[Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities

[Helen Grimmett]

Yep Larry, I think you got it. Funnily enough, the Dialogical Self Theory conference was in The Hague, which is also home to the Escher museum. Wandering around the museum I was struck by how much of his work related to the ideas being discussed at the conference. In particular, this image (Still Life and Street) perfectly depicts for me this blurring of boundaries between inside and outside that you have picked up on.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image1.jpeg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 42404 bytes
Desc: not available
Url : https://mailman.ucsd.edu/mailman/private/xmca-l/attachments/20160305/94407d7a/attachment.jpeg 
-------------- next part --------------

Cheers,
Helen



> On 5 Mar 2016, at 11:18 am, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> Helen,
> Thank you for this wonderful article which will open a place for further inquiry.
> I want to highlight what I see as central ways of you focusing on an existential approach to *ways of being* a self that congruently combines both *understanding* teaching/learning AND. *practising* teaching/learning through developing a particular kind of *self* ( the dialogic self)
> The way of developing this hybrid self is through combining the James/Mead/Pierce *self* notion  with the Buber/Bahktin *dialogue* notion to arrive at this particular existential way of understanding/practicing a hybrid self being/becoming.
> The focus now shifts in the development of a pro/found awareness that the *between* of THIS self (between the two concepts of self and dialogue) is *interiorized* into the *within* that is no longer *within the person but now is a *within* the dialogical self.
> Just as central to this focus is *reversibly* the *within* now becomes *exteriorized* into the *between*. Society from this side is not *surrounding* the self AS an external *determinant*.
> In this way of existentially being there is a *society-of-selves*
> The con/sequences of this shift in focus is that *developments* in the self AUTOMATICALLY imply development in society at large.
> The reverse is also *true*.
> 
> The approach taken to develop this dialogical self focuses on examining HOW *undertaking* intensely CONTEMPLATIVE and reflective and theoretical work (archival work) is a developmental process THROUGH poetic application and inquiry OF  Dialogical Self Theory.
> 
> Helen I am echoing or ventriloquizing your speaking *voice* as a way of honoring and wanting to extend your existential approach as a way of being in the *within* world. This is a method of embodying, and endowing, and re-enchanting the world. In Merleau-Ponty's approach we are *singing* the world AS transforming the between to become the *within*
> The dialogical self as an emerging *image* of self.
> The theme of the three types of chronotopes in Ana's work reappears:
> Imaginal chronotope
> Real or ontological chronotope
> Community of self's chronotope
> All existing *within* as interiorized AND existing *between* as exteriorized.
> Re-enchanting being/becoming
> Larry
> 
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: "Susan Davis" <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
> Sent: ?2016-?03-?04 1:46 PM
> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositionaldualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote learningpossibilities
> 
> Congrats Helen,
> Some weekend reading :) A timely contribution to the discussion!
> Thanks for giving us access too (often an issue on weekends when at home)!
> 
> Cheers
> Sue
> 
> 
>> On 5/03/2016 7:24 am, "Helen Grimmett" <helen.grimmett@monash.edu> wrote:
>> 
>> Ooooh, guess what just arrived in my inbox! Sharing with those of you who
>> have been following this thread:
>> Helen Grimmett (2016): The Problem of ?Just Tell Us?: Insights from
>> Playing with Poetic Inquiry and Dialogical Self Theory, Studying Teacher
>> Education, DOI: 10.1080/17425964.2016.1143810
>> 
>> http://www.tandfonline.com/eprint/3ZQfg4uJEFpc2BuVUqPD/full
>> 
>> Cheers,
>> Helen (wobbling a lot as I press send...)
>> 
>> 
>>> On 4 Mar 2016, at 1:26 pm, Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au> wrote:
>>> 
>>> Thank you Helen,
>>> I appreciate your finding the time to post this as it is indeed that
>>> crazy
>>> time of year with term starting. I find this DP approach conceivable and
>>> doable in terms of teachers working within the constraints and
>>> professional responsibilities now required in most schools/education
>>> sites.  Teachers as well as students have to work on terms and within
>>> parameters that are not necessarily of their own making, but the point
>>> of
>>> what you are saying is that through a dialogic process they can make
>>> these
>>> situations more dialogic and perhaps more 'their own'. Finding the
>>> points
>>> of connection and suitable animating ideas/actions is then often the key
>>> for the teacher who wants to make this process meaningful for both
>>> themselves and their students.
>>> 
>>> I look forward to seeing your article once it?s published.
>>> 
>>> Kind regards
>>> Sue
>>> 
>>> 
>>>> On 4/03/2016 9:16 am, "Helen Grimmett" <helen.grimmett@monash.edu>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>> Hi Ana, Sue and others
>>>> 
>>>> Apologies for the delay in responding to your question about
>>>> definitions
>>>> of
>>>> dialogue and dialogic pedagogy. I have been teaching and in meetings
>>>> flat
>>>> out for the past few days (hopefully dialogically!).
>>>> 
>>>> I have an article about to be published in "Studying Teacher
>>>> Education" in
>>>> which I say:
>>>> 
>>>> "Theoretically influenced by the work of Bakhtin, Vygotsky, Dewey and
>>>> Friere, and variously referred to as Dialogic instruction (Nystrand,
>>>> 1997),
>>>> Dialogic inquiry (Wells, 1999), Dialogic teaching (Alexander, 2008;
>>>> Lyle,
>>>> 2008), Dialogic pedagogies (Edwards-Groves, Anstey, & Bull, 2014) etc.,
>>>> these approaches all share an understanding of learning as the active
>>>> co-construction of meaning developed through joint activity and
>>>> language
>>>> interactions between and amongst teachers and learners. Knowledge is
>>>> therefore not regarded as a fixed entity to be transmitted from
>>>> teacher to
>>>> learner, but a fluid negotiation, re-creation and expansion of
>>>> cultural,
>>>> collective and individual ideas, actions and meanings; and as such
>>>> requires
>>>> different pedagogic strategies to ?traditional? transmissive/monologic
>>>> teaching."
>>>> 
>>>> The article is a self-study of my own journey towards trying to teach
>>>> in
>>>> a
>>>> more dialogical way. I have been strongly influenced by Bob Fecho's
>>>> work
>>>> and his position that we can really only hope to be 'more dialogical'
>>>> in
>>>> classrooms, as our professional responsibilities as teachers mean that
>>>> we
>>>> must be held accountable for ensuring that curricula aims are also met.
>>>> This certainly doesn't mean that we can't encourage critique, debate
>>>> and
>>>> expansion of those aims, but we do have to  remain cognisant of them
>>>> and
>>>> constantly work within the tension of institutional requirements and
>>>> completely free-reign dialogue.
>>>> 
>>>> We also have professional and moral responsibilities to ensure that we
>>>> are
>>>> creating an environment in which students feel 'safe to' be able to
>>>> engage
>>>> in such critique, debate and expansion as this inevitably exposes them
>>>> to
>>>> risks that they have not been expected to face in more traditional
>>>> transmissive/monologic classrooms. It takes time to build trust, change
>>>> expectations, engender confidence, develop skills etc so that our
>>>> classrooms can become more dialogical in ways that expand understanding
>>>> and
>>>> transform social practices rather than denigrate into hurtful arguments
>>>> and
>>>> personal attacks. It doesn't mean we all have to agree, but we all
>>>> have a
>>>> right to contribute and to have our contribution heard and considered
>>>> respectfully.
>>>> 
>>>> In my view, there is nothing wrong with a teacher contributing their
>>>> own
>>>> understanding (which may or may not come from a place of greater
>>>> experience
>>>> or knowledge) so long as the door (mind!) is always open to the
>>>> possibility
>>>> that their may be other ways to see, do or explain things. Not to do so
>>>> would be an abdication of our professional responsibility. It is only a
>>>> problem if the teacher's way is seen as the only way. However, helping
>>>> students (and especially student teachers) to see that is really
>>>> challenging...and continues to provide plenty of research interest for
>>>> me.
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> All I've got time for at the minute...
>>>> Cheers,
>>>> Helen
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> -- 
>>>> *Dr HELEN GRIMMETT *
>>>> Lecturer in Primary and Early Years Education
>>>> Professional Experience Liaison - Primary
>>>> 
>>>> *Education*
>>>> Monash University
>>>> Room 159, Building 902, Berwick Campus
>>>> 100 Clyde Road
>>>> Berwick VIC 3806
>>>> Australia
>>>> 
>>>> T: +61 3 9904 7171
>>>> E: helen.grimmett@monash.edu <name.surname@monash.edu>
>>>> monash.edu
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> The Practice of Teachers' Professional Development: A
>>>> Cultural-Historical
>>>> Approach
>>>> 
>>>> <https://www.sensepublishers.com/catalogs/bookseries/professional-learni
>>>> ng
>>>> -1/the-practice-of-teachers-professional-development/>
>>>> Helen Grimmett (2014) Sense Publishers
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> On 2 March 2016 at 18:08, Ana Marjanovic-Shane <anamshane@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>> 
>>>>> Dear all,
>>>>> 
>>>>> Sue poited out a veru important issue for U.S, in my view: "I would
>>>>> also
>>>>> love to hear a little more about your conceptof dialogic pedagogy as
>>>>> it
>>>>> is
>>>>> clear there are some very different interpretations and versions of DP
>>>>> being used."
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, it seems that there are several interpretations and concepts of
>>>>> dialogue and thus Dialogic pedagogy. It would be important, I think
>>>>> that we
>>>>> find out what are these different conceptualizations of what is
>>>>> dialogue
>>>>> and then based on that what are our different views of dialogic
>>>>> pedagogy?
>>>>> 
>>>>> So what is your definition of dialogue and how do you describe
>>>>> Dialogic
>>>>> pedagogy?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Ana
>>>>> 
>>>>>> On Wed, Mar 2, 2016 at 12:48 AM Susan Davis <s.davis@cqu.edu.au>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian, Helen, Larry,
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian - I loved your example and insight into practice.  I can
>>>>>> imagine
>>>>> how
>>>>>> excited the kids would be coming along each week and thinking 'what
>>>>>> adventures they might go on today?, the apparently dialogic processes
>>>>> and
>>>>>> the multi-levelled learning that is emerging from these sessions.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Brian and Helen I would also love to hear a little more about your
>>>>> concept
>>>>>> of dialogic pedagogy as it is clear there are some very different
>>>>>> interpretations and versions of DP being used.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Larry I don?t know if there is always a conscious shift that occurs
>>>>>> in
>>>>> the
>>>>>> playful moments, but what is important is that children (and
>>>>>> teachers)
>>>>> are
>>>>>> being given permission and the space to behave in different ways than
>>>>> they
>>>>>> might in ?real life?.  As to being ?captured? in a positive way, at
>>>>> times
>>>>>> in these encounters you experience 'moments' when the group is
>>>>> committed
>>>>>> and engaged at the same time, a sense of group ?flow? emerges I guess
>>>>> you
>>>>>> could say, and you know the group has been ?captured? in an engaged
>>>>> and
>>>>>> committed way.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Like Brian mentioned I think the concepts Vygotsky talked of in "Play
>>>>> and
>>>>>> its role in the mental development of the child" (1933/1966) where he
>>>>>> discussed the idea of a ?dual affective plan? is of relevance.  In
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> text it famously says ?Thus, in play a situation is created in which,
>>>>> as
>>>>>> Nohl puts it, a dual affective plan occurs. For example, the child
>>>>> weeps
>>>>>> in play as a patient, but revels as a player? (Vygotsky 1933/1966, p.
>>>>> 11).
>>>>>> This quote has also often been used in drama circles to discuss the
>>>>>> concept of ?metaxis? which is where a dual state is entered and where
>>>>>> learnings from one realm can impact upon the other (e.g.
>>>>>> Understanding
>>>>>> something about how what it feels to be the subject of racism
>>>>> emerging in
>>>>>> a drama and some of those understandings impacting on a person?s
>>>>>> real-world attitudes and beliefs).
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Kind regards
>>>>>> Sue
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On 2/03/2016 1:45 pm, "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Hi Larry
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> I?m using Vygotsky?s idea that when we play we foreground what we
>>>>> imagine
>>>>>>> over material reality so that the meaning of what we do
>>>>> predominates. We
>>>>>>> we play we are intending to pretend - you can?t be made to play -
>>>>> that?s
>>>>>>> what I mean by ?at will'. I?m not sure which metaphor captures that
>>>>>>> experience best: fore- and back- or maybe over- and under- or
>>>>> stepping
>>>>>>> ?in' and ?out' of imagined spaces, events, and worlds.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> On the other hand I can see that there can be a sense of ?being
>>>>> captured
>>>>>>> by? - e.g. when the adults in the class I?m teaching initially
>>>>> pretended
>>>>>>> to row the boat and wave a sheet as a sail children wanted to join
>>>>> in -
>>>>>>> they asked and/or literally ran to join in - and probably with
>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>> intention. Though I think they must they were still exercising some
>>>>>>> ?will' - the pretending could not simply be maintained by others. In
>>>>> a
>>>>>>> similar way, when you sit down with a child and are really
>>>>> interested in
>>>>>>> a book they are likely to ?lean in? physically and be ?drawn in? to
>>>>> the
>>>>>>> world via the illustrations and your talk especially if you pretend
>>>>> to
>>>>>>> talk like a character which ?captures? their interest and brings
>>>>> meaning
>>>>>>> to the dialogue ?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Is that what you mean by a structure of shared perception/action?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 10:27 PM, Lplarry <lpscholar2@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Brian,
>>>>>>>> Just to  echo your understanding,*We are always in two time-spaces
>>>>> AT
>>>>>>>> ONCE. This means simultaneously.
>>>>>>>> You added that we move *to build this shared awareness with one
>>>>>>>> time-space being over the other which also indicates the other
>>>>>>>> time-space becomes under.
>>>>>>>> A third aspect you suggest is to be able to foreground one
>>>>> time-space
>>>>>>>> or the other *at will*.
>>>>>>>> I have a question if this foregrounding (and backgrounding)
>>>>> movement
>>>>>>>> which is meaning making is always *at will*.
>>>>>>>> This is why I introduced the notion of being *captured by* which
>>>>>>>> contrasts with willfully capturing or grasping meaning.
>>>>>>>> This is the question if shared awareness that captures us may occur
>>>>>>>> prior to developing shared awareness OF awareness.
>>>>>>>> In other words is there a structure of shared perception/action
>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> occurs prior to dialogical foregrounding and backgrounding
>>>>> discourse?
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> -----Original Message-----
>>>>>>>> From: "Edmiston, Brian W." <edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>>>> Sent: 2016-03-01 6:09 PM
>>>>>>>> To: "eXtended Mind, Culture, Activity" <xmca-l@mailman.ucsd.edu>
>>>>>>>> Subject: [Xmca-l] Re: Response to Spoilsport: Beyond oppositional
>>>>>>>> dualitiesindrama in education and dialogic pedagogy to promote
>>>>> learning
>>>>>>>> possibilities
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Thanks, Helen
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Yes! - central to any drama is that we can imagine "What if ??? and
>>>>>>>> then using social imagination (and dialogic imagination!)
>>>>>>>> collaboratively embody and dialogue as if we were elsewhere, as if
>>>>> we
>>>>>>>> were other people, as if we had more (or less) power - that?s
>>>>>>>> empowering! But never losing the knowledge and experience of
>>>>>>>> us-as-people asking those questions, reflecting on what we?re
>>>>>>>> experiencing, and wondering what these imagined experiences might
>>>>> mean
>>>>>>>> for me (me too!), for us, for others, for the world ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I?ve recently been working with an after-school group of 6 and 7
>>>>> year
>>>>>>>> olds as if we?ve been with Odysseus - using multimodal tools:
>>>>> fabric,
>>>>>>>> pictures, some key artifacts, as well as our bodies and
>>>>> relationships
>>>>>>>> we?ve been imagining sailing and rowing and singing, we?ve been in
>>>>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> shipwreck saving one another, dreaming of home, being turned to
>>>>> pigs by
>>>>>>>> Circe, having the power to turn others into something, trying to
>>>>>>>> convince Circe to turn people back, wondering whether to risk being
>>>>>>>> killed by the monsters we?d just embodied or stay and party with
>>>>> Circe
>>>>> ?
>>>>>>>> and all the while engaged in inquiry about topics of interest to
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> children (and taken into angles that come from them): what do
>>>>> friends
>>>>> do
>>>>>>>> - and not do? what dangers might we risk (or not) to go home? (oh,
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> we?re often reading bits of text in context as the children have
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> been labelled as ?struggling readers? and aren?t doing so well on
>>>>> those
>>>>>>>> tests ...)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> In my practice I tend to move in and out of any imagined world a
>>>>> lot,
>>>>>>>> especially early on. To build that shared awareness of "we are
>>>>> always
>>>>> in
>>>>>>>> two time-spaces at once" with one being foregrounded over the other
>>>>> at
>>>>>>>> will - like what children do when they play without adults.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> That's what Vygotsky stressed - that in playing it?s the meaning of
>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> actions and the objects we use that we pay attention to - not the
>>>>> acts
>>>>>>>> and things in themselves. And when we?re in dialogue with others
>>>>>>>> (or
>>>>>>>> often on the way to dialogue with these young children) then the
>>>>>>>> potential for meaning-making about action in imagined events in the
>>>>>>>> imagined-and-real world expands exponentially, especially since we
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> move in time and space - we?re not stuck with one or two
>>>>>>>> chronotopes
>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> can explore and move among multiple possible perspectives on
>>>>>>>> events.
>>>>>>>> While at the same time each person is always able to see through
>>>>>>>> the
>>>>>>>> perspectives of their life experiences - about what ?home? is like
>>>>> for
>>>>>>>> me, what my ?friends" do with me, what ?dangers? I?ve faced etc. to
>>>>> make
>>>>>>>> new meaning that goes beyond the limits of the everyday world ...
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> However, with me present and both playing along with the children
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> stepping out of the imagined world, I can mediate agreement about
>>>>>>>> cultural norms (e.g. we listen when anyone is speaking to the
>>>>>>>> group)
>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> what?s happening socially so that no one is being left out and no
>>>>> one
>>>>> is
>>>>>>>> dominating with ideas about what might happen (e.g.we can choose
>>>>> whether
>>>>>>>> or not to go searching for food) or what something might mean
>>>>> (e.g.Circe
>>>>>>>> might be an evil witch - how might we find out?).
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I also want to build the knowledge from the beginning that each
>>>>> person
>>>>>>>> chooses to step into (and out of) imagined worlds and that anyone
>>>>> can
>>>>>>>> step out (or sit out!) at any time. That no one is being coerced
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> those participating are agreeing to make this imagined reality
>>>>> happen
>>>>>>>> together - something that Gavin Bolton stressed years ago - the
>>>>> sense
>>>>>>>> that we are making this happen to ourselves. One older boy who had
>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> brought into the room sat at a table - and chose to look at
>>>>> pictures in
>>>>>>>> the books - I?d just bought a model of a Greek ship for him to make
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> find he had been suspended ? maybe he?ll be back next week. Another
>>>>>>>> older boy knew about Poseidon when I was sharing illustrations from
>>>>>>>> versions of Homer?s story - he wanted to show the younger children
>>>>> how
>>>>>>>> he-as-Poseidon could use a trident to bring about a storm - that we
>>>>> then
>>>>>>>> embodied as part of another shipwreck! Oh, and one week a younger
>>>>> boy
>>>>>>>> snuck in to join his friends!
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> This week we?ll be meeting the Cyclops (those who choose to join in
>>>>> ?!)
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Brian
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> BTW if you want my take on how drama (and specifically what I call
>>>>>>>> dramatic inquiry) can be dialogic - see my 2014 book published by
>>>>>>>> Routledge: Transforming Teaching and Learning with Active and
>>>>> Dramatic
>>>>>>>> Approaches.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> [cid:image001.png@01CE44CA.B3EB06D0]
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> Brian Edmiston, PhD
>>>>>>>> Professor of Drama in Education
>>>>>>>> Department of Teaching and Learning
>>>>>>>> Columbus, OH 43210
>>>>>>>> edmiston.1@osu.edu<mailto:edmiston.1@osu.edu>
>>>>>>>> go.osu.edu/edmiston<http://go.osu.edu/edmiston>
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> 'To live means to participate in dialogue: to ask questions, to
>>>>> heed,
>>>>>>>> to respond, to agree, and so forth. In this dialogue a person
>>>>>>>> participates wholly and throughout his whole life: with his eyes,
>>>>> lips,
>>>>>>>> hands, soul, spirit, with his whole body and deeds. He invests his
>>>>>>>> entire self in discourse'
>>>>>>>> Bakhtin, 1984, p. 293
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> On Mar 1, 2016, at 6:38 PM, Helen Grimmett
>>>>>>>> <helen.grimmett@monash.edu<mailto:helen.grimmett@monash.edu>>
>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> I think what is being missed, is that the playing out of the
>>>>> 'imagined
>>>>>>>> situation' is not the whole extent of a 'drama in education'
>>>>> lesson or
>>>>>>>> unit
>>>>>>>> of work. The imagined situation provides an opportunity for
>>>>> children
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> 'try out' and experience different roles, perspectives, opinions,
>>>>>>>> emotions
>>>>>>>> and actions, with the safety net of knowing that everyone has
>>>>> agreed
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> this is 'pretend' and that they are able to 'step out' again and
>>>>> back
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> their real lives. However, the equally important element of the DiE
>>>>>>>> lesson/unit is the dialogue that can take place after everyone
>>>>> steps
>>>>>>>> out of
>>>>>>>> the imagined situation - where all of the feelings, thoughts and
>>>>> actions
>>>>>>>> that were expressed or experienced during the 'play' can be
>>>>> revisited,
>>>>>>>> discussed and debated from a more detached position and where
>>>>>>>> understandings of others' perceptions can be further explored, and
>>>>>>>> alternative responses and meanings can be constructed.
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So, yes, it is necessary for the players to buy in to the imagined
>>>>>>>> situation and agree to play along within the 'rules' of the roles
>>>>> they
>>>>>>>> are
>>>>>>>> playing in order to keep the drama functioning, but the whole
>>>>> point is
>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>> everyone knows that there will soon be a time where they will step
>>>>> out
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> the role again and be able to say "When your character did X, it
>>>>> made
>>>>> me
>>>>>>>> feel Y" or "I never realised how difficult it would be to ..." or
>>>>> "I
>>>>>>>> wonder
>>>>>>>> what would have happened if ..." etc. In my mind this part of the
>>>>>>>> session
>>>>>>>> is an equally crucial part of the learning and is why I believe DiE
>>>>>>>> (done
>>>>>>>> 
> 
> 
> [The entire original message is not included.]