the roles a client assumes and the emotions expressed through these roles. A client with a limited role repertoire could be demonstrating her limits in affect expression and integration, as well as restrictions in having fulfilling selfobject experiences. A client with an expansive role repertoire can be someone who has a wide range of affect. A client with a limited role repertoire does not necessarily point to limitations in affect expression and integration. But it is important to remember that the roles a client plays— how she plays them, and what the roles mean to her— give the therapist information about the client’s development of selfobject relations. Landy (1986) points to this when he writes, “The more one is able to take in and play out the roles of others, the more one develops a unique self” (p. 91). Given that the self is expressed through roles, the therapist, through examining the repertoire of roles, can obtain much information about a client’s state of self.

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY Exploring the repertoire of roles also involves examining the functions of each role. Blatner (1985) writes, “One way of thinking about the functions of roles is that they are vehicles for the satisfaction of human motivations” (p. 13). The roles a client plays can uncover conscious and unconscious motivations. A client who is unable to express affect in life may be able to express a large spectrum of affect through role in drama therapy—and the drama therapist can ask herself, “What selfobject experiences does this client need in life and is not able to acquire?” The answer to this question may be in the roles the client plays in therapy. A person’s ability to contain and articulate roles provides the therapist with information about the client’s capacity—whether experienced in life or not—to contain, articulate and integrate affect. Many clients who are unable to express affect in life are also unable to express affect through role. These clients are perhaps so shut down emotionally that they cannot imagine what it would be like to experience a feeling to any depth, thus limiting their ability to imagine and play a role which requires feeling. Others can display a tremendous range of affect in role but not in life. A client fitting this description may not feel safe in life to express affect, but finds enough safety within the container of the role to do so. Others are able to experience a wide range of affect in life and are unable to express affect in role. These clients may be inhibited or threatened by the social act of role playing, expecting humiliation or some form of retraumatization. Also in this case, there may be a fear of boundary confusion. Finally, there are clients who can play a wide range of affect within a role but who have a limited role repertoire. These clients may have difficulty seeing a multiplicity of perspectives, limiting their affective awareness to a single viewpoint. The therapist must help each individual client to work through the psychological blocks that prevent a full human experience and expression. Ultimately, the roles played in therapy may be integrated into life outside therapy. As Landy (1993) writes, “. . .the drama therapy client seeks to construct an internal system of roles that translates into meaningful action in the world” (p. 30). I once worked with a depressed client who had recently attempted suicide. In therapy, this client was able to play a wide spectrum of roles. But her ability to express affect through these roles was extremely limited. All her roles assumed the same flat, melancholy, sulky attitude that the client assumed when not

231

in role. From these facts, I could determine that this client’s affective expression and integration were limited. She did not have access to a differentiation of affect states, nor an ability to tolerate and articulate her emotions. Her ability to attain selfobject fulfillment through roles was limited. I made it a focus of therapy to develop roles which contained various affective states. We worked from an aesthetic, theatrical standpoint to make the roles alive through a more realistic presentation of affective states. The client was able to eventually tolerate anger about her present living situation and the sadness she felt about the recent loss of an important relationship which had led to her suicide attempt. Unfortunately, my work with this client was cut short by her being discharged from the clinical setting. Role playing in drama therapy can be extremely valuable in helping clients to successfully internalize fulfilling selfobject experiences. Traditional self psychology depends on the relationship between therapist and client, where the therapist becomes a selfobject for the client and the client eventually internalizes some of the therapist’s functions. Drama therapy treatment also contains this relational aspect. But drama therapy has the added component of involving the expression of the client’s self through role and the integration and consolidation of the self through the integration of the role repertoire. Selfobject functions can be expressed through role and clients may have selfobject experiences through dramatic enactments. A client I once worked with complained about feeling helpless and childish, unable to take responsibility in her life. Through the experience of playing a strong parental figure in a group drama therapy session, this client experienced the beginnings of the internalization of an idealized selfobject. This led her to become able to play a parent to her inner child. She set up a scene in which she spoke to herself as a young girl. Her adult role told her little girl role that she is not responsible for her father’s abandonment and her mother’s anger. In another scene, she offered loving, nurturing advice to herself as an adult, and became able to address her fears of being responsible. She tolerated and contained these fears through the role she played. Through the role of nurturing parent, she performed her own selfobject function and sustained a selfobject experience. This event led her to insights about her past and current situations. She was able to verbally articulate future directions in her life involving being decisive and responsible as an adult.

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

232

Function of the Drama Therapist Drama therapy is an experience between at least two people. There is no such thing as only the client, or only the therapist. Between therapist and client, there exists an intersubjective field of experience. Stolorow et al. (1987) write: A fundamental assumption that has guided our work is that the only reality relevant and accessible to psychoanalytic inquiry. . .is subjective reality—that of the patient, that of the analyst, and the psychological field created by the interplay between the two. (p. 4) In this light, the client and therapist together determine a reality of experience between them. Symptoms are observed within the context of the therapeutic relationship. Miller (1981) writes, . . .all the feelings that the patient arouses in his analyst, during his analysis, are part of his unconscious attempt to tell the analyst his story and at the same time to hide from him—that is to protect himself from the renewed manipulation he unconsciously expects. (p. 77) Every event in therapy can be seen as an expression of the subjective interplay between the therapist and client. Book (1988) accentuates an intersubjective approach to analytical understanding. Through vicarious introspection, a process where the therapist constantly is aware of her subjective world in relation to the client, the drama therapist can use her own internal experience to understand her client’s internal experience. I recall the very first drama therapy group I ever led. It was in a psychiatric inpatient locked unit. The atmosphere in the room was extremely tense. I was very nervous and anxious. Upon initial introductions, I had people say their name a response to “If your life were a movie, what would the title be?” Client responses to this warm up were superficial and defensive. When it came to my turn, I said my name and entitled my life “The Butterflies.” The entire group burst out into laughter and the energy in the room instantly relaxed. Through expressing my internal truth, I expressed a truth for the group. Upon recognition of the anxiety, the group became more cohesive

and was able to proceed with an atmosphere of trust. My response to my own internal state was experienced as an empathic response for the group. I had grasped the intersubjective reality and expressed it. The way in which the drama therapist responds to the client and the client’s roles is key to treatment leading the client towards self consolidation and integration of the role repertoire. The drama therapist learns how to respond to her client through being empathic. Empathy is a key term in self psychology. Bacal (1985) describes empathy as “. . .the process by which the therapist comes to understand the patient by tuning into his inner world” (p. 202). Kohut (1984), after a lifetime of searching, wrote, “The best definition of empathy. . .is that it is the capacity to think and feel oneself into the inner life of another person” (p. 82). Empathy can also be seen as a mode of gathering information about the inner life of another (Book, 1988). If the drama therapist maintains an attitude of empathic inquiry, she will stimulate a deeper contextual understanding within her client. Book (1988) writes, “A test of successfully being empathic is the extent to which the therapist’s responses stimulate and deepen the patient’s narrative flow” (p. 423). For a drama therapist to be empathic, she must be attuned to the inner needs of her client and communicate this attunment to the client. Whether the client is in role or not in role, the drama therapist must respond to her client in a way which leads to self consolidation for the client. The therapist response which facilitates consolidation is the communication of empathic understanding. It is not necessarily what the drama therapist does—it is more who she is. The drama therapist does not seek to reparent her client or create an enclave of corrective emotional experiences. She seeks to use her subjective experience to understand the inner needs of her client and then respond to the client in ways which communicate this understanding. I worked with an extremely resistant adolescent boy. He openly expressed his hatred of me and of having individual drama therapy with me. I noted to myself, however, that he came to the therapy sessions and stayed in the room— even requesting that the door remain closed. I noticed that in this young man’s presence, I was intently aware of his fear of being alone with me. I also noticed that I had a fear of being alone with him. My fear initiated a desire to force this

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY young man to open up, to self disclose—so that his internal struggles could be out in the open and perhaps the anxiety in the room would be eased. I did not directly act upon this desire. Upon one of our early encounters in therapy, he firmly assured me that he was not going to participate in therapy and that he would not say anything. He sat on the couch in silence with his arms folded and eyes closed. I experienced in myself a feeling of victimizing this child by making him come to therapy, of forcing him to say or do something he didn’t want to do. I used this internal information to inform the therapy. I walked out the door and instantly returned in role, saying to him, “What do you want to talk to me for? I didn’t do it! Tell your fucking cops to keep their hands off me! Even if I did do it, I wouldn’t tell you!” He instantly assumed the role of the chief detective and we were able to play a scene about a young man not wanting to talk. My response to this boy in therapy was a successful empathic response. Through being aware of the intersubjective field, I was able to respond to his state in a way which not only engaged him, but placed him in the position of power and authority over his externalized emotional state which I portrayed through the role of the suspect. In all interactions, the way the therapist responds to the client is extremely significant: it is the heart of therapy. As in verbal self psychology, it is naturally possible for the drama therapist to function as a selfobject for a client. Unlike a strictly verbal therapist, the drama therapist pays close attention to the way she responds to the roles which emerge in therapy. She can observe her subjective response to a client’s roles and make informed choices about how to respond to these roles. It is helpful if the therapist assumes a sustained empathic inquiry toward a client’s roles. As the roles arise in therapy, the therapist maintains an attitude of acceptance and tolerance. If the therapist can accept and tolerate a client’s roles, the client can come to perform this function for herself. As Baker and Baker (1987) write, “The therapist serves as a selfobject in the therapeutic environment of sustained, empathic understanding” (p. 7). In drama therapy, the therapist functions as a selfobject through her sustained, empathic response to the role repertoire of the client. She strives to empathically understand the client’s roles and their relationship to selfobject functions. It is helpful for the drama therapist to keep this question alive in her head during dramatic enactments: “Does this role function as a selfobject for my client, and if so, how?” It is not

233

necessary to discuss this questioning with the client, but it is important to see roles in their relation to selfobject functioning. I worked with a man who felt overburdened by all his conflicting feelings. Maintaining a calm inquisitiveness, I asked him to pick an object in the room to represent each feeling he had—a different object for each feeling. At first, he was afraid to even try this task. But through my attitude of acceptance toward his disrupted state, as well as my tolerance of whatever feelings he was subjectively experiencing, he became willing to try. We labeled each object with a word to represent each feeling. Here, we were concretely articulating his affective constellation. I then had him place all the objects in a sculpture which represented how they all exist inside him. Once he did this, he commented that he no longer felt disturbed by his internal state. If a therapist responds in a way that is experienced as shaming by the client, the client will experience a repetition of earlier trauma, of not being understood, tolerated and accepted. But if the therapist can respond in a way which communicates empathic understanding, the client may have a selfobject experience. In a men’s drama therapy group on a psychiatric unit, I once had a man diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenic approach me in role as a military general. He also assigned a role for me. He said, “President Truman, I advise that we go ahead and bomb Japan.” I chose to respond in role as the President. I congratulated him on his research into the matter and asked him questions about his findings and logic. He strategically laid out a system of thinking which validated an air assault over Japan. I then asked him if he has discussed this with the Secretary of the Navy. He said he had not. I advised him to do so. I approached another man in the group and said, “Secretary, here is a top general who wishes to discuss the Japan issue with you.” The man who initiated the scene started laughing and turned to me, as himself, and said, “You’re smart! You know what’s going on!” Personally, I am not so sure I did know exactly what was going on, but I found a response that validated, accepted, and contained something truthful in that man. His assigning of the President role to me clearly showed his need for me to be in charge of the group. It is my guess that he had a selfobject experience in two ways—first, through the playing of the role of a powerful general, thus internalizing an idealized selfobject; and second, through experiencing my tolerance toward his role. I

CHRISTOPHER DOYLE

234

helped him to contain his destructive urge without shaming him. Responding to a client in role can be powerfully effective. Johnson (1992) explores this in great depth. He writes that there are five goals that drama therapists attempt to achieve through interventions in role: 1) to help the patient tell his or her story or to solve a problem; 2) to achieve a catharsis of emotion; 3) to extend the depth and breadth of the client’s inner experience; 4) to help the client understand the meanings of images, and 5) to strengthen the client’s observing ego and mental flexibility. (p. 128) These five goals describe various ways in which a therapist can function as a selfobject for a client. Each goal involves empathic responsiveness and an attitude of acceptance, tolerance and understanding toward the client’s roles. A drama therapist’s response to a client’s role does not necessarily have to be dramatically in role. The mere fact that the therapist can be comfortable in the room while the client enacts roles may be enough of a response for a client. There are times when it is most beneficial to not respond in role. In fact, I once had a client who would stop talking to me if I responded in role to a role she was playing. She needed me to be a witness to her roles, maintaining an external, objective stance to her experience. In summary, the central function of the therapist is to respond to her client’s roles in ways that help the client consolidate her self structure and integrate her role repertoire. Whether in role or not, the drama therapist seeks ways to differentiate a client’s roles from one another, to synthesize the roles, to tolerate the roles, and to cognitively articulate the roles. Conclusion This study applies principles of self psychology to role theory. People can express their selves and affective states through the roles they play at any given moment. The goal of drama therapy based in a self psychology theory of roles is twofold: 1. To develop and refine roles which aid in self consolidation and the building of self structure. 2. To integrate role repertoire and affect into a cohesive experience of the self.

The central function of the drama therapist is to be empathically attuned to the roles which emerge in therapy and to respond to the client and her roles in ways which define and articulate self experience. Consolidation of the self means to have the capacity to differentiate, synthesize, tolerate and contain the role repertoire. It also involves a heightened ability to play roles which act to self-sooth, self-mirror and create bonds with other human beings. References Atwood, G., & Stolorow, R. (1984). Structures of subjectivity: Explorations in psychoanalytic phenomenology. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Bacal, H. (1985). Optimal responsiveness and the therapeutic process. In A. Goldberg (Ed.), Progress in self psychology (Vol. 1). New York: Guiford Press. Baker, H., & Baker, M. (1987). Heinz Kohut’s self psychology: An overview. American Journal of Psychiatry, 144(1). Blatner, A. (1985). Role development. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Blatner, A., & Blatner, A. (1988a). The art of play. New York: Human Sciences Press. Blatner, A., & Blatner, A. (1988b). Foundations of psychodrama. New York: Springer Publishing Company. Book, H. (1988). Empathy: Misconceptions and misuses in psycyotherapy. American Journal of Psychiatry, 145(4), 420 – 424. Corsini, R. (1966). Roleplaying in psychotherapy. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company. Emunah, R. (1994). Acting for real. New York: Brunner/Mazel Publishers. Goffman, I. (1959). The presentation of the self in everyday life. New York: Doubleday Anchor Books. Johnson, D. (1992). The drama therapist in role. In S. Jennings (Ed.), Dramatherapy: Theory and practice 2. New York: Routledge. Kohut, H. (1971). The analysis of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1977). The restoration of the self. New York: International Universities Press. Kohut, H. (1984). How does analysis cure? Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Kohut, H., & Wolf, E. (1986). The disorders of the self and their treatment: An outline. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Essential papers on narcissism. New York: New York University Press. Landy, R. (1986). Drama therapy. Springfield: Charles C Thomas. Landy, R. (1990). The concept of role in drama therapy. The Arts and Psychotherapy, 17. Landy, R. (1991). The dramatic basis of role theory. The Arts and Psychotherapy, 18. Landy, R. (1993). Persona & performance: The use of role in drama therapy. New York: Guilford Press. Mead, G. (1956). On social psychology. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Miller, A. (1981). The drama of the gifted child. New York: Basic Books. Moreno, J. L. (1953). Who shall survive? New York: Beacon House, Inc.

SELF PSYCHOLOGY ROLE THEORY Moreno, J. L. (1961). The role concept: A bridge between psychiatry and sociology. The American Journal of Psychiatry, 118. Nelson, M., & Strean. (Ed.). (1968). Roles and paradigms in psychotherapy. New York: Grune & Stratton. Scheff, T. (1984). Being mentally ill: A sociological theory. New York: Aldine Publishing Company. Sternberg, P., & Garcia, A. (1989). Sociodrama: Who’s in your shoes? New York: Praeger Publishers.

235

Stolorow, R., Brandchaft, B., & Atwood, G. (1987). Psychoanalytic treatment: An intersubjective approach. Hillsdale, NJ: The Analytic Press. Winnicott, D. (1986). The theory of the parent-infant relationship. In A. Morrison (Ed.), Essential papers on narcissism. New York: New York University Press. Wolf, E. (1988). Treating the self. New York: The Guilford Press.