One of my life missions is the introduction of methods that people can use to live more creatively. The methods are adaptations of psychodrama or a type of improvised dramatic enactment. I\u2019ve written about this in other contexts, such as a chapter in Jacob Gershoni\u2019s edited book, Psychodrama in the 21st Century. <\/p>\n
An imaginative application of improvisational enactment can be a tool for being creative in life and relationships. There are scores of associated ideas such as role, stage, the proper use of others, and so forth. The point is that these elements should be used to help ordinary people\u2014not just \u201cpatients\u201d\u2014to live more richly and effectively. Repeating my point: It\u2019s not just for the clinical context.<\/p>\n
Using people-skills associated with a drama context is putting Shakespeare\u2019s observation that \u201cAll the world\u2019s a stage.\u201d But we\u2019re not merely players, as if our roles have been scripted! We are also the playwrights, and we are creative improvisers, and we can learn to do that well!<\/p>\n
Most people don\u2019t. Well, they do somewhat, unconsciously\u2014there\u2019s a fair amount of improvisation in a slight way in the roles they play, but the next step is to ramp this up, make it more conscious, broaden the role repertoire. It\u2019s like going from humming almost tune-less-ly to
singing a song. So my mission is to promote the how-to implement spontaneity in life.<\/p>\n
I\u2019ll say again, everyone does it a little. And I am quite clear that if everyone did it 20 – 50% more it would change their lives and the world. This is the theme, and it turns out there are many tools for doing this!<\/p>\n
Believing That Life Can Be More Creative<\/strong><\/p>\n Just aiming a little higher, envisioning this as a possibility is a huge first step. Doing it a bit is easier if at the same time you\u2019re learning ways to do it. The belief without the techniques doesn\u2019t really hold much psychic energy. People tend not to do things they don\u2019t know how to do.<\/p>\n So mixed in with aspiration, aiming higher, expecting the best, is a growing awareness of how this may come about. The next step is this: We get more creative by engaging and messing around, improvising, trying this and that. But there\u2019s a big \u201cbut.\u201d To improvise requires a few other things too:<\/p>\n Set the situation up so that trying things out tends not to have overwhelming consequences. You don\u2019t let a little kid practice on a real truck on a real highway. The setting, then, is called \u201cplay.\u201d Grown-ups sometimes use a fancier term, \u201csimulations.\u201d (Someone observed that the difference between men and boys is the price of their toys. Transcend the gender, here, and realize that astronauts\u2014men and women\u2014use incredibly expensive flight simulators, and doctors use highly technically elaborate mannequins. But ordinary people can use far simpler settings: Set it up as a role play. Try different things. See what works better than what else. All this is play.<\/p>\n Another aid in improvisation is the presence of others\u2014a small group\u2014who offer encouragement, support, modeling (i.e., they show how they\u2019d do it), an audience, and these elements of group dynamics are very powerful. The mind is more of a social organ than a logical processor, in spite of the culture that was excessively logocentric and hyper-individualized in the West in the 19th and 20th century. We\u2019re beginning to turn back from those trends\u2014they were sub-products of industrialization, in part\u2014and we are recognizing more the psycho-social nature of human behavior.<\/p>\n Clinging to the Cultural Conserve<\/strong><\/p>\n So just getting the spirit going in the direction of creativity is already a big change. There are also a number of subtle types of resistance to this:<\/p>\n There is a strong lingering of excessive respect for the past. It\u2019s not just that we respect that the creators of the past did make some meaningful contributions. That\u2019s fine. Nor is it necessary to doubt they may have been well-meaning. It\u2019s that this residue of the childish tendency to depend on our parents gets acted out in adulthood! We tend to think that what they came up with was not just good for then, but that it\u2019s good enough for now. Now that\u2019s crazy. Everything, just about, has changed or is in the process of changing. Respect does not mean blind, uncritical acceptance.<\/p>\n Alas, for too many, it does: Any questioning of the way things have been done is taken as disrespect for those who did it, as an insult. Authorities who have bought into this complex then absorb this pride and take the questioning of what they \u201cbelieve\u201d as a personal affront. Well, it is, a little. I mean, any new idea does imply a challenge: \u201cYou mean you really believe what they taught you is the best way\u2014and forever must be the best way\u2014to do it?\u201d<\/p>\n There\u2019s no way around it except for those in authority roles to find a less ego-invested middle ground: This is what I\u2019m used to using or thinking. If you have a better idea, bring it on. If it turns out to be a good idea, there\u2019s no shame in my changing my mind.<\/p>\n Well, this is a two or three century change-over from really a residue of a conflict that has always been there. It was a big thing in the emergence of science several hundred years ago, and it has been a battleground as we\u2019ve moved from monarchy and aristocracy to democracy. It\u2019s still a huge theme in religion today. It represents an essential dullness and laziness of mind, covered by a blind belief, supported by allies whose status depends on this belief, that what was still is, or that what was declared to be true centuries or millennia ago is smarter than now.<\/p>\n So there\u2019s a huge resistance to creativity. They allowed a little in the Renaissance but only in some seemingly harmless arenas like the arts. They fought viciously against the idea politically, and it must be admitted that many forms of creativity are really dumb and nasty. Just because it\u2019s creative in some ways doesn\u2019t make it any good. So those who claim to be conservative do have a point: Some new ideas are foolish; it is better to stick with the tried and true. On the other hand, it\u2019s also a cover for simple lazy-minded clinging to status and money, so it\u2019s a challenge to separate the good parts from those that aren\u2019t so good.<\/p>\n What I\u2019m advocating is a mixture: Get creative, then test it out, find out if it\u2019s a good idea. More often than not, it needs revision. It might even be a bad idea, but it points to being creative again in another way. It\u2019s a challenge even for the creative to then rise above their ego-attachments and let go of an idea that isn\u2019t working in favor of another\u2019s idea that is better.<\/p>\n It\u2019s a complex process, requiring a shift to a more mature personal and ethical level to build towards creativity, but it must be done. That\u2019s enough for now.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" One of my life missions is the introduction of methods that people can use to live more creatively. The methods are adaptations of psychodrama or a type of improvised dramatic enactment. I\u2019ve written about this in other contexts, such as a chapter in Jacob Gershoni\u2019s edited book, Psychodrama in the 21st Century. An imaginative application […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":2,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[18,4,11,6],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-944","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-history","category-psychodrama","category-literacy","category-wisdom-ing"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/2"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=944"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":945,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/944\/revisions\/945"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=944"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=944"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blatner.com\/adam\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=944"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}