This is very interesting. So the relationships between them changed in some way. At least the women changed their view of him as dominating to him as a good source of potential material for better improvisations. it would be interesting to know how he changed, too.
I see play activity (including improvisation) as creating at least two distinct "chronotopes" or worlds/fields: one is the "inner group" world -- a world of consenting partners in play - all those who agree and want to play together. The second it the improvised, imaginary world. Not knowing your training sessions in more detail, it seems to me that the "equal" is created at the time of transition to the "inner group" -- no matter what other agenda exits for the individuals. In this "inner group", all share equal reponsibility for the production of the imaginary world. That immediatelly means adjusting the level of cooperation to managing the joint task. Of course, once inside each one of these chronotopes (which are coordinated but not parallel), each participant can and probably does, take a different role creating a particular division of labor. The equalizing is between the chronotopes (worlds) -- like "can you be there with the rest of the group?" So, as I see from the description you gave, the women were uneasy to join the male teacher (or to let him fully join them), untill they found a way to change the relationships in the inner group so that they then perceived him in a role of a source of material for interesting scenes, more than a dominant and intimidating male. That is a n equalizing transition. Once in the inner group world, he took a role of offering more sources for creating interesting scenes. However, they all together coud then transition into the world of the improvised scenes -- each adding something to the creation of that world.
I hope that I make sense.
Ana
amic because its
a not-knowing activity--as Ana says no one "knows" where it is going. I
do think I think for me the prerequisite to listening and responding is
not knowing. It is impossible, not to mention not necessary, to listen
to people if we already "know" what they mean--it stops the process of
making meaning together.
I see this as different than equalizing people or making people
equal--in my experience when people improvise together all of the power
relationships are still there, but they are played with or used in the
process of creating the performance.
For example, there was one man and seven women in the group of teachers
that participated in the improv trainings. During the first couple of
weeks some of the women had reactions to the more his "more male"
performances--more vulgar or lifting up his shirt... In addition he was
the only one in the group with any theatre training so his performances
tended to be a little more polished. Over the course of the eight weeks
the group began to use his offers to create interesting scenes--they
began to use their more "honest" reactions to him to create playful
scenes about sex roles.
Carrie
> I loved the idea of improv leveling power differentials. That is a
major
> goal of various customs in the 5thD. It is, however, very threatening
to
> teachers who are working in regimes where they must appear to be in
> control all the time!
> mike
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Sep 01 2003 - 01:00:07 PDT