Jones's definition of dramatherapy begins "Dramatherapy is involvement in drama with a healing intention" (Jones, 1996:6), and he goes on to outline how dramatherapy works, mentioning the content, processes and relationships involved. He then discusses briefly the aims of dramatherapy before launching into sections describing "Who is dramatherapy for?", "What happens in dramatherapy?" and "Basic processes of...", "Expressive forms of..." and "Basic ideas underpinning..." dramatherapy. (ibid.:6-8). Meldrum, in The Handbook of Dramatherapy discusses definitions of the two words, drama and therapy. Combining these gives her outline definition of dramatherapy being:

Healing through drama allowing the client, with the use of dramatic structures, to receive insights and explore emotions in a special place in real and imaginary time, within a social encounter. (Meldrum, 1994:19)

Both these definitions stress the fundamental "drama for healing" idea which is implied by the name drama-therapy. They each go on to show some of the other issues to be addressed when giving a definition. Even in this one sentence, Meldrum raises the issues of the structures, aims and boundaries of dramatherapeutic work. Although there are many aspects of dramatherapy which could be discussed in an essay like this I have decided to particularly focus on these three key areas to explore definitions of dramatherapy: structures, aims and boundaries.

.

By structures of dramatherapy I mean the theories, processes and methods which make up the field of dramatherapy and its historical and current practice. The theoretical base of dramatherapy is described by Landy as having:
roots in several disciplines: anthropology, psychology and psychotherapy, sociology and theatre (Landy, 1986:63)

I shall discuss the links and differences between dramatherapy and other forms of theatre and therapy later in this essay. For now I shall focus on the key processes which have been brought forth from this varied theoretical base. Many authors and organisations have written of the particular structures by which dramatherapy effects healing. Jones describes the basic processes of dramatherapy as being dramatic projection and transformation (Jones, 1996:7). The Institute of Dramatherapy describes how it:
reinforces artistic, therapeutic and learning processes. The dramatherapy process moves from everyday reality into dramatic reality and includes both 'ritual and risk'. The dramatherapy process expands rather than reduces a person's experience of themselves and the world and its necessary limits. (Institute of Dramatherapy (1993) in Jennings ed. 1994:210)
These dramatic processes go a long way to defining what dramatherapy is and how it ‘works’. As the Institute go on to say,
[Dramatherapy] may be applied in psychological and social models, but it is unique in its capacity to enter the mythic and the ritual and therefore the metaphysical. (ibid.:211)
It is possible that other therapies would claim links to the metaphysical but this is still an important part of the uniqueness of dramatherapy.

These dramatic processes themselves inform the methods of dramatherapy, which will begin to offer a clearer view of what a typical dramatherapy session would be like. Jennings lists how: methods include movement, voice, dance, theatre games, role-play, improvization, text-work, puppets and masks... indeed all skills from theatre. (Jennings, 1998:12)
This emphasis on theatrical processes are typical of Jennings’ approach. Jones is more general when he describes a typical session:
Each session usually begins with a warm-up phase which develops into an active exploration of areas which are problematic for clients, followed by a closure.... the main process involves the client engaging with a problematic area through dramatic form and work with the group and/or therapist. Closure often takes the form of discussion and reflection on the work undertaken within the setting. (Jones, 1996:7)

.

Jones’ reference to the exploration of problematic areas for clients leads me to discuss the aims of dramatherapy, another key area in definitions of dramatherapy. From the varied definitions I would suggest that the aims fall into three main areas: exploring, healing or alleviating/removing and improving/increasing.

A client may begin by exploring issues, but may well also explore emotions, reactions, possibilities and new perspectives. Meldrum talks of the aim for clients to “receive insights and explore emotions.”(Meldrum, 1994:19) Dramatherapy offers a space to explore new ideas and long-held views and to gain new understanding.

There is a major aim that clients will experience healing, through their own self-help or through the group process. Jennings describes dramatherapy as “curative” & “transformative” (both Jennings, 1998:12). The NADT lists the goals of dramatherapy as being “symptom relief, emotional and physical integration, and personal growth”(NADT, website 2000). Healing and relief may be experienced as relief through revealing previously untold distress or more actively confronting past issues and attitudes and effecting change.

Another category of aims expressed by dramatherapists is the increasing of clients’ creativity and capability in different roles and improving quality of life. Landy in particular focuses on the aim of helping “others increase their repertory of roles and their ability to play a single role more effectively” (Landy, 1986:59). This is indicative of his preference for role theory approaches to dramatherapy, but this expanding of a client’s creativity and capabilities is echoed in other definitions (e.g. BADTh, 2000)

Having defined dramatherapy in terms of how it works and its aims I shall move on to discuss the necessary boundaries in dramatherapy. These constitute what dramatherapy is not, by defining when dramatherapy becomes another form of therapy or simply drama. I would also suggest that there are other boundaries of space, time and engagement which need to be present for dramatherapy to take place.

Landy outlines connections between different forms of therapy and dramatherapy in his book Drama Therapy, Concepts and Practices (1986). He gives many examples of where other therapies incorporate dramatic methods and highlights a key issue of when drama in therapy may be something other than dramatherapy. He refers to Schattner & Courtney's book Drama

.

in Therapy (1981) and summarises that the work of practitioners in areas such as Gestalt, psychodrama and play therapy,:
practitioners who use drama in therapy...provides source material for the new field of drama therapy. (Landy 1986:15-16)
Valente and Fontana (1993) conducted research into theoretical influences on current dramatherapy practice. Their results emphasised the importance of group dynamics, psychotherapy & theories of play and creativity, but also mentioned the importance of Moreno and psychodrama: “which some dramatherapists now see as a sub-division of dramatherapy” (Valente & Fontana, 1993:63). I would uphold this opinion, viewing the methods of psychodrama as now being part but far from all the techniques available to a dramatherapist.

Returning to a definition of dramatherapy, Jones also highlights the fact that:
dramatherapy is not a psychotherapy group or behavioural therapy programme which has some dramatic activities added to it. The drama does not serve the therapy. The drama process contains the therapy. (Jones, 1996:4)
This brings in the widely discussed presentation of dramatherapy as a valid field in its own right. The debate as to whether or not dramatherapy falls entirely within the confines of psychotherapy is one which resurfaces throughout dramatherapy literature. Meldrum quotes Rowan’s definition of psychotherapy as being one within which dramatherapy fits:
by a form of psychotherapy, we simply mean that it takes a client from the beginning to the end of a problem... staying with the client through difficulties and hindrances. (Rowan in Meldrum, 1994:18)
However, key points have been made about the non-essential nature of verbal communication in dramatherapy (Langley, in Meldrum, 1994:18 & Schrader in Williams-Saunders et al, 1997); the training and therapy involved in becoming a psychotherapist (Dokter, 1992), the centrality of metaphor, transference and counter-transference (Williams-Saunders, 1997) and more basic factors of pay and recognition. (Schrader in Williams-Saunders et al., 1997). Jones concludes that Dokter's (1993) either "is a form of psychotherapy" or "is a creative healing art form in itself" is not exclusive:
I do not see the division as necessarily present in the way dramatherapy is practised. (Jones, 1996:11)
Jones brings the debate back to the issue of what is actually practised by dramatherapists, which, as I began by saying, varies greatly and includes quite eclectic methods and theoretical bases.

.

As well as the boundaries between dramatherapy and other forms of therapy it is also necessary to consider how the field is connected to other forms of theatre. Often theatre-going is described as therapeutic (see Meldrum, 1994:19), and Landy highlights how “the goals [of dramatherapy] often bear resemblance to educational and recreational drama goals” (Landy, 1986:59). I would suggest that although going to the theatre can be therapeutic this is not a contracted aim or an invariable occurrence. As Jones says:
Artistic processes and products have healing potentials and that, if worked with in particular ways in specific contexts drama can be a therapy. (Jones, 1996:4)
This leads me on to discuss the another main boundary issue in dramatherapy, namely the necessary conditions and agreements for dramatherapy to take place. Jones’s quotation above alludes to specific contexts, and I would maintain that a therapeutic agreement is necessary between client and a dramatherapist before dramatherapy can officially take place.

Although this may seem to disqualify the therapeutic benefits of theatre or the dramatic nature of some other forms of therapy practised by other professionals I feel it is an appropriate guideline to the safe practice of dramatherapy. The assertions by BADTh and the NADT that dramatherapy is practised by dramatherapists who have undertaken the requisite training and supervision and the State registration of dramatherapy as a profession both protect the public and the reputation of the profession.

Other definitions of dramatherapy mention this “established therapeutic understanding between client and therapist”(Johnson in Landy, 1986:58) and also the physical boundaries of a specific time and place. Jones states that “dramatherapy takes place within clear boundaries which protect the therapeutic space” (Jones, 1996:7). This suggests that dramatherapy does not take place every time there is contact between a dramatherapist and a client but rather where a therapeutic understanding has been agreed and “in a special place in real and imaginary time, within a social encounter” (Meldrum, 1994:19).

One example of dramatherapy and its structures, aims and boundaries can be found in Maggie McAlister’s article, “An evaluation of dramatherapy in a forensic setting” (McAlister, 2000:16-19). McAlister describes how her model “is informed by different theories from the fields of dramatherapy, psychoanalysis and elements of psychiatry.” (ibid.:16) and their application in working with the specific symptoms of schizophrenia. She also talks about how she has found the developmental model to be particularly useful, when she relates her methods of helping the client create sets and stories, using “open structures which would allow this material to emerge in a safe, non-threatening way. (ibid.:17)”

Her aims in the therapy, she states:
have remained constant: to enable L to express himself and to explore his capacity for insight. (ibid.:16)
This easily fits into the key aims I identified of exploration and improving/increasing creative capabilities. So far as healing was concerned, one of the main insights gained by L was “the incurability of his illness and that he would need to take medication for the rest of his life”(ibid.:18) However, through accepting this and gaining understanding of how his life experiences had contributed to his illness, L has experienced “significant changes in his condition and in his use of [dramatherapy]”(ibid.:19)

Finally, a brief look at the boundaries of dramatherapy discussed in the article. McAlister raises early in her article the fact that working:
within a multi-disciplinary framework where other professionals are involved in his care…means that any improvement in his mental state is the result of a combined team effort and suggests a difficulty in evaluating one’s own input in isolation. (ibid.:16)
This is an issue with the boundaries of dramatherapy; that the closeness to other fields can make evaluation of results of treatment difficult. The interventions all took place within the agreed therapeutic boundaries in the medium secure unit over a period of two years. The ongoing nature of the work means that in contrast to more brief therapy methods, the timing boundaries of the work are less clearly defined although the initial assessment sessions would have allowed for a clear beginning and demarcation from the previous group therapy sessions.

Although there is far more in McAlister’s which I find interesting and relevant as an example of what dramatherapy is, the consideration of the structures, aims and boundaries has allowed an overview of the therapy. As students and practitioners of dramatherapy our understanding of the nature and scope of dramatherapy will grow as we experience and explore further. This essay has charted some of my early explorations into the field and includes a distillation of some of the key definitions of dramatherapy. I feel I have presented the main aspects of dramatherapy whilst acknowledging the breadth of eclectic practice which enriches but also complicates a definition of dramatherapy.

.

.

.

.

Bibliography

BADTh (2000) British Association for Dramatherapists. Information Pack.

Dokter, D (1993) “Dramatherapy: A Psychotherapy?”, Dramatherapy, Journal of the British Association for Dramatherapists, Vol 12, No 2. pp 9-11.

Jennings, S. (1994) “What is dramatherapy? Interviews with pioneers and practitioners” in Jennings et al. The Handbook of Dramatherapy, London, Routledge. pp 166-186.

Jennings, S. (1998) Introduction to Dramatherapy: Theatre and Healing, London, Jessica Kingsley.

Jones, P. (1996) Drama as Therapy: Theatre as Living, London, Routledge.

Landy, R. (1986) Drama Therapy: Concepts, Theories and Practices, New York, Thomas.

McAlister, M. (2000) “An evaluation of dramatherapy in a forensic setting” Dramatherapy, Journal of the British Association for Dramatherapists, Vol 22, No 1. pp 16-19.

Meldrum, B. (1994) “Historical background and overview of Dramatherapy” in Jennings et al. The Handbook of Dramatherapy, London, Routledge. pp 12-27.

NADT (2000) National Association for Drama Therapy. US. Website: downloaded 11/11/2000.

Valente, L. & Fontana, D. (1993) “Research into Dramatherapy Theory and Practice: Some implications for Training” in Payne, H. Handbook of Inquiry in the Arts Therapies: One River, Many Currents, London, Jessica Kingsley. pp 56-67.