Hornbrook Education Dramatic Art

Acknowledgements
The author and publisher would like to thank the following for permission to reproduce copyright materials: B.T. Batsford Limited for an extract from Drama and Education by B. Watkins; Century utchinson Limited for extracts from the following books: Dorothy Healhcote; Drama as a Learning Medium by!Betty "ane Wagner# and Teaching Drama; A Mind of Many Wonders by $orah %organ and "uliana &axton; 'a(id Clcgg and )obin *emberton!Billing for an extract from Teaching Drama, published by!+ni(ersity of London *ress# ,-.,; Drama Broadsheet, the /ournal of the $ational 0ssociation for the Teaching of 'rama# for 1igure , in Chapter 2; .%.&.3.# for extracts from English for ages 5- ! and Drama 5- ! in the "urriculum Matters series; The London 4ast 0nglian 5roup and the 6nner London 4ducation 0uthority for extracts from a pilot scheme syllabus for 5C&4 'rama and Theatre 0rts 7'ramatic 0rt8 ! %ode 66# %odular; $ew Theatre 9uarterly for the 4nglish translation of the performance analysis :uestionnaire# translation by &usan Bassnett. Wc would also like to thank %artine 1ranck and %agnum *hotos for permission to use the photograph on the co(er# from a performance by Le Theatre du &oleil of #$%& The 'rench (e)olution, *ear one+ 4(ery effort has been made to trace and contact copyright holders but in a few instances without success. We apologi;e for any errors or omissions in the abo(e list# and would be grateful for notification of any corrections that +6<%6666 lie incorporated in any future edition of this (olume.

Contents
Preface
Vlll
*art 3ne 'rama!in!education: Telling the &tory
, The *lot: The )ise of 'rama!in!education $oble sa(ages in an 4nglish 0rcadia 0rt and the play of life Child drama and after Learning through drama 2 The *layers: 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians %ystifications and dramatic midwifery <eeping it in the family 0ssaulting the i(ory towers The dilemma of appraisal The two witnesses = The &etting: 4(ents on the *ublic &tage The ,->Bs settlement $ew ideologues 0nything you can do 'rama and the struggle for the arts D 'ramatic Tension: Barricades and Bewilderment )eaction and inter(ention in the ,-CBs Bewilderment and ac:uiescence
= > ,=

,. ?2, 2= @A 2=2 ,-. =C E2 EE

7lalls to the barricades: 1reirc# Boal and the radical left F!?GHIIII the future

EJ,

VI Contents
*art Two 'rama!in!education: 6nterpreting the Text
J The 3mnipotent &elf 0uthenticity and the self The psychological imperati(e *henomenology# uni(ersale and the fallacy of indi(idualism > appening on the 0esthetic The art forms of school drama The tradition of 4nglish $aturalism and and the theatre . &ignificant <nowing <nowing what you feel *ersonal knowledge $ews from nowhere C Culture and *ower )eally useful knowledge and the tradition of dissent )eason not the need 6s eating people wrongK &inging better songs J. >, >J >., .E .C C, CE C. C-, -=

*art Three Towards 'ramatic 0rt
- *ractical 0esthetics and 'ramatic 0rt 0rt and ideology Concerning the dramatic test Cultural narrati(es ,B The 'ramatised &ociety 3n the stage of life )oles and characters ,, What &hall We 'o and ow &hall We Li(eK 1acts and opinions The community of discourse The teacher as critic Learning how to act &umming up: dramatic art and the dramatised society Contents (ii ,2 The 'ramatic Curriculum Wider landscapes *ractising dramatic art The arts# the school and the community -,BE ,B> ,,B ,,2 ,,. ,,,22 ,2E ,2. ,2,=, ,=E ,EB ,E2 ,EE

0ppendix 0
Lesson one: ,->J Lesson two: ,-.> Lesson three: ,-C,

0ppendix L 0 modular 5C&4 in dramatic art 0ppendix C 0ttainment in drama 0ppendix '
*erformance analysis $otes Bibliography 6ndex ,>2

,E. ,J>
,>E ,-B 2BB

V
•

(i Contents *art Two 'rama!in!education: 6nterpreting the Text
J The 3mnipotent &elf 0uthenticity and the self The psychological imperati(e *henomenology# uni(ersale and the fallacy of indi(idualism > appening on the 0esthetic The art forms of school drama The tradition of 4nglish $aturalism and and the theatre . &ignificant <nowing <nowing what you feel *ersonal knowledge $ews from nowhere C Culture and *ower )eally useful knowledge and the tradition of dissent )eason not the need 6s eating people wrongK &inging better songs J. >, >J >., .E .C C, CE C. C-, -=

*art Three Towards 'ramatic 0rt
- *ractical 0esthetics and 'ramatic 0rt 0rt and ideology Concerning the dramatic test Cultural narrati(es ,B The 'ramatised &ociety 3n the stage of life )oles and characters ,, What &hall We 'o and ow &hall We Li(eK 1acts and opinions The community of discourse The teacher as critic Learning how to act &umming up: dramatic art and the dramatised society Contents ,2 The 'ramatic Curriculum Wider landscapes *ractising dramatic art The arts# the school and the community (ii ,2,=, ,=E ,EB ,E2 ,EE -,BE ,B> ,,B ,,2 ,,. ,,,22 ,2E ,2.

0ppendix 0
Lesson one: ,->J Lesson two: ,-.> Lesson three: ,-C,

0ppendix L 0 modular 5C&4 in dramatic art 0ppendix C 0ttainment in drama 0ppendix '
*erformance analysis $otes Bibliography ,>2

,E. ,J>
,>E ,-B

6ndex

MN

2BB

k

x

Preface

the place of performance and the study of dramatic texts. The reportAs authors see the ?mounting of school productions and acti(e in(ol(ement in community or touring theatreA as ?of immense (alueA. $e(ertheless# for drama teachers like myself# who long ago fought for the independence of their sub/ect from 4nglish# the working groupAs :uite genuine enthusiasm for drama is tempered somewhat with a sense of de/a )u+ We ha(e been here before. 0lso# at a time when secondary headteachers are hurriedly reorganising their curriculum structures to bring art. music# drama and dance together in ?arts clustersA of one kind or another# 5C&4 boards are scrambling to satisfy the demand for creati(e arts syallabuses# and the new BT4C in *erforming 0rts is galloping like the 5ood $ews from 5hent to the countryAs 14 colleges# the curricular re!coupling of drama to 4nglish does seem peculiarly inapposite. *erhaps we are ill!ad(ised to seek for too much consistency in the go(ernmentAs new curriculum. By all accounts# it was expeditiously cobbled together as (ery much a second order political matter. %ost obser(ers belie(e that local management will ha(e a much more profound effect on the countryAs education than the national curriculum. Whate(er the philosophy underlying the go(ernmentAs simple ten!sub/ect prescription 76 attempt to unearth some of it in this book8# the grammar school ideal of Tory *arty mythology will not be what emerges from the (arious working groups and committees of professional educators. Who would ha(e thought that e0Blac1 2a3er editor Brian Cox# for example# once scourge of the progressi(ests# would# twenty years later# find himself being praised by the $ational 0ssociation for the Teaching of 4nglish for his stand against the crudities of parsing and learning by roteK

1oremost among the professionals concerned to protect the best of current practice against the winds of political opportunism are % 6nspectors of &chools. Within weeks of the publication of English for Ages 5 to !, in "uly ".-C-# %6As# Drama 5 to ! appeared in their "urriculum Matters series. 6n the documentAs first introductory paragraph# %, assure us that drama is ?a practical artistic sub/ectA# ranging ?from childrenAs structured play# through classroom impro(isations and performances of specially de(ised material to performances of &hakespeareA. While Drama 5 to ! embraces all the many manifestations of drama in schools# including the use of drama as a learning method in the context of 4nglish# the picture it paints is of an arts discipline with its own particular associated skills and ways of understanding. With careful## strategic reference to the national curriculum# %6 suggest that ?drama encompasses the art of the theatre and in(ol(es some of the technologies or the applications of the sciences# as in designing and making scenery or controlling sound and lightingA. The document highlights the ?public aspectsA of drama# emphasising tinO way

Preface
?performing and sharing work with others# pro(ide important links between schools# parents and their communitiesA. 0ll this is (ery positi(e. 6n the same month the $CC 0rts in &chool *ro/ect came to its formal conclusion with a hugely o(er!subscribed conference at the +ni(ersity of Warwick. Chastened perhaps by the e(ents of the pre(ious two years# -B per cent of the >BB arts delegates (oted for attainment targets rather than the recommended guidelines for the arts. 4arly in ,-C-# the British 1ilm 6nstituteAs 2rimary Media Education spelt out what attainment targets in media studies might be like; as 6 write# the 0rts Council is con(ening a working group to do the same for drama. Things are on the mo(e# and there is much still to play for. 6n looking at some of the paradoxes of drama!in!education 6 shall try to make sense of them against the background of this wider and fast!changing historical scene. 6n proposing ways forward 6 shall be re(ealing no secret formula# no transforming educational medication. %y modest aim is to offer drama teachers ways of recognising# legitimating and de(eloping what is best in their practice# in all its rich (ariety# so that curricular ob/ecti(es may be articulated with more confidence and clarity. 0lthough the form of this book is unapologetically theoretical# it is not a book which itself proposes a pedagogic theory. 6t aims to be descripti(e and interpretati(e rather than prescripti(e and definiti(e. 6n that o(er!worked aphorism# it starts where teachers are# in the e(eryday experience of their classes and out!of!school drama acti(ities# and it attempts to bring to all that enthusiasm# integrity and expertise# a structure whereby we may better understand both what we ha(e been doing and where we might go. 6n proposing ?dramatic artA as a form which is both social and sociable 6 ha(e been much influenced by the work of the late )aymond Williams. is &traightforward commitment to acti(e democracy and a good common culture together with his refusal to regard as anything but extremely difficult the processes of getting there ha(e been a constant inspiration. Closer to

home# , would like to thank &ian 4de# &ally odgson# 0ndy <cmpe and <en )obinson for their critical support and patient reading of early dralts. 0bo(e all# 6 am grateful to 1red 6nglis# whose sharp eye exposed many intellectual blunders but whose generous offerings of roast lamb and agreeable con(ersation sustained me o(er a long period. 'a(id ornbrook# "uly ,-CP

Part One
Drama-in-education: Telling the Story

,

The Plot: The Rise of Drama-in-education
Noble savages in an English Arcadia
Theory# and the challenge it implicitly presents to empiricism and ?common senseA# is (iewed# like ideology# with some suspicion by a culture traditionally disposed to fa(our practical ways of doing things. For years

the drama-in-education community has been conventionally instrumental in ust this !ay" generally #referring to discuss and #rogress !orking methods rather than to !orry too much about their theoretical or ideological im#lications. QQQQQQQ
owe(er# simply to ignore the existence of theory in the conduct of human affairs is to render oursel(es powerless in the first instance to interpret e(ents and then to influence them. Formulating theories is the

!ay !e make sense of our ex#erience by giving ourselves meaningful structures !ithin !hich it may be ex#lained$
6 would argue that the ways we ha(e been encouraged to talk about drama! in!education and its characterising practices arc in the grip of implicit theories of this kind. 6n the struggle o(er methodology# which

has dominated the school drama debate for o(er thirty years# they ha(e long since been buried in the assumptions which inform the debate itself. 6t is my intention
in this book to bring some of these theories out into the open. 6mmanent to this pro/ect will be my belief that for drama to legitimate itself within education it must be theorised within culture and history as a demonstrably social form. %y de(eloping criti:ue of current practice will show the extent to which drama!in!education has been traditionally pre! '3C+picd with the pri(atisation of experience# a paradox nowhere better exemplified ill#hi in its sell!imposed isolation from generally accepted ideas #IRSIIII i6h .iiiiO 6 will argue that far from being a radicalising process# this

4 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt pri(atisation has manacled school drama to narrow forms of indi(idualism which ha(e inhibited access to our dramatic culture. The distincti(e discourse of educational drama arises from a series of inter! connected assumptions associated with the progressi(e education mo(ement. This mo(ement# in turn# has its origins in the re(olutionary spirit of late eighteenth!century )omanticism# so that in "ean!"ac:ues )ousseauAs model of pre!ci(ilised man 4sic5 free from the corrupting influence of city life# his noble savage imbued with natural goodness whose infallible guide was his feelings# we may recognise the ghostly prototype of the paradigmatic student of educational drama., The autonomy

of consciousness ad(ocated by

%ousseau" with its extention into a uni(ersality of moral feeling#
where the source of moral rectitude is seen to reside not in the hands of the gods and their earthly representati(es# but in the authentic examination of the self# ?the true and uncorrupted conscienceA# lies at the heart of the challenge that was to be offered to con(entional ethics by )omanticism.2 This idea of a sub/ecti(e morality accessible through an awareness of our true feelings also permeates thinking about school drama. 6t has long been supposed that pupils engaged in the spontaneous impro(isation and role! playing of the drama lesson can lose themsel(es /ust sufficiently for their ?deeply feltA# and by implication# genuine, morality to re(eal itself.

&avin 'olton puts it succinctly when he proposes that while ?in the
unreality of the classroomA #u#ils

(may ado#t an intellectual #osture of acce#ting the notion of shades of o#inion" !hat surfaces in drama is their real feelings)$
)eal feelings and personal (alues are thus concepts common to )omanti! cism and drama!in!education. 6n both# they indicate a commitment to a pri(ate world of sensation where cogniti(e endea(our is often confined to knowledge about what one truly feels. )ousseau# of course# also had strong (iews about drama. is well!known polemic against "ean le )ond dA0lembert#E who had suggested that the city of 5ene(a might impro(e its amenities by building a theatre# re(eals not so much a puritanical dislike of pleasure# but rather a perception of theatre art as leading to the falsification of the self. To be sure# the cramped# odorous playhouses of eighteenth! century 1rance can hardly ha(e been places of moral or spiritual self! enhancement. 1or )ousseau# committed as he was to the authentic (oice of conscience# the actor on the stage deliberately distanced himself from the uni(ersality of moral feeling# thus diminishing his own authenticity by ?counterfeiting himself# by ?putting on another character than his ownA. the replacement of those ?exclusi(e entertainments which close up a small number of people in melancholy fashion

The )ise of 'rama!in!education J in a gloomy ca(ern# which keeps them fearful and immobile in silence and inaction#A with open!air festi(ities of communal participation: Let the spectators become an entertainment to themsel(es; make them actors themsel(es; do it so that each one sees and lo(es himself in the others.B We can see clearly reflected in drama!in!education both )ousseauAs deep! seated suspicion of the entire apparatus of theatrical illusion# his distaste for ?counterfeitingA# as well as his enthusiasm for the home!made authenticity of participatory drama. Certainly# in the contemporary context# it might fairly be said that real feelings and personal (alues ha(e no more a place on the stages of &haftes! bury 0(enue or the &outh Bank than they did on those of eighteenth!century *aris. owe(er# already there are problems here. We should be careful of making too easy a distinction between the ?falseA world of the theatre and the ?genuineA world of human interaction. 0lso# although we often speak confidently of our real feelings# how is it possible for us to make a distinction between the feelings we ha(e so that we may intelligibly say of some that they are true and of others that they are falseK 1urthermore# who is to mediate between your morality and mine when our ?true and uncor!rupted consciencesA lead us to different conclusionsK These 7peculiarly modern8 dilemmas will be much my concern in the argument that follows# for they lie at the heart of educational drama. 6f not in its playhouses# historically 4ngland did pro(ide more fertile and stable ground for the seeding of these particular products of )omantic naturalism than the turbulent politics of nineteenth!century 1rance were able to offer. Without the home!grown images of political despotism that inspired the cataclysmic# liberationist (isions of their 4uropean counterparts#

4nglish )omantic artists turned instead to attack the economic despotism of the 6ndustrial )e(olution. This they
saw as callous and philistinic# fundamentally at odds with the arcadian indi(idualism of %ousseau)s (uncorru#ted conscience). The expanding working!class ghettoes of the new cities were the antithesis of naturalism# their inhabitants as far from ideals of simple pastoral nobility that it was possible to imagine. 0gainst the bleak# dehumanising townscapes of industry the 4nglish )omantics fielded# not a class!based politics of re(olution# but the sensibility of the radical indi(idual. uman liberation was to come about not as a result of class struggle# but through lo(e# creation and self!expression. ThereO was to 6.c a re(olution of feeling# a new self!awareness# leading to a tiuiiiii# more progressi(e# humanism.

I *+,,- iiiuiii and Dramatic .rt
Writing nl 6A% 6T W3+ld dominate the timetable alongside crafts like Car! pi iin(# W6A T666<# *rinting# Bookbinding and 5ardening. 'iscipline was to 6n 7builded 3n mutual trust and understanding# based on the obser(ance of

‘Muiii oonduct’i
Wo must lei oursel(es li(e fully# by doing thoroughly those things we ha(e a natural desire to do; the sole restrictions being that we so order the course of our life as not to impair those energies by which we li(e# nor hinder other men so long as they seem also to be li(ing well. )ight and wrong in the play of life are not different from the right and wrong of the playing field.6t is worth noting here# that by superimposing the morality of 4nglish team games onto the free spirit of )omanticism# /ald!ell /ook was unwittingly rehearsing an ethical conundrum which continues to haunt drama!in!education. 0t what point docs our right to do ?those things we ha(e a natural desire to doA gi(e way to the demands ofAright conductAK 6n a world where the (alues of the public school playing field are by no means uni(ersally accepted# who is to ad/udicateK,B These are important :uestions# and 6 shall return to them later. 6t was the ad(ent of #sychoanalysis# and in particular the attention gi(en by post!1reudians to the significance of childrenAs play# that finally legitimated drama within the ?inner!worldA concept of creati(ity fa(oured by educational progressi(ists. The plausibly scientific recognition

of play as a form of instincti(e learning# with its accepted ?naturalnessA and powerful ?letAs pretendA element# enabled the teleological gap between self!authentication and acting to be con(incingly bridged. By the dawn of the new
century# 0arl

&roos had already published the influential book in

which he identified play as practice for adult life#U and it was not long before a succession of post!1reudian psychologists had ele(ated the play of young children to a dominating position in theories of early learning. By ,-J2 Susan

Isaacs was able to assert confidently that:

The childAs make!belie(e play is thus significant not only for the adapti(e and creati(e intentions which when fully de(eloped mark out the artist# the no(elist and the poet# but also for the sense of reality# the scientific attitude and the growth of hypothetical reasoning.,2 While theatrical performance# e(en in ?The %ummeryA# might still be considered as the antithesis of naturalness# the fantasies of an innocent child# acted out in the playground or street# could be represented as a real drama# rich both in creati(ity and learning. 1urthermore# psychology had

The )ise of 'rama!in!education now declared such spontaneous ?acting outA to be necessary for the childAs ade:uate de(elopment. This kind of performance# flowing apparently from the unconscious inner world of the child# could thus not only claim a secure place among those arts processes already dedicated to the exploration of sub/ecti(e feeling# but by (irtue of its psychological imperati(e# could also claim to transcend them. 1rom being an innocent di(ersion# drama# through the offices of psychology# had become a fundamental need. 'rama both of the less and more formal kinds# for which children# owing to their happy lack of self!consciousness# display such remarkable gifts# offers further good opportunities of de(eloping that power of expression in mo(ement which# if the psychologists are right# is so closely correlated with the de(elopment of perception and feeling.

Brought in from the cold by the child psychologists and psycho!therapists of the ,-=Bs and ,-EBs# drama was now in a position to make its mark on the school curriculum. 6t was to present
its credentials not# as first might be expected# in the form of a body of theatrical skills and practices# but as a psychological process# dedicated to the aesthetic and de(elopmental ?needsA of the young.QQQQQQ With their acceptance#
drama in schools may be seen as the crowning achie(ement of 4nglish progressi(ism# embracing as it does all that mo(ementAs ma/or precepts.

The universality of moral feeling and the #rimacy of the sub ective" the authentication of the self through the exercise of the creative faculty" the need to #lay1 these are the cherished tro#es of drama-in-education$
They encapsulate its humanity as well as its nai(ety# holding together a (ision of a better world# but# as wc shall see# lacking still the crucial political and social dimension through which such a (ision might be realised.

/hild drama and after
By the outbreak of the &econd World War all the guiding principles of school drama were in circulation. The war itself ga(e new impetus to thinking about education# pro(iding the will and circumstance for the structural changes necessary for the incorporation of drama in the post!war curriculum. This wartime debate pro(ed to be the historical backdrop VWXWYZ[PR\ ]] before which the disparate philosophical elements of school drama progressed from the educational fringes into legitimacy. 6n ,-E= the 4ducational 'rama 0ssociation was founded# and in the same year

Peter Slade was appointed 'rama 0d(iser for &taffordshire; by ,-J,
school drama was recei(ing all important %inistry of 4ducation recognition.

,B

4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

6t is true that many schools still include little or no drama in any part of their curriculum# but so many others do find room for it in one form or another that drama can now be regarded as an established and worthwhile part of school life.AE 'espite his early struggles# Peter

Slade was soon to find

himself established within an increasingly fashionable new progressi(ism. By the time his seminal book "hild Drama was published in ,-JE#,= the philosophy which inspired it was gaining significant influence in the corridors of educational policy!making. &ladeAs book 7together with its popular pocket!si;ed follow!up which appeared four years later,>8 came to inform the practice of a newly created generation of drama teachers.QQQQQQQ
The post!war population bulge and the expanding teaching force of the ,->Bs had created an urgent need for more teacher!trainers.,A &choolteachers with drama backgrounds ranging from 4nglish and amateur dramatics to licentiateships from the speech and drama academies suddenly!found themsel(es swept into the new or enlarged teacher!training colleges on a wa(e of progressi(ist enthusiasm# and entrusted with the preparation of students in 4ducational 'rama.

Well!intentioned and optimistic# but themsel(es often desperately ill! prepared# they turned to the only theory available# and that lay in the pages of "hild Drama+77777777 Like /i2ek# *eter &lade belie(ed that the creati(e acti(ity of children
should not be measured by adult standards; he argued that Child 'rama ?is an 0rt in itself. 6n the classroom he stressed the im#ortance of

noninterference in the natural creative #rocess# QQQQQQ
suggesting that the teacher should instead become a ?lo(ing allyA# not criticising or directing but perhaps drawing a groupAs attention ?to some little piece of beauty they may ha(e missedA. Conscious no doubt of the force of the child!psychology argument# he emphasised the distinction between the spontaneous processes of classroom drama# ?drama in the widest senseA# and the theatre ?as understood by adultsA. Theatre means an ordered occasion of entertainment and shared emotional experience; there are actors and audience ^ differentiated. But the child# if unspoiled# feels no such differentiation# particularly in the early years ^ each person is both actor and audience.,C

By ele(ating classroom drama in a way which sought not only to distance it from general theatre practice but also to in(est it by implication with a superior moral status# Slade inherited the aesthetic of

%ousseau)s romantic naturalism and inscribed it irrevocably in contem#orary theories of drama in schools. 6ndeed# such was the depth of this ideological commitment that

The )ise of 'rama!in!education

,,

drama teachers soon found themsel(es redefining the word ?dramaA itself# corralling it and branding it into the exclusi(e ser(ice of their practice. To this day there are drama teachers who will happily subscribe to a semantic sleight of hand _W`abWZ_ac\aXdRZ\ Z\cV\]] whereby ?dramaA gathers to itself all the affirmati(e elements of the discourse# such as creati(ity# sincerity and need# while ?theatreA has to resign itself to a thoroughly non!progressi(e and disapprobatory residue of illusion# inauthenticity and irrele(ance. 0s well as a mistrust of adult theatre# the primacy of self!expression and the disco(ery! of moral truth by inner reflection :uickly became recognised as characterising features of the new &ladian aesthetic. ... in this drama# two important :ualities are noticeable ^ a8sor3tion and sincerity+ 0bsorption is being completely wrapped up in what is being done# or what one is doing# to the exclusion of all other thoughts ... &incerity is a complete form of honesty in portraying a part# bringing with it an intense feeling of reality and experience ...U This emphasis on the acti(e and spontaneous participation of children in dramatic games and impro(isations draws our attention to another of school dramaAs inherent dilemmas; that of e(aluation. 6f the teacherAs relationship with Child 'rama was (itally non!critical then how was it possible to know to what extent its educational aims were actually being realisedK 0ttempts to deal with this problem ha(e led to children being assessed not on how much they know or by what skills they ha(e ac:uired# or indeed by some measure of originality of response# but on their degree of complicity with the structure set up by the teacher. Those members of the class who are 7or who at least seem to be8 most sincerely absorbed in what the teacher has planned for them are# by this token# the most meritorious; those e:ually absorbed in ri(al acti(ities# such as chattering or looking out of!the window# the least so. What is surfacing here is the dilemma surrounding Caldwell CookAs belief in ?right conductA. 'espite his enthusiasm for spontaneity and his desire not to criticise# &lade himself was in little doubt about the rules of the play of lifeA. *ointing out the need for cleanliness and good manners will often help them 7the lads in the school8 to grow up and be more acceptable to the young

women . . . 5irls do not lake kindly to rather ragged# rough mannered clowns who spoil the drama period. 6n 6 ine thai 0ristotle might lia(N#(undrifslood# honour is due to those with g 6. .in 6 iii tit 6n mid S#GIIIR millinersg This tendency to assess ac:uiescence in the

Ι!ί
4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt absence of any other acceptable criteria is still much in e(idence# as we shall .sec. 'espite these reser(ations# there is no doubt that the pioneer work of *eter &lade in those years following the war enthused huge numbers of young teachers and succeeded in establishing drama as a force in state education. The $ewsom )eport of ,->= which expressed its concern o(er the education systemAs apparent failure with the less able# ga(e much credence to the psycho!therapeutic role of drama in countering the ?social maladroitncss and insensiti(ityA of ?less giftedA young people. 0rt# according to $ewsom# and 4ducational 'rama in particular# should be regarded not as a ?frillA# but as a way of helping young people ?to come to terms nidi themsel(esA. By playing out psychologically significant situations# they can work out their own personal problems.2, The idea that school drama has much to do with childrenAs psychological ad/ustment to their social circumstances figured prominently in the rash of handbooks which followed the success of "hild Drama+ *robably the most notable of these was Brian WayAs De)elo3ment Through Drama+ *ublished in ,->. in the wake of The Plo!den %e#ort)s endorsement of progressi(ism. De)elo3ment Through Drama pro(ided /ust the right mix of theory and practical ad(ice to stimulate and inspire a second wa(e of young drama teachers in the enormous# post B.4d# expansion.22 3ay reinforced &ladeAs distinction between ?theatreA and ?dramaA# but

largely abandoned his idea of Child 'rama as 0rt in fa(our of a comprehensi(e theory of personal de(elopment. Belie(ing#
along with the child psychologists# that play is practice for adult life# and hypothesising that it is an instincti(e need artificially suppressed after early childhood# 3ay saw

school drama as a means of restoring the ?naturalA de(elopmental processes which play encourages:
1ully de(eloped people will seldom make poor or uninteresting drama# e(en though it may not be brilliant ... drama# far from being new# is closely interwo(en in the practical implementation of both the spirit and the substance of e(ery 4ducation 0ct that has e(er been passed# especially the idea of the de(elopment of the whole person.2=

3n closer inspection# the ?whole personA# the uni:ue ?human essenceA for whom WayAs drama lessons ha(e been a gradual nurturing process# turns out to be a decent# law!abiding liberal humanist# the heir surely of )ousseauAs noble sa(age# sensiti(e# tolerant# imaginati(e and reflecti(e# fitting in The )ise of 'rama!in!education ,=

well to the social en(ironment# yet managing to be creati(e and original 7within acceptable limits8. Through the mid!,->Bs and early ,-.Bs book after book professed to demonstrate how drama!in!education de(eloped ?self!confidenceA# or en! couraged ?personal awareness and an awareness of othersA# or taught chil! dren how to co!operate in groups# or fostered :ualities of ?tolerance and understandingA# or helped children to become more ?self!disciplinedA. E "ust about the only thing school drama made no claims to do# and by this time many teachers would ha(e been pu;;led to ha(e it suggested# was to e:uip young people with an understanding of their dramatic culture.

Learning through drama

There !as a tendency in the 4567s and 4587s for drama teachers to be content !ith the assum#tion that as long as their #u#ils !ere sufficiently (absorbed) in their im#rovisations then they !ere (develo#ing) satisfactorily. QQQQ Books offering catalogues of
?ideas for dramaA proliferated# and teachers dipped liberally into menus of themes such as ?ConflictA# or ?The 1amilyA or ?c 1airgroundA. owe(er# on the whole they felt no particular obligation lo contextualise the drama nor to attempt to impro(e the performance skills of their classes; instead they tried hard not to interfere 7unless discipline demanded it8 with the ?natural creati(ityA of their groups. 3ften children were led through imaginati(e exercises of one kind or another# or more fre:uently encouraged to play energetic drama games before collapsing into small groups to make up plays to be performed 7time permitting8 at the end of the lesson. &uch educational scepticism as there was about these practices could be dismissed as straightforwardly reactionary# with the confident assumption that more traditionally minded teachers who might express worries about the noise and apparent anarchy of the drama class would# gi(en lime# become aware of its assuredly self!e(ident (alue. There were some dissenting (oices. "ohn *ick and 'a(id Clegg both raised fundamental :uestions about the theory and practice of drama in schools# bin after brief defensi(e flurries and a general closing of ranks# their concerns receded into obscurity.2J 3ne of the handful of practitioners who responded in print to ClcggAs I hiilleugc was a lecturer atA the +ni(ersity of $ewcastle upon Tyne#

Dorothy 9eathcote. 6n a letter published in ,-.=#

agreed with llliA< create ?high printieA# unthinking allegiance to whom was ossifying practice. &ixO shared lite worried about iritchrr IGIhIIhIIi. ami nrguod that it was necessary lo ,E 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

eathcote thai school drama was suffering from a tendency to

prepare drama teachers ?who can stimulate commitmentA and ?follow it through to meaningful learningA.2> The changes of approach indicated here were radical# and were percei(ed as so by those who had seen 9eathcote at work. 3bser(ers could hardly ha(e failed to be aware of her dominant# directorial relationship to the drama# or of her willingness on occasions to

become a #artici#ant (in role)# oining in a##arently on e:ual terms !ith the children$ They would also ha(e
noted the extensi(e time allowed for debate# e(en for writing# amounting to a conscious challenging and shaping of the childrenAs ideas. 71or an example# sec 0ppendix 0.8 .ll this must have been

#rofoundly unsettling for drama teachers used to the non-interventionist strategies of /hild Drama and drama for #ersonal develo#ment$
1or eathcote# the teacherAs aim was to use drama ?in
2.

the !ay in !hich it !ill most aid him in challenging the children to learnA. By channelling the moti(ating energy of
dramatic play into the curricular

im#eratives of the teacher# she slo!ly succeeded in diverting thinking about school drama from its more overtly thera#eutic course and re-defining it as a learning #rocess$ Through the sensitive agency of the teacher"

imaginative !orld simulated by the drama !ould reveal to a class ne! insights and understandings. With a most significant shift of emphasis#
knowledge 7as opposed to art or personal de(elopment8 was now to be the goal; from this time forward drama would be claiming a place on the epistemological curriculum. 1urthermore# the knowledge achie(ed through drama of this kind was /udged to be of a special kind. 6naccessible through empiricism or logic# it was instead to be induced through the examination of

eathcote argued# the

the ?sub/ecti(e processA. ?Drama for understanding) or ?drama for knowingA became key concepts in a new language of ?authenticityA# ?negotiationA and ?uni(ersalsA# whereby it was argued that by manipulating dramatic impro(isation# children could be led to an ?authentic experienceA# a so!called ?deep knowingA# of the essential truths of the human condition. )ather than being the sub/ect of pedagogy# drama!in!education became a sophisticated form of pedagogy itself. 6t should not be forgotten that these changes were being brought about against a background of educational contraction. By the early ,-CBs the number of specialist initial training courses in drama teaching had fallen from o(er fifty in the mid!,-.Bs to only se(en. While this to some extent reflects a more general cutback in teacher education# the relati(e drop in drama courses was particularly se(ere. There were many drama teachers at this time understandably willing to see eathcote and her new methodology as the potential sa(iours of their discipline. Thus it was that# despite &chools Council recommendations for a more eclectic approach#!j the dissection and analysis of cathcoteAs methodology The )ise of 'rama!in!education ,J came to mark out the parameters of acceptable drama in schools. Likewise# the charismatic :ualities of her remarkable presence began to bewitch the increasing numbers of drama teachers who came to watch and participate in her workshops; two early con(erts described her work as ?breathtakingA.^ By ,-.-# a comprehensi(e account of her techni:ues# Dorothy Heathcote: Drama as a Learning Medium, was on the shel(es of 4nglish bookshops. 1or ordinary teachers inspired by her inno(ati(e way of working# the old handbooks of themes for drama now seemed paltry. $ew collections of lesson ideas by drama specialists with ordinary school experience translated eathcoteAs idiosyncratic skills# such as (teacher-in-role)# into manageable techni:ues for die classroom.=, Less happily# as we shall see# a fierce sectarianism gripped drama!in!education as ranks closed around the new methodologies. 0 host of eulogies flowed from the pens of eathcote de(otees during the ,-CBs# ranging from the worthy to the unshamefacedly messianic# but all united in their de(otion to the words and deeds of this remarkable figure. 4(en after her retirement from $ewcastle in ,-C># past accounts of eathcoteAs drama workshops were still being dissected and analysed by her admirers for the wisdoms they might offer up. +nfortunately# for some at least# the return from 'amascus pro(ed to be a sobering experience. The newly con(erted# not unnaturally# attempted to imitate eathcoteAs techni:ues back in their classrooms# but confronted with the frustrations of their forty!minute lessons and the daily battles of the school many teachers saw themsel(es as failing to li(e up to her exacting standards 7see 0ppendix 08. 1or others# it has to be said# the eathcote re(olution simply passed them by. 'espite its persuasi(e methodology and its (ery considerable claims on the curriculum# e(idence suggests that this

latest manifestation of drama!in!education was rather less successful in engaging with the day!to!day practice of drama teaching than might be thought from reading the literature. While this chapter has been by way of a contextualiscd history of an educational mo(ement# 6 ha(e also attempted to set the scene for some of the agruments which follow. Thus# while tracing the de(elopment of drama! in!education from its ideological origins in late eighteenth!century )omanticism through to its emergence as an expressi(e form within pro! gressi(e education and its acceptance onto the 4nglish school curriculum# certain key dilemmas ha(e been identified. 6 wish now to look more closely at two principal players in our story and examine the strange but powerful fusion of practice and personality which sustained their hierarchical domi! nance o(er drama!in!education in the ,-CBs. k ;

The Pla!ers: Doroth!" #a$in and the %ew &uggletonians
7 9ill gi)e 3o9er unto my t9o 9itnesses, and they shall 3ro3hesy one thousand and t9o hundred and threescore days + ++ 7)e(elation ,,.8

Mystifications and dramatic midwifery
It is impossible to embark upon an examination of the complex texture of drama!in!education in the ,-CBs without acknowledging at an early stage the o(erarching presence of

Dorothy 9eathcote and &avin

'olton. 0lthough by this time both had long been members of uni(ersity
departments# their domination of thinking about practical# classroom drama during the ,-CBs was comprehensi(e# at least as influential as *eter &ladeAs had been for an earlier generation of drama teachers. They managed to inspire in their supporters a tenacious VlRYmW_RZ[]] loyalty to the forms of dramatic pedagogy which they ad(ocated# forms which by the mid!,-CBs seemed to many set to change irre(ocably the agenda of drama!in!education. 6n the e(ent# as we shall see# history was not to deal kindly with their (ersion of drama as cross!curricular pedagogy# and the impact of the new methods on actual classroom practice was in reality (ery much more modest than has often been claimed. 0lso# although the radical seriousness represented by techni:ues such as ?teacher!in!roleA blew through the aimless games and impro(isations of many drama classrooms of the ,-.Bs with the promise of a new purposefulness# this alone is not enough to explain the way these two practitioners maintained a such a grip on the field for o(er a decade.

6n ,-JE# *eter &lade had painted a (i(id picture of the magical world of Child 'rama# which he claimed should remain for the child a realm of mystic secrecyA., &ubse:uent literature abounds with similar sentiments. 6n creati(e drama work .. . we are helped enormously to soar into the world of magic and mystery ! the world in which our most pri(ate 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians ,. and peculiar sel(es obtain that which enables the metamorphosis from ?existingA to ?beingA to happen.2 By contrast# in her early writings# 'orothy eathcote speaks of what she does with an appealing clarity. ere she is in the same year# ,->.# defining ?dramatic impro(isationA: Tery simply it means putting yourself into other peopleAs shoes and# by using personal experience to help you to understand their point of (iew# you may disco(er more than you knew when you started.= owe(er# as the years passed# and forced perhaps by increasing demands to theorise her practice# this refreshing directness was replaced by a more con(oluted#lcRZ\lRb[]] digressi(e VWXlZLW_RZ\]] style# where (aluable insights into her dramatic practice became mixed up with

excursions into her #rivate and idiosyncratic bibliogra#hy. The result produced an effect hardly less mystifying than
that which had so characterised the writing of her predecessors. This is all much in e(idence in a published inter(iew with David Davis twenty years later. ere is a section of that inter(iew which its editor has seen fit to
highlight:

... if theatre is anything to anybody# it is thick description# and if theatre is to be used for perception# perception will only come through thick description# this laid upon that# pro(ided that slow incrementing of one experience on another is filled with ! filled with /oy.E Later# 'a(is asks her about

'recht 7editorAs emphasis8:

6A(e always liked the notion of Brecht ^ 6A(e ne(er read him and 6A(e ne(er seen him# not in what 6Ad call a real Brechtian production ^ but always# e(en as a kid# 6 liked the notion of :that 9hich, shall stand for this; ! not the book that looks like the book# but this that shall stand for it. 6 lo(e that# 6 get great pleasure out of it# because 6 3lay, you know# 6 think that is dee3 3lay ! that Q can see 9hat <;m ma1ing it out of+ 6 lo(e that.J 0ll true mystics and therapists demand of us that we suspend our rational disbelief and submit oursel(es to their power before we can expect to icap 7he spiritual benefits. 6n such circumstances# as 4rnest 5ellncr has pointed out# :critical considerations become assigned to the realm of symptoms# of tin! reducible# while assent is part of the endorsed authenticity.A> 6 would %im<est that spiritual ac:uiescence came to characterise the dis!33+rifl 3f drama!in!education in the ,-CBs and that the kind of dense#

,C 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt mystifying language illustrated abo(e played a ma/or part in eathcoteAs ascension. 6t helped to en(elop her with an aura of pedagogical magic which ser(ed both to deflect criticism and to reinforce her mystical status. Time and time again# the strident assenti(eness of the language used to describe eathcote and her work transforms potential analysis and explanation into simple expressions of allegiance. ealhcot!ites often sound like a nauseous# self!congratulatory group# but if affirmation is genuine it breeds that ?we!feclingA which our reductionist# mechanistic# techne!orientated society will slowly and ine(itably destroy if it is not co!operati(ely challenged ... 'orothy eathcote teaches people to dance with butterflies not fossili;e them.. By heroic .. . 'orothy refers to that le(el of experience wherein a person finds himself at one with the uni(ersal elements of existence# seeing himself suddenly not as an indi(idual with pri(ate ?worldlyA preoccupations# but as part of the mystery and magic of creation .. .C When the moment of knowing is born# 'orothy weighs and measures it# pronounces it fit# and then# most difficult and important of all# gi(es it back to the person who made and fought for it.This last example# which is taken from an extended midwifery metaphor# is particularly re(ealing# for it combines the image of the plain woman rolling up her slee(es to do the /ob# with that of the officiating priestess. 0s 0nn &eeley points out# with respect to this same passage# ?there was a time# after all# when jwitchU and jmidwifeU referred to the same personA.,B &eeley is understandably dis:uieted by the sexual politics of the analogy. owe(er# this synthesis is likely to remain attracti(e to a discipline which has his! torically seen itself as uni:uely e:uipped to lead children from the ordinary to the transcendent# from the ?real worldA of the classroom to an ?awesome awareness of uni(ersal truthsA.,, With the subse:uent need both to sub! stantiate and ad(ertise its metaphysic# the canonisation of a practitioner seemingly so specially able to con/ure such transfigurations is then but a small step. What follows is that casual utterance becomes inscribed as text# texts become sacred# and dissent is reducible to heresy. Where(er eathcote goes# she generates excitement and e(en adulation Z\cWZlRW lZnlRWYmW]]. &he emanates power. er power is like that of a medium, bringing into the present the distant in time or space# making it come ali(e in our consciousness through imagined group experience ... 0 spell has to be cast; rituals must be followed; conditions ha(e to be right; the uni(ersal inherent in this moment must be reali;ed# and sheAs witchlike in her control leading to this effect.,2 c 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians ,-

Keeping it in the family

&avin 'olton)s rise to prominence in the shadow of

eathcote allowed him to complement his mentor in significant ways# not least by his attempts to gi(e eathcoteAs highly intuiti(e methodology respectable intellectual form. 0s Seeley comments# 9eathcote)s

o!n ex#lanations of her !ork (de#end u#on a use of language !hich is idiosyncratic and not accessible to the traditional tools of academic criticism).,J Bolton# on
the other hand# apparently! able to ?play the academic gameA# was rapidly cast as drama!in!educationAs resident theoretician. &eeley also re(eals how eathcote was in(ariably constructed by the school drama mo(ement in con(entionally feminine terms 7?the midwife of creati(e knowingA8# while Bolton 7?the cool e(aluatorA8 was allowed to fulfil the expectations of the con(entionally masculine. Certainly#

in the archi(es of drama!in!education the names of 9eathcote and 'olton will remain difficult to separate# if for no other reason than that they will be remembered for ha(ing ?mothered and fatheredA the pedagogy upon which the reputation of school drama was once staked. 1or those who became committed to that pedagogy# howe(er# these two eminent practitioners arc more likely to be remembered familiarly as ?Dorothy and &avin)$
We 75a(in and 68 were discussing how we realise our own knowledge# and 6 said that 6 felt that 6 ?burrowed along like a mole in the darkA# occasionally coming up to look around for a brief spell# whereas 6 felt 5a(in flew o(er the terrain like an eagle seeing a large landscape and the patterns of it ...,E This extract from a piece by eathcote was subse:uently much used to differentiate between what were seen as the complementary attributes of the two progenitors. 6ts cosy ?Wind in the WillowsA :uality deli(ers a reassuring message to the offspring# who need little persuasion to respond in like manner ! ?please# 4agle and %ole# donAt apologise# donAt feel threatenedA. 6n the manner of families# 'orothyAs and 5a(inAs deflects external criticism and :uickly closes up against attack. There is another less happy theme in 5a(inAs talk which is concerned with ideological conflicts between 5a(in# %alcolm )oss and "ohn *ines. %y own feeling is that this conflict 7made ugly by the ful!iiiiiiiiloiy alliicks on 5a(in iArom()oss8 arises from the nature of the ftCidemic roles shared by all ihrrr.,J 2B

4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt ere# the disapprobatory use of %alcolm )ossAs surname heightens the sense of exclusion while at the same time reinforcing the collecti(e solidarity, of the family itself. 0s for "ohn 1ines# his loyalties are :uite clear: $ow when you ha(e had your hand slapped by someone as good and wise and noble as 5a(in the best course of action is to stuff it into your armpit and grimace a little# but :uietly in a corner ... &urely we should all re(erence what he has done and wait calmly but eagerly for the next episodeK,> The trouble with this mode of discourse is that it obscures the (ital distinction we must always make between utterance and uttercr if we are to attempt a constructi(e e(aluation of what is being said. The employment of first names# the a(uncular familiarity# the selecti(e use of critical /udgement# make it almost impossible to prise the text from the personality. 6n a blur of disciplinary defensi(eness# 5a(in becomes inseparable from 5a(inAs theories; to challenge the idea is to threaten the person. This tendency to conflate personality and agency is not" of course# confined to the world of school drama# but is a much more general feature of the twentieth!century consciousness# as many commentators ha(e noted. )ichard &ennett# for instance# makes the point that# as we are now prone to accept public exhibitions of authenticity for guarantees of political com! petence or incorruptibility# a charismatic political leader has no need to resort to demagogy to retain power. e can be warm# homey# and sweet; he can be sophisticated and debonair. But he will bind and blind people as surely as a demonic figure if he can focus them upon his tastes# what his wife is wearing in public# his lo(e of dogs ... What has grown out of the politics of personality begun in the last century is charisma as a force for stabili;ing ordinary political life.,A Thus# the charismatic leader is free to display political or intellectual incompetence# or to admit to ignorance in areas which must seriously challenge his or her credentials to be a leader# /ust so long as the heart is worn on the slee(e 7how often did wc hear )onald )eagan definiti(ely described as ?a nice guyAK8. The cult of personality which is ready to endorse all manner of actions and pronouncements on the grounds that they are ?authenticallyA felt by the protagonist# infuses drama!in!education# and has helped to hold its familial structure together. 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians 2,

Assaulting the ivory towers
4(er since drama teachers first mo(ed away the desks and chairs and asked the children to ?find a spaceA# educational drama has had ?doingA at the top of its methodological agenda. There

has long been an assumption that# if drama in school achie(ed nothing else# at least it released #u#ils from the conventional structures of teaching and

learning for !hich the traditional classroom layout !as such a stark meta#hor" and allo!ed a ne! #hysical freedom !ithin !hich the ex#ression of ideas and feelings might take #lace. 6n the early days ?doingA in this physical sense dominated the drama lesson to the exclusion of anything much else.QQQQQQQQQQQ
*upils who enter a drama lesson do not want to spend long periods of time locked in discussion. 0t first the class should consider suggestions :uickly# begin rehearsal and then discuss and rehearse simultaneously# otherwise a conflict of ideas and personalities de(elops within the groups and nothing is created. 1or 1airclough here# and for drama teachers like him in the ,->Bs and early ,-.Bs# so

long as pupils were purposefully engaged in the prescribed acti(ities# the criteria of Child 'rama were considered to be satisfactorily ful! filled. While the ,-CBs brought the legitimation of ?discussionA as a (alid
constituent of the new ?learning through drama processA# the legacy of ?doingA is still (ery e(ident among drama teachers. *hysical acti(ity is considered by many to be a supremely better way of resol(ing difficulties than mere intellection. This emphasis on ?doingK has allowed drama to be increasingly identified with those pupils less likely to reach high le(els of academic attainment.

Drama teachers have thus become institutionally as !ell as tem#eramentally associated !ith the lo!er ability range. This
allegiance has# in turn# led to a fiercely reductionist (iew of all forms of ?academic elitismA. Writers misguided enough to argue for a more intellectually rigorous approach to the teaching of drama are peremptorily lVR_WZ_RZW]] dismissed as those who ?would lead drama in education away from the classroom where it belongs and towards the slowly stagnating swamps of academiaA.,- <onothan =eeland)s cham! pioning of ?4agle and %oleA# whom he exhorts to ?write for the real audience !classroom teachers# not obscure academics with axes to grindA#2B reflects ihis same antagonism# as does this teacherAs spirited defence of cathcote: '. 66# o'orothy eathC3tcp constantly apologises for not ha(ing the iiil$WiT$ qI I he righl wordsO &he should nol ha)e to apologise . .. 0rt is
..·.·

4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt pr3Ceae. Creati(e struggle is inanite. 'ead lines for dissertations Create exactly that: :dead-lines; ++. 'onAt let these ?dead linesA rot on these pages !

resurrect them. Write or speak to me. Write or speak to each other. Write and speak to yourself# but abo(e all# do it affirmati(ely and trust your own intuition .. .2, 6t is worth noting that enthusiasm for simple sub/ecti(e experience has not pre(ented students of theories of dramatic pedagogy from arguing their case in the most con(oluted lcRZ\lRblRY]] ?academicA ways. Thus# many writers who had sprung to the defence of the idea that one can somehow sub/ecti(ely 1no9 9hat should 8e done ha(e themsel(es engaged in ob/ectifying pro/ects of one kind or another in defence of this same sub/ecti(ity. 4xamples are plentiful; rigure , is an extract from a piece entitled ?Three La(ers of %eaning in 'ramaA by an ex!student of eathcoteAs:

T'R(( )A*(R+ O, &(A%-%# -% DRA&A .OR)D
&T+'4$Tfl amU F jrou are;7T40C 4)

+C'OO)
Figure 1 Teacher, student and o8/ect7role form a triangle in 9hich e)ery 3erson as an = is related to the o8/ect7role, the :it;+ The diagram sho9s the 3rime elements of drama& t9o 3ersons interrelated to each other 8y their mutual interest in an o8/ect or a role 9hich is em8odying the theme or as3ects of it +++>> 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %ugglctonians 2= &uch an approach illustrates the highly selecti(e nature of drama!in! cducationAs attacks on theoretical discourse. Writing about school drama notoriously swings between extremes of obfuscation and honest nai(ety# so that a simple statement of innocent incomprehension can be held to be a :uite legitimate response when the intellectual going gets tough.2= Within the family# such candid declarations ser(e only to reinforce the authenticity of its fa(oured members. 0fter all# as <ohnson and >)=eill point out# did not 'orothy herself benefit from her lack of contact with contagious academeK &he ne(er trained as a teacher or taught as a full!time member of staff in a school# and accounts for what she calls her ?innocenceA of (ision and expression by the lack of early exposure to intellectual and academic models. 6t is partly this which gi(es her work its uni:ue fla(our . . #2E 3nce again# by demonstrating# howe(er briefly# their homely lack of academic ?pretensionA# their ?genuinenessA as ordinary# common!sense kinds of people# while implying at the same time that their practices could be ?scientificallyA (alidated if necessary# messengers and messages are /ointly! endorsed in the terms of the conceptual structures they themsel(es ha(e helped to build. 6n the chumminess of the conference# theoretical discourse is not so much understood as measured by its authorAs family status. 6f ?'orothyA chooses to use a language all of her own to describe her practice#

that is an indication of her uni:ue powers and our feeble comprehension. 1or =eelands# ?'orothyAs statements are not mystical ! itAs /ust that the academic# rigorous# ob/ecti(e# technical /argon .. . doesnAt always exactly express her intentions as an artistA.2=

The dilemma of a##raisal
This perception has not helped the de(elopment of coherent assessment procedures for drama in schools# particularly as the ma/or theorists of 7liama!in!cducalion ha(e themsel(es paid (ery little attention to how achie(ement in drama might be measured. 0t one time# of course# such maims were thought not to be the concern of educational practices which deiill willi llir intangible :ualities of natural creati(ity and self!expression. owe(er# in recent years the re:uirement for suitable e(aluati(e criteria linn become increasingly recognised; this has been no less the case in the mix lliiin in other areas of the curriculum# 4fforts that ha(e been made to

/

?ducation and Dramatic .rt
6brmulBtfl e(aluati(e schemes for educational drama strikingly re(eal the oldAs contradictions and paradoxes. 0s 'erek )owntree explains: 6fwc wish to disco(er the truth about an educational system# we must look into its assessment procedures ... ow are its purposes and intentions reali;edK To what extent arc the hopes and ideals# aims and ob/ecti(es professed by the system e(er truly percei(ed# (alued and stri(en for by those who make their way within itK The answers to such :uestions are to be found in what the system re:uires children to do in order to sur(i(e and prosper. The spirit and style of student assessment defines the de facto curriculum. ? We ha(e seen how &ladeAs conception of Child 'rama# with its criteria of ?sincerity and absorptionA# raised difficult :uestions about appraisal. These kinds of problems ha(e continued to beset drama!in!education as it has resolutely set its face away from theatrical practice and critical aesthetics. 6n the early days# this dilemma was sharply manifest in the arguments o(er the drama syllabuses of the Certificate of &econdary 4ducation 7C&48. Those teachers who had not re/ected the whole idea of assessment in drama out of hand tried agonisingly to e(ol(e means of testing ?in(ol(ementA# or the ?authenticity of responseA# or e(en ?de(elopmentA. 0 brief look at the assessment criteria of the first 5eneral Certificate of &econdary 4ducation 75C&48 syllabuses in drama re(eals similar confu! sions# this time inspired by the redesignation of school drama as a ?learning processA. The Leicestershire Mode <<< Drama, for example# redefines drama as ja problem sol(ing acti(ityA# and aims# ?to foster confidence in adopting a (iew to human problems# ideas and attitudesA# and ?to de(elop competencies met within socially interacti(e processesA.U

The lengths to which drama!in!education will sometimes go to exclude discussion of the theatre from its assessment criteria and the e(aluati(e incoherence that arises as a conse:uence are well exemplified in BoltonAs post!mortem on a well!documented workshop at the )i(erside &tudios in ,-.CO.O 0fter a scries of three one!and!a!:uarter!hour demonstration lessons Bolton reflects with some satisfaction on what had been achie(ed with the group of children: What do 6 think they had learntK ... trust; protecting; negotiating meaning; and containing. 6 claim that each of these is a worthwhile experience for me and the class to share. But more than that 6 would be satisfied if 6 could guarantee that they ha(e learned three (itally important things: ,8 a new sensing of dramatic form and a glimmer of what works in the dramatic process 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians 2J 28 at least a tentati(e grasp that drama is for understanding!this is its purpose =8 that this understanding is reached through finding an integrity of feeling. 6 would not expect that the children themsel(es could articulate these points. 6f indeed 6 ha(e planted these seeds then that class and 6 are ready to mo(e forward with leaps and bounds. 6 may ha(e achie(ed in three lessons 7three long consecuti(e lessons8 what it takes teachers with their one hour a week six months to achie(e ! and what those confined to thirty!fi(e minutes periods ha(e little chance of achie(ing.2C 6t is not necessary to pick o(er the bones of this workshop to ha(e (ery substantial reser(ations about this piece of appraisal. 1or one thing# while it might reasonably be said that the children had learnt to trust a specific person# or set of purported facts# 6 am unclear how ?trustA# or for that matter ?containingA or ?protectingA# can e(er be ac:uired in this generalised sense. 0lso# the three ?(itally important thingsA with which Bolton would express satisfaction seem to be excessi(ely modest outcomes# particularly as there is no expectation ?that the children themsel(es could articulate these pointsA. 0n unarticulated# ?tentati(e grasp that drama is for understandingA must be (ery difficult indeed to spot. 3ne is left with the impression that if this really is all that can come from such prolonged and concentrated educational drama work# then# as he rightly points out# what hope for the classroom teacherK We should be profoundly concerned about the paucity of these outcomes mid alarmed by the complacency with which they are offered. 6f drama teachers are being presented with these scarcely sustainable# minimal claims as a model of e(aluation# it is no wonder that their own more formal it. .sessmcnt schemes are often such a muddle. 0 recent book by $orah %organ and "uliana &axton# in which the authors ha(e attempted to construct a comprehensi(e system for teaching drama based on the ideas of eathcote and Bolton# unwittingly but (i(idly illustrates my point. The

'93k concludes with a labyrinthine grading scheme# part of which is repro! duced in 1igure 2. 6f we analyse the substance of what is being appraised here# from the first 693tion# ?What is to be e(aluatedA# there emerges a form of Caldwell CookAs DhSRIs conductA# concerning itself with the degree of compliance of the child with the 6tf+Cturc imposed by the teacher. The second section# ?What is to f8r GSiAkktd# 6ncorporates this h/dden agenda of ac:uiescence 7a higher &C3rC it awarded to the hoy who has submitted himself 7o the acti(ity
2> 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

'rama as a sub/ect 6mpro(isation: &itting!down drama 'ay 2
What is to 8e e)aluated 0ttendance: *unctuality: )espect for space and e:uipment: 7J8 )ules of the gameQ 7J8 following instructions: 7,B8 7,B8 Lance "omments ,B 2 -, u2 E Belongings spread around Chatting 5rudging Martyn ,B . J J Late againg "omments

omework: Total marks What is to 8e assessed Le(el of personal engagement: 4xpression of feeling: Work as process: %aintaining role:

7J8 7=J8

2 2.,

%essy /ournal

J =,

6mpeccable

CvwBx 0 L C!e0!

Barely engaged to Committing Bx 0 way with words *roduct!oriented 1rom the superficial to the real# e(en when we arc not watchingg When it suits him Thing 'oes not see this as a way of being jseen,# Bx Bx B

Committed )eal concern

Likes to feel safe

4nergy applied appropriately: 4xpressing in another mediium:

C C

0x Bx Thoughtful but dull

Figure ;

Teacher)s thinking about her evaluation@assessment of Aance and Bartyn;5

sufficiently energetically8 and attempts# once again# to grapple with drama! in!cducationAs longstanding preoccupation with the expression of ?true feel! ingsA. owe(er# while the authors are anxious to grade the genuineness of the feelings expressed# it is ne(er made clear how this can be reliably ascertained# particularly if a pupilAs high score in ?%aintaining roleA suggest more than fair competence in the skills of deception. The problem is# and it is a most serious one# that gi(en the progrcssi(isl 'orothy# 5a(in and the $ew %uggletonians 2.

legacy of drama!in!education together with its recent transmutation into pedagogy# it is difficult to see how the /umble of associated but too often contradictory teleological explanations can e(er produce schemes with much more coherence than this. 0s was :uickly disco(ered by the old C&4 Boards# in allocating marks to childrenAs drama# you can grade the le(el of a childAs co!operation with the creati(e enterprise# and you can grade their creati(e ability and their acting skills. Beyond that you are in the realm of metaphysical speculation. ow Bolton e(aluates ?containingA# for example# is difficult to imagine. $one of this should be mistaken as an argument for a set of practices prescribed by the exigencies of formal assessment. 6 ha(e simply applied )own treeAs proposal about finding the truth of an educational system through its appraisal structures# and concluded that in its efforts to formulate e(aluati(e schemes of one kind or another# drama!in!education has nowhere more completely exposed the serious weaknesses in its own conceptual apparatus. 6t would not be an o(er!simplification# for example# to say that the child who is ?good at dramaA in the scheme :uoted here# would be one who toes the line and appears to be sincere. e or she# in other words# who can successfully ta1e us in+ *aradoxically# we ha(e a prgrammc which has abandoned the culti(ation of )ousseauAs natural nobility in fa(our of the encouragement of the street!wise cut!and!thrust of effecti(eness and appearance.

The t!o !itnesses

+nlike earlier manifestations of drama!in!education# the new orthodoxy cast in eathcoteAs $ewcastle workshops was absorbed into the thinking and practice of school drama with an especial (igour. cathcotc and Bolton between them seemed able to inspire an astonishingly uncritical loyalty which in(ested in them a uni:ue# apparently indisputable# authority. )ather like the se(enteenth!
century %uggletonians# who put their sal(ation in the hands of "ohn )ee(e and Lodowick %uggleton# belie(ing them to be the ?two witnessesA of The (e)elation, substantial numbers of drama teachers in the ,-CBs seemed happy to forsake the discourse of the wider educational community in fa(our of the witness of ?'orothy and 5a(inA. The concluding passage of WagnerAs account of eathcoteAs teaching well illustrates that strange mixture of awe and whimsy which came to surround her performances: Learning to loach from 'orothy cathcotc is like dancing with a whirlwind# The symphony she hefcfl sweeps you along with a sense of 666 rhythm; %ill
you liu(tO (ery ide understanding of the steps your

2C 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

feet must take when her leadership is gone and you are left to dance alone. %y hope is that this book will spell out some of the steps so that you can start the dance; but the music you hear must be in your own soul.=B 1re:uent use of this kind of semi!magical imagery reinforced the e(angelic! al thrust of the new orthodoxy# wrapping eathcoteAs already powerful physical presence in a cloak of spirituality around which an increasingly beleaguered discipline could rally. 0s Christopher ill writes of the disillu! sionment which followed the collapse of the radical programmes of the 4nglish )e(olution: 6f anything was to be sal(aged from the wreckage of radical hopes# some legitimating force was re:uired. The %ugglctonians had the indisputable authority of the Two Witnesses. What could not be won by political means might be secured by di(ine assistance.=, +ndoubtedly# eathcotc and Bolton succeeded in pro(iding far more than a new methodology for the teaching of drama. Like )ee(e and %uggleton# they offered a wisdom that claimed its origins in a deep spiritual truth and a unifying (ision of humanity which absol(ed their followers from further moral or ideological speculation. owe(er# the dangers of the self!appro(ing system which drama!in! education engendered for itself during the ,-CBs# and of which eathcote and Bolton were the unchallenged ambassadors are# 6 hope# ob(ious. The in! tense personalisation of practice# combined with a mistrust of disinterested analysis# meant that it became almost impossible to challenge the premises upon which the practice was built. %eanwhile# without the checks and reassessments that genuine debate brings with it# the elders became more self!assured and less in touch with reality# gathering their disciples around them as a shield against an increasingly unsympathetic educational world. Like the disappointed %ugglctonians# and 1ifth %onarchists# and )anters and 'iggers of the se(enteenth!century# ?when the kingdom of Christ failed to arri(e# the faithful could retreat into their own communities and en/oy there much of the e:uality# comradeship and fraternity that the outside world denied themA.=2 &adly# as the ,-CBs came to an end the promised kingdom of drama!in!education must ha(e seemed as far off as e(er# paradise indefinitely postponed. The ,-CC 4ducation )eform 0ct heralded a (ery different educational en(ironment from that marked by its predecessor in ,-EE. 0fter a decade of dramatic hagiocracy too many ordinary drama teachers were to find themsel(es dangerously ill!prepared for the demands it would make upon them. C

The +etting: ($ents on the Pu0lic +tage
The !"#s settlement

The single!minded pursuit of classroom strategies# the struggle for a methodology of drama teaching# which marks the past ten or fifteen years of de(elopments in

educational drama# was based upon the belief that if ?drama as a learning medium)4 could be shown to be pedagogically effecti(e# then drama!in!education recast in this way would be able to /ustify a place for itself 7and its practitioners8 at the (ery core of the school curricu! lum.QQQQQQQQQ 6 shall suggest here# and in the following chapter# that the exclusive attention conse:uently #aid to theories of dramatic learning had in fact :uite the reverse effect" #laying a significant #art in drama)s relegation in the national curriculum of the 45DD ?ducation %eform .ct.2QQQQQQQQQQQQQ
The wider origins of this paradox lie in the shifting of the post!war ideological balance of political life in 4ngland# well under way by the mid! ,-.Bs# but largely ignored by those in positions of influence in the drama!in! education mo(ement. The latter# with their heads down amongst their methodologies# rarely looked up to consider the serious implications of these changes for a sub/ect discipline still with only a tenuous hold on the
timetable.

0s far as education is concerned# the ,->Bs can be recognised with hindsight as years marked by consensus politics. The Centre for Contemporary Cultural &tudies has called this general agreement o(er educational aims ?the li%"3s settlementA# seeing it as ?the product of a distincti(e alliance 3f three groups of forces: leading sections of the Labour *arty# the orga!uiQrd teaching profession# and certain key intellectuals in the new
lduonlion@rclfttcd academic disciplinesA.
Ill ftl>t" ihii ?pr3)lT& i(cA alliance spread more widely still# resting not

12
4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

only on the pragmatic socialism of 0nthony Crosland# but also on the non! conformity of his Tory opposite number. 4dward Boyle.E Both men presided o(er a period of educational expansion fuelled by popular demand. 'uring the ,->Bs education grew at a greater rate than any national enterprise except gas and electricity. 4ach year successi(ely greater numbers of children gained 5C4 \ and 0 le(els. By ,->= The )obbins )eport was warning of ?an educational emergencyA in higher education because of the effects of the post!war ?baby boomA.B 4ducation spending as a proportion of gross national product rose from =.2 per cent in ,-JJ to > per cent in ,->- 7a period co(ered by both Conser(ati(e and Labour go(ernments8# partly because of public demand and partly through a con(iction that Britain had to modernise its social and economic infrastructure in order to compete successfully in world markets. 5reater access to education at all le(els of society was a key element in this strategy. There was an expansion of further and higher education and a new commitment to the comprehensi(e school. Ways were sought to reduce barriers to opportunity for working!class children# traditionally inhibited by

the elitism of the uni(ersities and contained within the low expectations of the secondary!modem school. There was a perception by go(ernment# endorsed by $ewsom and other reports from within the education estab! lishment# that the young of the nation represented a key resource in a new! technological age# and that BritainAs economic future depended to a large extent upon that growing populationAs ability to li(e within and manage that new age. This ability could only be achie(ed# and later sustained# it was thought# by opening up educational opportunities right across the social spectrum. This# then# was the tide upon which drama!in!education found a secure anchorage. Concerned more with the processes of deli(ery than with the politics of pro(ision# the non!politicians in the settlement alliance 7the teachers and their allies in the uni(ersities8 saw the child!centred# de(elop! mental premises of the progressi(e mo(ement# of which school drama stood as such a prominent representati(e# as ideally placed to ser(e the new egalitarianism. 0mong the state agencies# too# there was percei(ed to be a need for children of different social classes to understand each other better# or# as a &chools Council document argued in ,->.# a re:uirement that education should aim ?to help students find within themsel(es the resources that alone can help them li(e at ease in the changing worldA.A The disman! tling of these cultural barriers would come# it was assumed# not as a result of political re(olution and reconstruction# but through the increase of awareness and understanding brought about by the exercise of the socio! psychological principles of progressi(e teaching methods. Child!centred models of classroom practice# it was thought# would help this process of
ad/ustment# particularly for that large group of pupils whom $ewsom had

3&i
4(ents on the *ublic &tage =,

identified as ha(ing abilities ?artificially depressed by en(ironmental and linguistic handicapsA.C Brian Way is thus perfectly in tune with his time when# in the first chapter of De)elo3ment through Drama, he declares that# &o far as is humanly possible# this book is concerned with the de(elopment of people# not with the de(elopment of drama ... 4ducation is concerned with indi(iduals; drama is concerned with the indi(iduality of indi(iduals# with the uni:ueness of each human essence .. . drama encourages originality and helps towards some fulfilment of personal aspiration. This emphasis on autonomous fulfilment was gi(en added impetus in the secondary sector because of the undoubtedly beneficial effect the new child! centred methods had on the daily guerilla warfare of the school. By allowing particularly ?difficultA pupils informal space to express opinions and debate their concerns# teachers often found the task of pedagogic inter(ention considerably eased.,B The exceedingly flimsy content boundaries of the drama lesson made drama!in!education a particularly suitable (ehicle for this kind of approach. 'rama teachers found themsel(es increasingly called to ser(ice courses directed towards the lower end of the ability range# with repertoires of trust exercises# group therapeutics and games.U

While for many teachers who can look back on this time it was indeed a kind ofAgolden ageA# the ,->Bs settlement and the progressi(ist ideas which flourished under its protection were the result more of a series of fortunate economic and political coincidences than of a sustainable ideological momentum. 0 period rich with curriculum initiati(es and methodological ad(ances# it was also one marked by political compromise and educational pragmatism. 3pportunities to alter radically the structure of the education system# by remo(ing the anomaly of a parallel pri(ate ser(ice# for example# or e(en by simply legislating away the lingering tri!partite system of gram! mar# technical and secondary!modern schools set up by the ,-EE 0ct# were either not taken by the ,->E!.B Labour 5o(ernment 7which after ,->> had a ninety!se(en seat ma/ority8# or only tardily embarked upon. The Labour *arty in power asked for no report on comprehensi(e education# for exam! ple# and seemed content to lea(e the problems of the new schools to the experts. &imilar caution characterised the introduction of the new Certificate of &econdary 4ducation 7C&48 in ,->J. While the new syllabuses ga(e teachers control o(er public examinations for the first time# and introduced Continuous assessment 3n R wide basis# the examination system itself# with 9C4 78 6c(i!6h remaining for the more able# reinforced the old grammarQ ?#i I 7.ndaiy ni ileiii ili(iiimii mill ini(r them an anomalous structural home
14
4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

within the comprehensi(e system. %any curriculum initiati(es 7such as 4uropean &tudies# for example8 perished as they tried to make headway within the tangle of historical compromises and (ested interests which for so long had plagued 4nglish education# and which no real efforts were made to displace. %eanwhile# the tendency of the teaching profession itself to o(erlook the material ambitions of parents for their children# and go(ernmental reluct! ance to become in(ol(ed with what 'a(id 4ccles once called ?the secret garden of the curriculumA# ser(ed to distance and e(en alienate the general public from educational affairs. The alienation was soon to be recognised and exploited# as a loose alliance of the political right sought to fill fhc policy (acuum and mobilise public concern.
$ew ideologues

Before the decade was o(er# the first of a series of polemical literary essays# the notorious Black *apers on education# had been published.,2 Tiewed by many teachers at the time as little more than an aberrant outburst from the extreme right# the writers who contributed to these documents ne(ertheless set out to challenge the premises upon which the educationalists of the ,->Bs had founded their strategies for egalitarian reform. By attempting to appeal# o(er the heads of the educational establishment and the political consensus which supported it# to the ?common senseAU of the man or woman in the street# contributors found that they could exploit widespread popular uncertainties. 6t was in the o(ert populism of this pro/ect 7and the model it was later to pro(ide for the 3ou/adiste ascendancy of the ,-CBs8# rather than in the presentation of a coherent alternati(e programme#

that its success lay. 0lso# it has to be said that the association in the minds of the press and the public of key elements of the ,->Bs settlement# such as the comprehensi(e school# mixed!ability classes# and progressi(e teaching methods# with an intellectual ?liberalA elite out of touch with the aspirations of ordinary people# was by no means an entirely mistaken one.,= The Black *aper writers mustered discontent around three distinct themes# namely standards# parents# and teaching methods. Cyril Burt# for example# claimed that ?attainment in the basic sub/ectsA had actually declined since the 1irst World War# and that /udged by ?tests applied and standardi;ed in ,-,=!,E# the a(erage attainments in reading# spelling# mechanical and problem arithmetic are now appreciably lower than they were JJ years agoA.,E BurtAs later 7subse:uently discredited8 findings# relating to inherited intelligence# pro(ed another popular theme among Blyok *aper contributors# many of whom were con(inced 7hat working!class
4(ents on the *ublic &tage ==

children were# on a(erage# innately less intelligent than their middle!class peers. By this account# de(ices such as comprehensi(e schools and mixed! ability teaching were an egalitarian illusion# doomed from the start in the face of genetic reality. 0t the root of this proposition lay a form of social 'arwinism similar to the competiti(e sur(i(alism fa(oured by right!wing economists. 0ccording to this (iew# it was natural# indeed desirable# that the intellectually able should climb on the backs of the weak. This (igorous# healthy process# it was argued# was being blocked by the cranky permissi(e! ness of ?progressi(eA teaching. *arents were central to the Black *aper pro/ect# and were to be enlisted in support of it once the amorphous sense of concern already identified had been amplified sufficiently into ?the crisis of educationA. The ?common senseA of the ?ordinary parentA was contrasted fa(ourably with the ?woolly! thinking progressi(ismA of the intellectual left. ere is )hodes Boyson 7then head of ighbury 5ro(e &chool8 arguing that parents wanted nothing more from the secondary!modern school than that it should emulate the grammar school with ?an attracti(e uniform# some cxclusi(eness of intake# and the creation of traditionA: ... parents see schools largely as places which train their sons and daughters for better /obs .. . secondary modern schools with progressi(e methods# rural science# much art and music and freedom of de(elopment endeared themsel(es to no!one other than the (aguely!idealistic# unworldly and le(itating types so well represented and influential amongst education officials and ad(isors.,= *ublic reser(ations about the unfamiliar teaching methods of progressi(ism were easy to exploit. Concrete e(idence played only a small part in this attack# which instead leant hea(ily on fears about discipline and control. The comprehensi(e school was deemed to ha(e made a significant contribution to the ?pop and drugA youth culture of the ,->Bs and ,-.Bs# while attempts on the part of teachers in the same schools to de(ise new strategies for the deli(ery of education were ridiculed as absurd and irresponsible. ... 6 know that the best comprehensi(e school heads ... will ha(e no truck with libertarian absurdities 7?child centredA education# free acti(ity# no rules#

no streaming# no examinations# no teaching oand therefore no learningp8 but there is enough e(idence to show that the Comprehensi(e outlook only too often in(ol(es ?progressi(eA concomi!tiinl # "nsi as the Labour *arty find the trades union mo(ement ha(e .ilwiiy$ <3ied its iiu umbrella ,B shelter cryplo!communists and fellow!I Li(elier@ 3f nil kinds# ,B ihe comprehensi(e platform attracts the iEEEE9EE99 =E 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt educational crank# anarchist# permissi(ist# sentimentalist as well as some really hard!faced politicians.,> The frustrated rage of 3etit-8ourgeois aspiration surfaces e(erywhere in the Black *apers relentlessly pitting itself against the e(ils of a +topian intellec! tualism. )esisting the ?anarchy and permissi(ismA of the comprehensi(e were the good old solid ?common senseA (alues of the grammar school# with its familiar 7although by no means always accurate8 images of discipline# formal teaching and academic achie(ement. There was no place here# it was argued# for the (ague idealism of the ?hippieA teacher# or for the ?thickU who would hold the class back#,A or for ?time!wasting pseudo!sub/ectsA like social studies or drama. The populist appeal of the grammar school was that# unlike pri(ate education# its ?excellenceA was a(ailable to all. While the Black *apers and the associated responses were at the time on the whole ignored by teachers# the speech which *rime %inister "ames Callaghan deli(ered at )uskin College in 3ctober ,-.># at the launch of the Labour 5o(ernmentAs ?5reat 'ebateA on education# signalled to many that the ,->Bs settlement was already a matter for the history books. 6n fact# the speech marked the end of a long post!war period of educational expansion# and began a process of go(ernmental reassessment and economic contrac! tion# in which the teaching profession# and those academics most associated with it# were to become increasingly marginal to the creation and imple! mentation of education policy. 6n his speech# Callaghan laid down the parameters of the debate in a series of :uestions relating to the ?real worldA to which he was in no doubt the nationAs education ser(ice must perforce adapt: ! Let me repeat some of the fields that need study because they cause concern. There are the methods and aims of informal instruction; the strong case for the so!called core curriculum of basic knowledge; next# what is the proper way of monitoring the use of resources in order to maintain a proper national standard of performance; then there is the role of the inspectorate in relation to national standards; and there is a need to impro(e relations between industry and education.,C 1rom the mid!,-.Bs onwards# ad(ocates of progressi(e education were to find themsel(es increasingly on the defensi(e in educational policy!making at all le(els. 6n this respect# it should be remembered that de(elopments in drama!in!education after this time 7and that includes all the ma/or writings

of eathcote and Bolton8 must be set against a background of a broken consensus# and within a political and economic climate fast changing to 4(ents on the *ublic &tage =J meet the concerns which had been so effecti(ely articulated by Cox and 'yson and their fellow Black *aper contributors in ,->-. zo longer can it be accepted that progressi(ism and comprehensi(e schemes are necessarily right# or that the future necessarily lies with them. The Black *aper has encouraged parents# teachers# %.*.s to speak out on the present day abuses in education. There are many signs that the trend is now back to more balanced and tried (iews ,-

Anything you can do
These ?balanced and tried (iewsA were much in e(idence in the Labour 5o(ernmentAs 5reen *aper# Educaiion in @chools, published in "uly ,-... 6t contained# for example# the suggestion that there should be national agree! ment on curriculum content# with a core of essential sub/ects: ... it is clear that the time has come to try to establish generally accepted principles for the composition of the secondary curriculum for all pupils . .. there is a need to in(estigate the part which might be played by a ?protectedA or ?coreA element of the curriculum common to all schools. Education in @chools also urged the 'epartment of 4ducation and &cience to be less reticent about inter(ening in matters traditionally left to the ?professionalsA: 6t would not be compatible with the duties of the &ecretaries of &tate ... or with their accountability to *arliament# to abdicate from leadership on educational issues which ha(e become a matter of li(ely public concern. There was to be a greater in(ol(ement of the commercial sector in policy committees; a core curriculum should be able to ?offer reassurances to employersA as well as to teachers and parents. 0bo(e all# schools were to be. di(erted from the egalitarian pursuit of that legacy of )enaissance human! FG+F+" the well!rounded citi;en# to ?education for in(estment# education for efficiencyA#22 or in other words# to the preparation of pupils for an effecti(e place in the ser(ice of the economy. 0midst all this concern for economic rele(ance# it should be remembered int thd relationship between a( nationAs economic performance and its 7duration eynlein remains unpin(cn; sunnO economists ha(e e(en argued => 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt that education policy has no appreciable effect whate(er on the operation of the economy.2= $e(ertheless# from the mid!,-.Bs# it was against predictions of economic demand that education policy was increasingly measured. This necessarily entailed attacks on the institutions within the ser(ice most identified with the old progressi(e ideal. 6n ,-..# for example# the &chools Council was forced to change its constitution to reduce the representation of

teachers. 4(en the 'epartment of 4ducation and &cience itself was not considered sufficiently free from the taint of the ,->Bs settlement. 1rom its creation in ,-.E# the %anpower &er(ices Commission 7%&C8 7directly answerable to the &ecretary of &tate for 4mployment8 became an agency of growing importance in the deli(ery of education policy. The implications of the new utilitarianism for sub/ects like drama which had floated into the curriculum on a tide of progressi(e ideas were potentially (ery gra(e. By the early ,-CBs there is e(idence of attempts from within the field to reach an accommodation with the changing political climate. 6ndeed# it is possible that the growing ad(ocacy of eathcoteAs theories of dramatic pedagogy could be interpreted as a generalised# almost subliminal# acknow! ledgement of the changing political context. The reinstatement of the teacher as the key moti(ating figure in the lesson# for example# which was being widely ad(ertised as the model for good practice by the ,-CBs# could be interpreted as an attempt to disassociate educational drama from what Cox and 'yson had called the ?excesses of laisseA-faire permissi(ismA with which it had for long been identified. The coloured lights and noisy disorder of the ,->Bs drama lesson must surely ha(e embodied all that the new idealogues most mistrusted and sought to eradicate. *aradoxically# it was the influence of the %&C and its associated enterprises which was to offer educational drama a role within the new ?realismA. Through the %&C# the 5o(ernment sought to by!pass the established structures of the old consensus and the teachers who still subscribed to its ideals. There was a concerted attempt not simply to ad/ust the balance of the post!sixtcen curriculum# but to inculcate young people# particularly working!class young people# with the (alues# attitudes and disciplines appropriate for a shrinking labour market. Thus# taking a priority o(er training in specific trades# was the ac:uisition of general social dispositions suitable lor members of the new ?flexibleA work force# a menu of what came to be euphemistically known as ?life and social skillsA# or simply# ?life skillsA. Life skills mean problem!sol(ing beha(iours appropriately and responsibly used in the management of personal affairs. A33ro3riate use re:uires an indi(idual to adapt the beha(iours to time and place. <tr07innsililr use re:uires maturity# or accountability. 0nd as beha(iours used in 6 he management of 3ersonal affairs, life skills apply to fi(e areas of 4(ents on the *ublic &tage =. life responsibility identified as self# family# leisure# community and /ob.2E 0mong the drama!in!education community# fa(ourable readings of this agenda were :uick to interpret it as offering opportunities for the licensed maintenance of the child!centred premises of progressi(ism. 1or many drama teachers# the presence of words like ?appropriateA# ?personalA and ?self was enough to signify an identification with the (alues of indi(idual de(elopment and awareness to which they could happily subscribe. By then they had at their disposal a set of dramatic practices sufficiently morally emasculated for :uestions about the nature of the indi(idual de(elopment and awareness not to arise. 0s a conse:uence# the ?life skillsA pro/ect had not

been long in schools before aggrie(ed drama specialists were protesting that its tutors and organisers were poaching on their methodological territory# as this letter indicates: 0nyone au-fail with the aims and acti(ities of 4ducational 'rama will of course realise that this ?newA area 7Life skills8 is in fact based on these same aims and ob/ecti(es eg. social awareness# confidence# ability to reason etc. using role!play# simulations and discussion groups ... we as drama teachers ha(e been ?teachingA these ?lifcskillsA now for many years ... 6 feel the ordinary drama teacher is now finding that his specialised field is in fact being ?taken o(erA by (arious members of the profession# who 6 presume feel :ualified and confident enough to engage in these acti(ities after one or two training weekends.U" 3ther practitioners began to declare themsel(es ready and able to participate in the ?life skillsA mo(ement. 6n ,-C=# for example# <athy "oyce# contributing to a series of articles entitled ?'rama and the Lifeskills TrendA 7which included a piece by the 'irector of +nderstanding British 6ndustry8 saw school drama techni:ues being used to look at ?different strategies for beha(iour# coping# sur(i(ing or succeedingA.2fi 6n similar (ein# 'a(id %or! ton# 0d(iser for 'rama in Leeds# predicted that in future society would ?need an increasingly (ersatile workforce able to respond to rapidly chang! ing needsA# and that drama would ha(e a significant part to play in de(eloping the ?self!reliance and small!scale entrepreneurial skills that will allow young people to create workA.@!? The following year# the editor of London Drama was worried that more energy might be spent ?defending drama as a sub/ect than in positi(ely examining the vims and ob/ecti(es of the new \\RhV{{A#2B while a contributor to the same /ournal urged teachers to face up • CD 6 , VR RRmRRR,R,,R B ? i t 66

?ducation and Dramatic .rt
to the fact that ?not only youngsters but professional adults also must be prepared to adapt to the demands of the changed market placeA: ... if you want to sur(i(e in the new regime you will ha(e to start teaching youngsters the self presentation skills in(ol(ed in con(incing an employer of their worth# of dealing with irate customers# or e(en how to sell encyclopedias.26t is clear that ha(ing identified a place as a ser(ice agency in the less amenable post!)uskin world of education# there were plenty of drama specialists who lost little sleep while taking what opportunities arose to market their practices across a whole range of training schemes and (oca! tional initiati(es. 'a(id 'a(isAs was almost a lone (oice warning against the indiscriminate embrace of ?life skillsA. Tn a fiery article he castigated the ?deferenceA which he saw ?at the centre of %&C social and life skills coursesA# and which# in his (iew# characterised the ?hidden curriculum of society at largeA.

6t aims to socialise young people in an ?acceptableA way# i.e. it programmes them to accept and deal with unemployment under the guise of preparing them for employment ... there is no place for drama on schemes which help prepare youth to sur(i(e under capitalism as unemployed indi(iduals# who will not cause trouble ... 6 think educators should be opposed to all %&C courses# particularly rT&# and campaign against them through their union organisations and should not be in(ol(ed with using ?dramaA orole!playp for deference.=B owe(er# as we shall sec# the conceptual structures of drama!in!education had no means of taking this# or any other prognosis based on political or cultural premises# onboard. *rogressi(ism itself lacked any political or historical dimension# and drama teachers schooled in that tradition were too used to limiting their methodological (ision to the inner world of sensation and feeling to be able to grasp the implications of these new realities in significant numbers. 0nd after all# had not ?'orothyA herself in(ol(ed her post!graduate students in industrial management training coursesK +nfortunately# history was not to reward kindly the simple opportunism which turned a deaf ear to 'a(isAs counsel and instead sought to locate drama!in!education in the programmes of the new educational ascendancy.

$rama and the struggle for the arts
The sad fact is that all the arts ha(e been (ictims of this ascendancy# which#
in a scries of measures culminating in the ,-CC 4ducation %efrom 0ct# has

4(ents on the *ublic &tage =systematically set out to make the fantasies of the Black *aper writers a reality. The historical association of the arts in schools with unregulated self!expression has not endeared them to their new political masters. owe(er# while each art form has struggled in its own way with :uestions of legitimacy in the post!)uskin world# (isual art# poetry# music and dance in education ha(e not abandoned their aesthetic function for generalised pedagogic ends to :uite the same extent that drama has sought to do. Their fight has been instead to lay the ghosts of the ,->Bs and to establish a public consciousness of the intrinsic (alue of the arts in education. 6t was in this context that in ,-C2 the Calouste 5ulbenkian 1oundation published a comprehensi(e and carefully argued case for the arts which openly addressed the scepticism of their detractors in a language marked by its clarity and accessibility# and by the absence of /argon.=, 4(er since its appearance# The Arts in @chools has pro(ided an in(aluable reference point for arts workers concerned with education and for teachers in(ol(ed in the arts. 6ts usefulness lies not only in the arguments it proposes# but in the conceptual unity it pro(ides across all sectors of arts pro(ision# offering a language which 0rts Council officers can share with professional educators# for instance. The establishment of this commonality of discourse has been a crucial first step in the struggle for arts education. 4arly on in the book# its authors :uote from an editorial in The Times Educalional @u33lement which succinctly expresses the underlying theme of the whole report:

0rt in all its forms has been since time immemorial the means by which humans keep up their collecti(e spirits and make sense of each other and their world. 0 human and intelligently concei(ed arts education# shading off in a medley of other directions while retaining its own inalienable character# is something whose (alue only the bigoted or the (ery stupid could deny.=2 6t must be gratifying to the reportAs authors that subse:uently no Local 4ducation 0uthority or 'epartment of 4ducation and &cience curriculum statement has failed in some measure to take account of the aesthetic field. 6n all ma/or public reports on what should be taught in out schools# there has been a tacit but :uite consistent acceptance of the (iew expressed in The Arts in @chools that the arts ?are absolutely worthwhile spending time on for the sake of &atisfactions that are intrinsic to themA.== ul ihcn# only a year after CallaghanAs )uskin appeal for industrial rele(ance8 er %a/estyAs 6nspectors were recommending that ?the aesthe!iii #IIiR creati(eA should be considered as one of eight ?essential areas of experienceA within the curriculumg EB 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt We see the curriculum to be concerned with introducing pupils during the period of compulsory schooling to certain essential areas of e03erience+ They are listed below in alphabetical order so that no order oi importance may be inferred: in our (iew they are e:ually important. The aesthetic and the creati(e The ethical The linguistic The mathematical The physical The scientific The social and political The spiritual. 0 similar commitment is well illustrated by the acceptance by the 6nner London 4ducation 0uthority in ,-CE of the argrea(es Committee report. <m3ro)ing @econdary @chools+ argrea(es proposed six essential areas in the fourth! and fifth!year core curriculum# of which the ?aestheticA was one. ... the creati(e arts should be grouped together# either as a constrained option from which e(ery pupil must select at least one aesthetic sub/ect# or as a combinedQintegrated course which contains at least two sub/ects . . . this creati(e# aesthetic potential cannot be allowed to go untapped.== 0ll through this period the place of the arts continued to be officially acknowledged. 6n the ,-CJ White *aper# Better @chools, along with eight other areas the &ecretary of &tate for 4ducation recommended that ?the content of the primary curriculumA should ?introduce pupils to a range ot acti(ities in the artsA. e considered there to be ?wide agreementA that ?during the first three secondary years the curriculum should continue to be largely common to all pupilsA# and that this principle should also apply ?to

aesthetic sub/ects# where all pupils should study o(er the three years# music# art and drama on a worthwhile scaleA. 4(en as the ,-C. Conser(ati(e 5o(ernment was preparing its education legislation# 0ngela )umbold# %inister of &tate for 4ducation and &cience# repeated this commitment to aesthetic education: 4ducation in the 0rts is a fundamental part of our educational proposals for the curriculum. Without it we would be allowing our children to ha(e missed a huge area of enrichment during their years in school# and an essential preparation for all that lies before them!in their adult life.=. 4(ents on the *ublic &tage E, 'espite all these encouraging noises# howe(er# in reality the arts remained a low priority. *opular wisdom now fa(oured the technological and the (ocational o(er the expressi(e and de(elopmental when it came to the allocation of scarce resources. 0bo(e all# perhaps# e(en in schools where drama# music# dance and (isual art all continued to flourish# it was the idea of the arts that was felt to be under(alued. There was an acute consciousness among arts teachers that they were li(ing and working in a culture which was generally ill!disposed towards the kinds of sensiti(ities they were concerned to foster and sustain. The ,-CC 4ducation )eform Bill appeared to confirm their worst fears. The exclusion of certain specific# art forms ! drama# dance# media studies and film ^ from the list of foundation sub/ects prescribed by the Bill led to extensi(e lobbying to replace the words ?art and musicA simply with ?the artsA. 6t was widely assumed by the arts education community at the time that a combination of carelessness and ignorance# together with Conser(a! ti(e *arty nostalgia for grammar schools# had dictated that 0rt and %usic should stand as the sole representati(es of the aesthetic field.=C While the failure of the ,-CC $ational Curriculum to enshrine in legislation the recommendations of Better @chools 7notwithstanding repeated reference to them8 with respect to the arts was a serious blow to the de(elopment of a coherent aesthetic curriculum for schools# it has to be said that di(isions within the arts community itself had played no small part in this hierarchical fragmentation. There is no doubt in my mind that drama!in!educationAs public reluctance to identify unambiguously with the arts curriculum contributed in no small measure to its exclusion from the list of prescribed sub/ects. To curious outsiders# the distinctions so forcibly made by some drama teachers between their drama and that going on in the theatre down the road# for instance# remained less than comprehensible. The unhappy truth is that the internal logic of its own aims and practices conspired with history to exclude school drama from the (ery curriculum it once sought to colonise. The failure of its most public ad(ocates to appreci! ate the implications of political change was parallelled by an opportunism on the part of many practitioners who preferred to embrace whate(er new initiati(e seemed to offer the chance of short!term sur(i(al# rather than to face up to the challenge of uncomfortable but long o(erdue re!e(aluations. The narrow sectarianism of its methodologies# together with a lack of

curiosity concerning the intellectual or artistic world beyond its own |Aer( limited bibliography# led educational drama blindly yet remorselessly for! ward out of the sub/ect!based curriculum and into the wilderness. k M H

Dramatic Tension: 5arricades and 5ewilderment
The situation of our time &urrounds us like a baffling crime. 7W. . 0uden# ,-EB.8,

%eaction and intervention in the !&#s
The relegation of the teaching profession to the margins of policy!making in the ,-CBs was a further manifestation of the pressure to integrate education with the management of the economy. &chool teachers# all too easily associ! ated in the public mind with permissi(e# (aguely leftist thinking and indiscipline# were easy scapegoats when the rigorous imposition of a new enterprise culture began to re|Aeal the countryAs industrial and commercial shortcomings. The perception that the teaching profession itself bore some of the blame for these shortcomings and that it had as a conse:uence disinherited itself from the processes of educational policy!making# seemed to bear out the arguments of the Black *aper contributors# and led to increasing direct go(ernmental inter(ention in educational affairs. 'uring the ,-CBs# the Conser(ati(e administration sought to impose on teachers an unprecedented number of new and highly demanding initiati(es. 6n ,-CE# the &ecretaryA of &tate for 4ducation# &ir <eith "oseph# announced the introduction of a single system of examinations at sixteen!plus# the 5eneral Certificate of &econdary 4ducation 75C&48# to take effect from ,-CC. 'espite industrial action in schools 7against financial cut!backs8 which resulted in a boycott by teachers of preparation for the new examina! tions# the go(ernment ignored nationwide teacher opposition to its timetable for the 5C&4 and pressed ahead. 6n the same year# the White *aper# Training for Co8s, announced that one!:uarter of the 5o(ernmentAs funding of non!ad(anced further education 7$0148 would in future be reallocated to the %&C. This would enable it ?to purchase a more significant propor! Barricades and Bewilderment E= tion of work!related non!ad(anced further education pro(ided by local education authoritiesA.2 %eanwhile# the expanding Technical and Tocational 4ducation 6nitiati(e 7TT468= 7funded with o(er }, billion from the %&C8 further reflected the 5o(ernmentAs emphasis on skills training and its mistrust of local education authorities. 0lthough for a time the TT46 released unprecedented (olumes of cash to consortia institutions# its opera! tion placed additional responsibilities for planning and deli(ery onto an already o(erstretched teaching force. 0s )eid and olt remind us# this ?proliferation of new curriculaA for the fourteen to eighteen age range led to segmentation# duplication and confusion:

... e(en if a common institution were proposed to house all these offerings# it would still be hard to raise :uestions about the aims of education for the age!group as a whole# while these sub!groups continued to follow distincti(e curricula representing competing rather than complementary (ersions of what education should be about.E owe(er# the introduction of the ,-CC 4ducation )eform Bill into *arlia! ment# with its proposals for a national curriculum# ?opting!outA schools and the abolition of the 6nner London 4ducation 0uthority# threatened to compound rather than alle(iate these problems. &imultaneously# The Black )eport on assessment and testing 7T50T8 seemed set to make still further demands of teachers in terms of time and co!operation.= The indication contained in the )eport of further ma/or ad/ustments to the sixteen!plus assessment system at a time when the difficulties accompanying prepara! tions for the 5C&4 had left teachers doubting the ability of the rapidly cobbled!up examination boards to cope# and while they themsel(es were sweating to complete unfamiliar grade sheets and profiles for the new examination# ser(ed to alienate the teaching profession still further from a ma/or piece of education legislation about which it had ne(er been seriously consulted. The 0ssistant %asters and %istresses 0ssociation claimed at this time that staff were ?being pushed to breaking pointA by go(ernment initiati(es which were being introduced only ?at tremendous cost to indi! (idual teachersA#,A while a report in "une ,-CC from the igh &tress 3ccupa! tions Working *arty of the ealth 4ducation 0uthority 7the go(ernmentAs own ?health watchdogA8 disclosed that teachers were not only ?(ulnerable to ma/or shifts in philosophy and policy introduced by successi(e go(ern! mentsA but that they were ?sometimes accused of failing to do something in one circumstance and then attacked for doing the same thing in anotherA.A WI ihc same time# cuts in expenditure on education# often effected through ccntriilly imposed restrictions on lwcal go(ernment spending in the areas of <iratr/il 7lepri(alioii# ser(ed further to demoralise the teaching force. By the jU 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

3riid of +l> ,-CBs# many teachers# particularly in the inner cities# were facing larger classes yet could rely upon far less support. 4ffecti(e teacher response to all this pro(ed extremely difficult to organise. *artly# the lingering nostalgia for ?those good old daysA of the popular imagination# when ?teachers really were teachers# well!lo(ed# well!hated# stern# gentle# telling you what# not asking what you want# sticking to the =)s# and not getting mixed up in all this difficult stuff where thereAs no right answerA# made it almost impossible for teachersA organisations to mount a successful public defence of practices e(ol(ed in the ,->Bs and ,-.Bs. 0lso# teachers were themsel(es politically deeply di(ided. While some unions took selecti(e strike action in support of better pay and conditions# others campaigned for the retention of corporal punishment 7it should not be forgotten that in the 5eneral 4lection of ,-C=# nearly half the teaching force had (oted Conser(ati(e-8. This# then# was the battleground upon which drama!in!education had to make its stand. 6t was amidst the daily skirmishes of classroom and staff!

meeting# rather than in the rarefied ambience of the demonstration lesson# that the real battle for school drama would ha(e to be fought.

'ewilderment and ac(uiescence
In ,-.J# 'a(id &elf had described gi(ing a demonstration lesson in front of some students in a ?badA comprehensi(e# where he had been completely unprepared for the ?shambles that ensuedA. alfway through the second weekAs lesson# in which there had been further chaos and in which e(ery group impro(isation had degenerated into brawling 8et9een groups# 6 brought the class together and said a few :uiet words about discipline ... 3n the bus back to college# one student was worried. ?With all respectA he asked# ?arenAt you afraid you might ha(e repressed their natural spontaneityKA.,B Twel(e years later# a young drama teacher wrote this about his experiences as a probationer in an 4ast London comprehensi(e school: Truancy was high 7teachers as well as pupils8 and the ner(ous breakdowns among staff were many. The tension that a new teacher gets when heQshe enters the classroom for the first time ne(er goes away ... 3n my first day 6 was pelted with stones# told to ?fuck off and the Barricades and Bewilderment EJ nicest thing that was said to me was# ?rou must be the new fucking poofter drama teacherA. ? $o teacher would doubt that there are times when *eter &ladeAs confident assertion that school drama is ?a (irile and exciting experience# in which the teacherAs task is that of a lo(ing allyA,2 offers us a less than ade:uate account of the realities of the drama classroom. The pastoral idyll of progressi(ism can sometimes seem a long way off from the battered corridors of the inner! city school where children are by no means always willing to suspend their disbelief. *art of the trouble is# that while dislike of most other sub/ects is generally accompanied by a grudging acceptance by pupils of their legitimacy# children who fail to get en/oyment from the drama lesson really do not sec the point of it. +nlike colleagues in &cience or istory# the drama teacher has been di(ested of any reassuring body of ?importantA knowledge to /ustify his or her presence in the timetable# and reference to the sub/ectAs expansi(e pedagogic claims can sound pompous and hollow amid the hubbub of the drama class. 0fter all# a child might not unreasonably reply# if drama is such a profound embodiment of all that is desirable in education# why isnAt it taught beyond the third yearK When faced with it# teachers ha(e reacted in different ways to manifesta! tions of this apparently intractable antipathy. &ome so!called drama classes ha(e become general discussion sessions# the teacher knowing that only by abandoning the ?threatA of ha(ing to act something# can any sense of focus be achie(ed. 6n others# and for similar reasons# teachers ha(e fallen back upon popular menus of games and exercises in order to keep ?difficultA classes occupied until the life!sa(ing bell.,= owe(er# while games can Certainly be useful teaching aids# their unselecti(e use simply ser(es to reinforce childrenAs suspicions about dramaAs legitimacy as a sub/ect# and to

set up expectations of its practices as indistinguishable from play and demanding of the same forms of immediate gratification. 0t the same time# it has to be acknowledged that teaching in an institution is often wearisome and repetiti(e# that children can be fractious and unpleasant# and that the creaii(e stimulation which they ha(e continuously to in/ect into the success! ful drama lesson makes :uite uni:ue demands on drama teachersA imagina! tion and energies 7see# once more# 0ppendix 08. 0s pressures on teachers build up# the temptation to accept and e(en defend the (alidity of discus! sions and games under the accommodating umbrella of drama becomes less riisy to resist. cs llir same time# of course# it has to be said that thousands of young people .U iss the country look forward to their drama lessons and clearly find thrill slitiiiilating and cn/oyable/(also# that most drama teachers work • hi

?ducation and Dramatic .rt
well beyond the Call of duty to achie(e this. $e(ertheless# although some hftV> certainly managed to inco:/orate elements of the new methodologies into their teaching# there does appear to be a disturbing gap between the recei(ed wisdom of the field as broadcast in the literature and the actual experience# fa(ourable and unfa(ourable# of the a(erage school drama class. 4(en in the ,-.Bs# %argaret Wool ton recognised that many teachers ?found it almost impossible to reconcile abstract ideals with the practical restrictions of time# space and the school curriculumA.,E Throughout the ,-CBs# for example# Bolton and eathcote were notably silent on the fundamental matter of accommodating their dramatic pedagogy to the bi! weekly fifty!minute drama lesson. ow was the much!(aunted ?moment of aweA to be achie(ed to the accompanying clatter of the school kitchen behind the partitionK &imilarly# they ad(anced no strategies for the de(elop! ment of 5C&4 syllabuses or for responding to the performing arts courses in the TT46. The paradox lies not in the omission itself 7we all draw up our own agendas8 but in the fact that despite it# as we saw in Chapter 2# letters in the /ournals from the faithful continued to e(ince an unproblema!tic e:uation between the ideas of ?5a(in and 'orothyA and the experience of the 3rdinary teacherA. Contributors rarely paused to examine or :uestion the fundamental tenets of the ?learning through drama processA# either with respect to their intellectual coherence or to their suitability for the class! rooms of the ,-CBs. 6nstead# two ideologically opposed camps arose to champion the cause of dramatic pedagogy. 3ne. as we ha(e noted# saw it as a way of legitimating drama within the new (ocationalism; the other# by contrast# sought to politicise the methodologies and press them into the ser(ice of re(olutionary!politics. 1or those anxious to preser(e their forms of practice by seeking an accommodation with the times# drama!in!educatinAs problems were per! cei(ed to be largely those of marketing# to be resol(ed by more resolute demonstrations of educational dramaAs effecti(eness to a new generation of currieulum managers. By and large they continued to base their case upon

forms of dramatic pedagogy which could at best expect a place as a low! status ser(icing agency for the new curriculum. 4(en as the 4ducation )eform 0ct became law in ,-CC# 5eoff )eadman in a piece entitled ?'rama in the %arket *laceKA was still arguing that dramaAs exclusion from the $ational Curriculum could be laid at the door of communication failure. 0fter all# he pointed out# was not role!play widely recognised in the world outside the classroomK 6t is used extensi(ely in 6ndustrial %anagement Training; it features regularly in counselling situations for professional care workers: it is Barricades and Bewilderment E. recognised as an effecti(e tool for people to explore their personal problems# and it ser(es a whole host of uses when used to simulate real!life situations and experiences. 0ll of which seems to indicate that 'rama should be a central part of the present 5o(ernmentAs plans.,= The ad(ocacy of programmes of this kind illustrates how far down the line towards utility status the commitment to dramatic pedagogy has led us. There has been a :uiet disengagement from many of the proud dissenting (alues of progressi(ism and a corresponding shift towards forms of effecti(eness which are untroubled by principle or position. 6n a sense# drama has cast itself as the ?rosserA ughes of the curriculum; no /ob is too difficult or inappropriate so long as it if a /ob.,> *erhaps we need to ask if this is really how we want to sec oursel(es# or if there are not# after all# certain principles demanded of us as teachers of the art of drama which will not so easily and opportunistically succumb to the pressures of the market.

Calls to the barricades) *reire+ 'oal and the radical left
'eeply opposed to any idea of accommodation# on the other hand# was a loose# often highly factionalised# alliance of teachers on the political left.

5rouped around concern o(er issues of class# gender and race# and a commitment to the idea of education as ?empowermentA# its members expressed their opposition to go(ernment policies with a rare degree of analytical sophistication.QQQQ 6ncreasingly# during the ,-CBs# associated with the left radicalism of the Theatre!in!4ducation mo(ement#,A this alliance sought to #ress the dramatic #edagogy of 9eathcote and 'olton into the service of revolutionary social change$@@@@@ uuuuuuIn short" they believed that its change revelatory #rocesses enabled young #eo#le to see" understand and challenge the (ob ective) structures of #olitical o##ression$@@@@uuuuuu
1or the most committed#

9eathcote)s ?uni(ersalsA became

transformed from (ague generalisations about

the human condition into ?an expression of confidence in the kno!ability of the !orld). 6n this appropriation eathcote was seen as using drama (to #roduce kno!ledge in young #eo#le)# that is to say real# une:ui(ocal m\P\Y[mWP_\Y WPWm~RclZ_\Y# ob ective kno!ledge of the !orld as it actually" indis#utably# QQQQ
is+ 1rom such a perspecti(e# to suggest that there might be shades of grey between the correct and the incorrect could be dismissed as# unforgi(ably# ?the standpoint of one who does not accept the knowability of thingsA.,C 1oi me# the BlientT olAlhr mii+cr is that we arc li(ing in a decadent rnpholiteg I iillmiA which i@ mo(ing lU e(er higher state control in all EC 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt walks of life# and which raises the (ery distinct threat of a nuclear holocaust in a final bid to perpetuate its existence .. . 'rama# on the other hand# working as art# would search out the truth in any particular situation and strengthen those participants in the struggle not to accept life as an ob/ect but to take up the challenge to become a sub/ect.2B The stridency of this uncompromising appeal for unlimited self! determination stands in marked contradistinction to the wistful utopianism we ha(e seen up until now. 6n ,-CE the chair of the $ational 0ssociation 7or

the Teaching of 'rama 7$0T'8 accused drama teachers of ha(ing too much ?tolerance of an ideology which played right into the hands of the present philistine# monetarist go(ernment which has brought us to the (ery edge of extinctionA# while in ,-C># and in the same /ournal# "im Clark faced his fellow members with a series of forthright# rhetorical :uestions: 6s the system of which we are part too strong and cle(er for usK 'o the powers that be /ust let us think weAre different while actually absorbing us into their realityK ... we need to be positi(e about our achie(ements. B+T does our work fulfil its potential to challenge the patriarchal# sexist# racist# class!ridden context of the real worldK 0re we adding lo the (oices of our young people# are we gi(ing them a way of challenging# a way of saying ?$ogAKU2 That same year# Clark shared the authorship of a political manifesto for drama teachers designed for adoption by the $0T'. 0mong a wide range of statements and suggestions were modest proposals for the ?abolition of examinationsA and the ?closure of all uni(ersities# polytechnics# colleges of higher and further education and adult education collegesA.2= 6t has to be said# that while all the writers :uoted here display a refreshing conscious! ness of the ideology behind the free!market ascendancy of the ,-CBs and make no attempt to reconcile their practice to it# and while they clearly prefer instead to ally themsel(es with those most at risk from that ascen! dancy# namely their least pri(ileged students# the rhetoric ultimately fails to con(ince. There is /ust too great a gap between the radical fer(our of the language and the li(ed realities of the classroom. 6t is doubtful that schools can so simply be dismissd as the un:uestioning agents of capitalism# nor their pupils as the mute recipients of ?patriarchal# sexist# racist# class!riddenA (alues. 0part from anything else# to suggest that the battle lines can be so neatly drawn denies both the complex ambiguities of social life as well as the competence and intelligence of indi(iduals. 6t is altogether too Barricades and Bewilderment Esimple!minded a (iew of the relationship between society and those it sets out to educate. %a/or influences on another 7somewhat less dogmatic8 section of the left alliance ha(e been the deschooling theory of the Bra;ilian educationalist

Paulo Freire and the dramatic techni:ues inspired by it of the Latin 0merican director# .ugusto 'oal. 1rcireAs Pedagogy of the !!ressedDE in which he describes ways in which language can
contribute to the re(olutionary struggles of underpri(ileged groups# has been influential in a whole range of Third World literacy pro/ects. 0 &outh 0merican Catholic increasingly drawn to %arxism# Freire re ects the

idea of the revolutionary-vanguard movement" and instead #ro#oses that intellectuals and #easants should !ork together to identify" de-mystify and o##ose s#ecific forms of o##ression$ 'y doing so# he argues# the peasants would own their percep!
tions in ways which would then empower them to pursue their struggle for

liberation with new insight into their historical circumstances. 0lways considering his %arxism to be an essential part of his Christianity# 1reire has made a considerable contribution to the de(elopment of Latin 0merican liberation theology# along with the famous deschooler# 6(an +lich.

I think the close links bet!een Barxism and liberation theology are significant factors in the enthusiasm for Freire and 'oal ex#ressed by many advocates of drama-in-education on the left.QQQQQQ 3n one le(el# the
association with +lich and the deschooling mo(ement e(okes the anti!

establishment progressi(ism of the ,->Bs with which# drama!in!education sought to identify# while on another# the
Latin 0merican context anchors the theory in a most (i(id and practical political struggle. The immediacy of that struggle has gi(en Latin 0merican %arxism a character of its own wherein ultimate theoretical :uestions ha(e tended to be displaced by those of a more particular and pressing kind. 6mportantly# the /hristian

ethic implicit both in 1reireAs

and BoalAs writings allows drama!in!education an anchor in the moral world once again. QQQQQQ The uni:ue
combination of collecti(e resistance and the self!liberating humanism of practical# non!dogmatic Christianity has for some practitioners unconsciously filled the ethical (acuum at the centre of the dramatic pedagogy pro/ect. Thus# 5usta(o 5utierre;# in his classic text on liberation theology# encapsulates their position entirely when he argues that

?an awareness of the need for self!liberation is essential to a correct understanding of the liberation processA.QQQQQ
66 is not a matter ofAsnuggling for othersA# which suggests paternalism and reformist C!b/eCti(oa# but rather of becoming aware of oneself as not complelely fulfilled and ns li(ing ?U i#n alienated society. 0nd thus one can identify imlimlkO 0nd mllitently with those! the people and ilicO $ocinl I hum whii 6iphi ilnN luiiiii of oppression.2J JB 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt .ugusto 'oal acknowledges his debt to 1reire in his own seminal work# Theatre of the F33ressed+>! 1or

Boal# theatre# like language# is a potential medium of liberation# but for it successfully to ser(e this purpose the

traditional relationship between audience and performer has itself to be ?re(olutionisedA. 6n his
productions# played out in the po(erty!ridden 8arrios of *eru# the actors offer no solutions# but pause to allow the audience to discuss and redirect the story. ere# theatre becomes a laboratory of social change# where ideas can be tested in action# and where no outcome is preordained. ... the 3oetics of the o33ressed focuses on the action itself: the spectator delegates no power to the character 7or actor8 either to act or to think in his place; on the contrary# he himself assumes the protagonic role# changes the dramatic action# tries out solutions# discusses plans for change ! in

short" trains himself for real action. 6n this case#
perhaps the theater is not re(olutionary in itself# but is surely a rehearsal for the re(olution.

The idea of drama as (a rehearsal for the revolution) had obvious a##eal to those seeking !ays of confronting government #olicy in the classroom !ithin an affirmative moral context. 9ere !as a #rocess by !hich #u#ils

could be led" through drama" to a collaborative understanding of the overt and hidden o##ressions of society$ Inherent tyrannies of racism" sexism and class !ould be naturally ex#osed and condemned" not trough the im#osition of ideas by the teacher" but sim#ly through the :uestioning" debating" and revising of dramatic #ictures made by grou#s of actors or by the #u#ils themselves$@@@@@@@@@IIIIuuuuuu
6n the forum theater no idea is imposed: the audience# the people# ha(e opportunity to try out all their ideas# to rehearse all the possibilities# and to (erify them in practice# that is# in theatrical practice.2C The introduction of BoalAs forum

and image theatre
-QQQQQQQQQ

techni:ues represented an exciting

de(elopment in drama education practice.A
dominated by attention to the feelings of the participants. 3

The idea that the audience could inter(ene and control from outside the dramatic action# opened the door to new perspecti(es on practices too long

n the other hand# how successful BoalAs methods

ha(e been in engaging with making sense of the ideological complexities of our ad(anced# consumer!dominated culture remains unpro(en. 6n the &outh 0merican context of military coup# torture

and exile# depri(ation and oppression are easy enough to identify# as both 1reire and Boal knew from personal experience#=B but in the densely textured political ethnography of a post!imperial liberal democracy 7one# Barricades and Bewilderment J,

there is a real danger that BoalAs techni:ue can lead# not to enlightenment# but to simplification# to the reinforcement of the stereotypical position!taking of its exponents. 6n the context of the school there are considerable
incidentally# with long!standing theatrical con(entions of its own8# difficulties in regarding pupils as the e:ui(alent of an oppressed social order# let alone in knowing what to take their side might mean.

The traditional antipathy to education displayed by many white working!class groups# for example# which is held to be a ma/or cause of inner!city truancy# would be likely to make them unreliable collaborators in the ?rehearsal for the re(olutionAQQQQQQQQQQ.
=,QQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQQ••••••uuuuuu

$e(ertheless# the idea of a ?#edagogy of the o##ressed) brought about through drama held many attractions for a loosely constituted group of practitioners acutely conscious of the social di(isi(eness engendered by the

ne! times and anxious to #ress drama-in-education into the service of a resistance movement. The

superimposition of the theories of 1reire and Boal onto classroom practice enabled a significant number of those on the left of drama!in!cducation in the late ,-CBs to recast

the drama pedagogy of eathcote and Bolton in the rhetoric of social struggle.
The discursi(e imprecision of dramatic pedagogy made this pro/ect less difficult than might be supposed in the light of school dramaAs unimpeach! able liberal credentials. 1or# as

David Davis reminds us# had not

'olton himself once declared his aims to be; ?To

help the student understand himself and the world he li(es inA# and ?know how and when 7and when notG to adapt to the world he li(es inAK=2 Like the pronouncements of ancient prophets# whose
generalisaions and ambiguities can be gleaned to pro(ide intellectual nourishment for all manner of causes# it became apparent that ?'orothy

and 5a(inA could be as usefully enlisted into the ser(ice of the re(olution as into the training programmes of the new utilitarianism.
*acing the future
6n a contribution to a debate about the past and future of educational drama in ,-C># 3ar!ick Dobson offered a gloomy prognosis: 6t has been clear for some time that the school curriculum will undergo radical re(ision in the late ?eighties and early ?nineties# and few drama teachers expect their sub/ect to emerge unscathed Wc€L[_\]]from the politics of curriculum planning.== owe(er# widely shared ji not# Dotson)s predictions were set out with c\RRRd prescience. J2 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt ... the go(ernment wants to see a return to the traditional curriculum consisting of so!called ?first!orderA sub/ects like 4nglish# history and science . .. drama is unlikely to figure (ery prominently ! a more ?second orderA sub/ect would be difficult to find ... 5i(en these circumstances# the :uestion we should perhaps be asking is: does drama ha(e any kind of future in the curriculum at allK=E

Dobson answers this direct :uestion with an argument drawn from his
position on the radical left of the mo(ement. 1or

him# the (alue of educational drama as a learning agent in the ser(ice of political change is paramount; to ad(ocate anything less is to
embark upon ?a series of compromisesA. The drama specialist should# in his (iew# see ?her institutional role as being inherently sub(ersi(eA# and use

the #rocesses of school drama (as a means of challenging the values of the system !ithin !hich she !orks)$ ?)adical methodological processesA# he argues# should be
?matched by a radicali;ation of contentA. Concluding that ?marginali;ation is the 8est that can be hoped for under this particular set of circumstancesA# 'obson identifies ?two opposing courses of actionA. 3ne alternati(e is to see drama operating on the margins of formal education as a (ehicle for political sub(ersion; the other to ?legitimi;e the sub/ect by moulding it into an acceptable academic disciplineA# to take ?refuge in a straightforward ad(oca! cy of theatre arts coursesA.

9ere !e are again !ith the old (drama) versus (theatre) argument" s#ringing from %ousseau" endorsed by #rogressivism# and now ideologically reconstituted in the name of
re(olutionary politics. 'obson is not alone. David Davis clearly shares his /udgement of this sharply differentiated duality: 6 think these are the main opposites at the moment. The return to theatre arts on one side and those seeking de(elopments in our work to meet the needs of young people on the other. bQQQQQQQ &till caught in the loose mesh of moral relati(ism where jachie(ing a change in understandingA has to stand awkwardly for ?seeing the world as we do ?# ad(ocates of the pedagogy of dissent make claims for the efficacy of their practice no more substantiated than those of their less politically moti(ated predecessors. 6n the ,->Bs# odgson and )ichards were happy to claim 7without the support of any e(idence8 that# ?ample experience has indicated that impro(ised drama ... aids o(erall de(elopment of the personalityA.=. 6t is in this same confident tradition that twenty years later a new generation of drama practitioners was to desert the battlegrounds of radical indi(idualism in order to pitch the tents of impro(isation and Barricades and Bewilderment J= role!play in the camps of the armies of the re(olution. 1or some# still dressed in the uniforms of ,-,.# the campaign was simply part of the ob/ecti(e struggle of the ?oppressedA classes against world capitalism. 1or others# a (ersion of the good# unconsciously owing much to a residual Christianity# re(italised the dramatic pedagogy pro/ect in the ser(ice of a shopping list of radical causes. 'rama 7it was now asserted8 was uni:uely placed to combat racism and sexism# for example# as well as to deal with issues of unemployment# the Third World# nuclear disarmament and the $ational ealth &er(ice.=C 3f course# issues such as these are common enough sub/ects of attention in drama classes. 0lso# it is not difficult to see how properly contextualised role!playing can focus debate on issues of mutual concern# or how skilful and sensiti(e teachers might draw from their pupils new insights into :uestions of social and indi(idual morality. )ole!playing# in other words# can be an in(aluable ad/unct to rational discussion. ret# once uncoupled

from the distincti(e concepts# procedures# knowledge and traditions of ?theatre artsA# a pedagogic (agrant unprotected by the strong sub/ect boundaries of the secondary timetable# drama as role!play is easily absorbed by the (ery sub/ect which helped launch it into the curriculum in the ,->Bs. 6t comes to look (ery much like 4nglish. 7&ee 0ppendix C.8

6 fear that all those who ha(e conspired to isolate school drama from the arts and to promote it as an educational utility# bear a hea(y responsibility for this state of affairs. 4ars ha(e been closed to informed and sympathetic warning (oices# and instead# an e(angelical pursuit of a complex and elusi(e teaching methodology has ignored the reasonable dramatic expectations of parents# hcadteachers and e(en the pupils themsel(es# and has resulted in the neglect of the (ery skills# procedures and insights which gi(e drama its meaning in cultufe.QQQQQQQQ++++++``••
$e(ertheless# despite the unfa(ourable climate# there are still grounds for some optimism. While drama might ha(e been marketed as a learning medium# it

is still manifestly present in our secondary schools as a creati(e art. The disproportionately modest effect
the orthodoxies of dramatic pedagogy ha(e had on actual classroom practice suggests that teachers themsel(es ha(e been more healthily sceptical of its aims than is sometimes supposed. The ma/ority of drama teachers remain sensiti(e to the enthusiasm of their groups for impro(ised play!making and performance; in this respect# the basic elements of drama# those which link it conceptually to all the other arts# remain stubbornly in place. Through their abundant energy many heads of drama departments ha(e built fine reputations for the .sub/ect within their schools# and in doing so ha(e earned the respect of colleagues# go(ernors and parents. 0lso# in their struggles with 5C&4# 1CC3rdl of achie(ement and Curriculum reorganisation# drama teachers JH

?ducation and Dramatic .rt
ha(e become proficient in the kinds of skills which will help them push for their sub/ect in the new structures of de(ol(ed responsibility. What will help these teachers is a description of drama which will make sense to other arts teachers as they gather increasingly in creari(e or expressi(e arts groupings# to headteachers who will want to be reassured that precious curriculum time is being spent with sufficient rigour# and to go(ernors who will soon be making difficult decisions about the allocation of resources. &uch an account should attempt to pro(ide an interpretati(e framework for what teachers actually do in their lessons rather than for what

they might do gi(en the peculiar circumstances of the demonstration class. 6n this respect# it should not reflect a fa(oured methodology but rather open doors to a multiplicity of practices. 0bo(e all# it must ensure that the language of drama is accessible to the pupils themsel(es# so that they can understand both how they are progressing in the sub/ect and how w;hat they do relates to the common understanding of drama outside the classroom. The framework of any such description must be built upon strong theoretical foundations# and it is to those 6 now intend to gi(e my attention. 6n the process some demolition work will undoubtedly be necessary. owe(er# my hope is that what will emerge will ultimately be liberating# certainly for all those teachers who ha(e for so long been persuaded to measure their practice against that of the great and the good and ha(e# by specious comparison# been found wanting.

Part "#o
Drama-in-education: -nter6reting the Te7t
<t seems to me that the first 3rinci3le of the study of any 8elief system is that its ideas and terms must 8e slated in terms other than its o9n; that they must 8e 3ro/ected on to some screen other than one 9hich they themsel)es 3ro)ide + ++ Fnly in this 9ay may A)e ho3e to lay 8are the de)ices they em3loy to ma1e their im3act+ 74rnest 5ellner# ,-CJ.A8 J6 $%&' &nd sometimes ( as) myself if real feelings are not *uite sim!ly +ad acting, 7"ean *aul &artre# ,-JE.82 .uthenticity and the self 6n Chapter ,# 6 described how the progressi(e ideas which ga(e birth to drama!in!education had themsel(es e(ol(ed from a peculiarly 4nglish man! ifestation of )omanticism. The 0rcadian indi(idualism of )ousseau•s •un! corrupted conscience• found a home here# not as it had in his own country in the re(olutionary agency of sans-culotte and communard. but in the imaginations
of those who sought to oppose the less tangible tyrannies of industrialisation by culti(ating the inner world of creati(e sensiti(ity and self!expression. 6 intend now to examine the relationship between this form of introspecti(e rebellion and the model of the creati(e artist which it engendered# before mo(ing on to look more closely at theories of arts education and at drama•s place within them. +ntil the late eighteenth!century makers of most of what we would be disposed to call art laboured within a framework of secular and religious patronage to which they were bound in greater or lesser degrees of ser(itude.= These •artists•# that is the painters# musicians# writers and actors who ser(ed society# expressed the unities and the riddles of the cultures in which they li(ed in forms which re:uired no public reference to their own indi(idual psychologies. The personality of the pre! nineteenth!century poet or performer was not generally considered to be of any particular interest; he /sic0 was /udged simply by his ability to echo and reflect the common experience of his class and his age. 6t was well into the se(enteenth century before the word •art• itself became restricted to what we now call the aesthetic field. Before then it would ha(e been applied to all manner of human skills including medicine# astronomy and angling. The modern distinction between the artist and the artisan. which in(ests in the former

The 3mnipotent &elf JC 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt intellectual and imaginati(e purposes absent from the craftsman or skilled worker# has a history of no more than two hundred years. +nder the influence of nineteenth!century )omanticism# of course# this special distinction was greatly reinforced. The work of art came to be considered not so much as the product of a particular form of skilled labour# but rather as a manifestation of the producer•s sensi+ility, The artist# peculiarly e:uipped
to gi(e expression to this sensibility# thus relin:uished his /sic0 role as craftsman or ser(ant and adopted instead the mantle of the extraordinary indi(idual. )omanticism effecti(ely internalised art# shifting the emphasis away from the skilled exercise of a craft# from !roduction. in other words#

towards the authentic expression of the psychological processes of the artist himself. The artist of the )omantic period created from the depths of his being# impelled by the energy of his creati(e inclinations: he became# for the first time# a creati1e !ersonality,2

. . . the one thing that matters is the artist# so that he feels none of the blissfulness of life except in his
art . . . 0s for the gaping public# and whether when it has finished gaping it can /ustify why it has gaped# what difference does that makeKJ

*ierre Bourdieu describes how this internalisation of artistic endea(our# exemplified here by the young 5oethe# also ser(ed to remo(e the work of art from the field of public /udgement. 6f the audience has no say in the matter# then it follows that art•s only critical reference point is the authen! ticity of the artist•s intention. The declaration of the autonomy of the creati(e intention leads to a morality of con(iction which tends to /udge works of art by the purity of the artist•s intention and which can end in a kind of terrorism of taste when the artist# in the name of his con(iction# demands unconditional recognition of his work.> The implications of this •pri(atisation• of artistic endea(our were felt throughout nineteenth!century society. The spiritual ele(ation of the artist came about against the background of an increasingly insensible# mechanis! tic social world# where# in the face of a new materialism# powerful historic communalities of shared belief and moral purpose were rapidly dissol(ing. 1or many members of the new and prosperous middle class# increasingly confident of their independence from ancient secular and religious hierar! chies while at the same time anxiously searching for forms of authentication to replace them# )omanticism pro(ided a source of spirituality which reflected their own indi(idualistic predilections. 6ndeed# the )omantic The 3mnipotent &elf J. artist# with his uni:ue ability to display the manifestations of his •inner being•# his •creati(e spirit•# might be said to ha(e pre!empted the psycholo! gist as the officiating priest of indi(idualism. While the influence of this new thinking on the poetry# (isual art and music of nineteenth!century 4urope was wide!ranging and complex# it was not without its contradictions. 0part from anything else# technological ad(ances in printing and lithography were beginning to turn the reproduction and dissemination of art into an industry itself. The creati(e artist# mythologised as re(olutionary and free spirit# was in fact no less dependent upon the material structures of society than anyone else. Writers and poets found themsel(es relying increasingly on a market of publishing houses# type! setters# printers and engra(ers# not to mention whole sections of that hidden army of unskilled wage labour whose aesthetic and economic depri(ation stood in such stark contradistinction to the poetic ideal. 6n the (ery process of taking a stand against materialism# art had itself become a market commodity. Twentieth!century arts educationalists share the heritage of this )omantic mythology. They ha(e continued to champion the cause of indi(idual identity and uni:ueness against what they ha(e seen as the per(asi(e and inhibiting influence of materialism. owe(er# like the )omantics who in!

spired them# they ha(e failed to take account of the cultural and economic circumstances within which this much!pri;ed indi(iduality is expressed. 1or support# arts education turned instead to the new science of psychology. 0s a result# most creati(e theory is now entirely psychologistic# based upon the premise that we all ha(e within us a •creati(e faculty• which 7and the horticultural metaphors are inescapable8 re:uires careful culti(ation if it is to blossom and flourish. ere is Carl )ogers: 1rom the (ery nature of the inner conditions of creati(ity it is clear that they cannot be forced# but must be permitted to emerge. The farmer cannot make the germ de(elop and sprout from seed; he can only supply the nurturing conditions which will permit the seed to de(elop its own potentialities. &o it is with creati(ity.. 0ccounts of this kind decisi(ely separate the created ob/ect from the process of creation# from the agent•s creati1ity, The latter is remo(ed conclusi(ely by a sleight of
etymology from the critical public domain and secured instead in the mysterious and untouchable recesses of the unconscious. 0t the same time# creati(ity# like imagination# becomes a function of ordinary human intelligence# no longer the preser(e of the special indi(idual but a faculty common to e(eryone. Twentieth!century psychology has succeeded in in!

>B 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt (esting us all with the mystical powers of authentication pre(iously the exclusi(e preser(e of the nineteenth!century artist. 6t is in terms like these that the argument for arts education is in(ariably framed. Children can best exercise and de(elop their creati(ity# it is claimed# in an en(ironment free from the pressures of criticism and correction# where they can disco(er their own authenticity through the autonomous creati(e processes in which they are encouraged to engage. The :uality of their work is seen as a measure of the authenticity of their relationship with it# of their spontaneity and sincerity. The teacher can support and encourage but should ne(er interfere. 3ne of the most articulate modern exponents of this theory is )obert Witkin. Witkin writes about the arts in education from within the nexus of )omantic poetics and psychology described here# assuming a priori that the arts can be best understood as a function of the pri(ate# internalised world of the self# or more simply# as the creati(e expression of sub/ecti(e feeling. 6f the price of finding oneself in the world is that of losing the world in oneself# then the price is more than anyone can afford . . . 6n the case of the
psychological system# it is the integrity of the world within the indi(idual that is the source of his moti(ation# his enthusiasm# his feeling response to life . . .C

By re!casting •the arts• in the role of expressi(e agent for the creati(e faculty# Witkin and others ha(e been able neatly to circum(ent the discrepancies of categorisation and assessment which mark public distinctions of artistic (alue. owe(er# Bourdieu has already drawn our attention to the fact that by adopting this simple expressionist position# with its assumptions about (alue circumscribed by theories of mental health# we are in danger of slipping into random self!regard. 1urthermore# while it is central to Witkin•s argument that the exercise of the indi(idual•s creati(e faculty is psychologically

desirable# it is difficult to see upon what grounds this assertion is made as he denies himself any external e(aluati(e reference points. *lainly he recognises the need to establish some criteria of worth; that it cannot be socially acceptable to endorse any kind of expressi(e act# by making no distinction# for example# between the considered arranging of colours by a child in the art lesson and the casual wall!daubing of a teenager•s spray can. owe(er# in his self!imposed exile from the aesthetic and ideological experience of public culture# Witkin denies himself access to the standards of worth by which society is accustomed to (alue its art. e thus is dri(en to manufacture a critical system which has no reference beyond the authenticity of the indi(idual•s response. 6n Witkin•s confident epistemology# affirmati(e •sub/ect!reflexi(e• beha(iour# for example# would ade:uately describe the child artist abo(e# while the teenager•s random The 3mnipotent &elf Jspray!painting would be condemned as •sub/ect!reacti(e•. e e(en goes so far as to warn teachers of the danger of considering •the implications and conse:uences of the beha(iour in some social frame of reference•# urging them instead to •differentiate between beha(iours in terms of their intrinsic character as action and knowing•.This instrumental (iew of the arts which sees them only as the manifestation of psychologistic processes# or •sensate impulses•# to use Witkin•s formulation# has decisi(ely shaped post!war arts education. +nder the influence of writers like Bruner and *olanyi,B the rationale for the arts in schools has
been supremely constructed on de(elopmental models which accord knowledge and expression of self primary status. 0rts educationalists continue to emphasise the fragmented# beha(iourist (iew of the self which they ha(e inherited from the )omantic aesthetic# and which has been so successfully absorbed into the economic as well as the artistic consciousness of the late twentieth century. &chool drama# as we ha(e seen# owes its (ery existence to this particular picture of artistic creati(ity# and although many drama teachers are now trying to bring a political and social dimension to their work in the classroom# they are finding the old loyalties difficult to break. The result is often confusion and incoherence as ideological commitment grounds hea(ily on the intractable reefs of psychological self!reference. Thus# Bolton# for example# in a context where he seems to be trying deliberately to distance himself from •the progressi(es•# sees no ambiguity in claiming that •drama is a mental state•.,,

0ny re!engagement in ideology# of course# raises its own problems for teachers. 6n a society increasingly de(oted to the satisfying of de!politicised needs and interests# it may well be expedient to conduct the argument for the arts in a language which can claim to transcend politics and appeal to the self!regarding sensibility of its listeners. Certainly %alcolm )oss•s par! ticular brand of )omantic intuitionism# his commitment to •feeling!form• and to the exclusi(ity of the aesthetic dimension in arts education# has enabled him to champion the arts in schools across a wide political spectrum.,2 6f# on
the other hand# teachers attempt to gi(e the arts a history by relocating them in a social context# they pose a threat to the liberated# intuitionist self and lay themsel(es open to accusations of partisanship and bias. 0s we shall see# our therapeutic culture uses psychology as a powerful form of protection against such challenges.

The #sychological im#erative

The popular idea that the source of our (iews and preferences can be located in the depths of our psyches# and that psychology gi(es us an >2 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt account of human agency which transcends politics and morality# was gi(en added respectability in the post!war years by the no!nonsense positi(ism of ans 4ysenck. 4ysenck# who always insisted on the strictest adherence to scientific rigour in psychological experiments# succeeded in popularising a particular brand of ob/ecti(e reductionism# which in an attempt to establish psychology as the bedrock of the human sciences set about systematically to redefine ideology in psychological terms. *ut simply# 4ysenck claimed that ideas# particularly political ideas# were nothing more than the rationalisa! tions of emotions# outward manifestations of our unconscious •inner world• of suppressed feelings. 0ll other social sciences deal with (ariables which affect political beha(iour indirectly . . . The psychologist has no need of such intermediaries; he is in direct contact with the
central link in the chain of causation between antecedent condition and resultant action. ,=

By means of psychological experiment and the analysis of statistical e(idence 7both subse:uently much disputed8# 4ysenck set about demon! strating the temperamental instability of political •extremists• of both left and right# in relation to a moderate •centre• or psychological •norm•. 0 simple! minded e:uation categorised 1ascists and assorted totalitarians along with Communists and other left!wing radicals# and set their inherent •tough! mindedness• against the •tender!mindedness• of conser(ati(es and liberals. The wide currency of this crude scientism# which has a superficial attracti(eness in that it can render harmless the strongly held (iews of others by reducing them to psychoneurotic symptoms# has all too often allowed supporters of dominant political groupings to discredit radical opposition on grounds of mental instability. 1or the less than scrupulous popular press# •loony•# with its connotations of abnormality and e(en madness# is thus more than a useful alliterati(e prefix to •left• in the face of serious challenges to the political establishment. 6nfluential well beyond the experimental school of 4nglish psychology# 4ysenck•s extreme but widely disseminated theories worked on a public consciousness that was warmly disposed to take the claims of psychology seriously. The psychoanalytic mo(ement# for all 4ysenck•s reser(ations about its insufficiently rigorous •scientific• approach# had already laid the ground for a model of the human agent possessed by an unpredictable inner life# a secular de(il# which could be exorcised by submission to the psychia! trist•s couch. The unconscious world within the indi(idual# the •true self so much lo(ed and sought after by today•s psychotherapists# is now widely accepted as a determining concept in our understanding of human agency. 0lthough The 3mnipotent &elf >B

superficially we may consider oursel(es in control of our thoughts and actions# in reality# so the familiar argument goes# deeper and less accessible forces are at work. This picture offers us a particular kind of internal reality to which we can gain access by self!knowledge. By •knowing oursel(es• we can recognise our real feelings# identify our real needs# and understand what things really mean 7to us8. 6n this way# morality# and truth itself# ha(e been transformed by a relati(istic scheme in which it has become acceptable to argue that a particular course of moral action is right for me# or e(en that a certain proposition# howe(er widely disputed# is ne(ertheless true for me. 4pistemologically# of course# this decepti(ely attracti(e and widely held set of beliefs is infinitely regressi(e# as 5ellner has amply demonstrated: The problem this approach faces# or ought to face 7and which in practice it only e(ades8 is this: how on earth is that •true self identifiedK 6s it gi(en by 5od# by nature# or self!chosenK The last of these alternati(es is most in keeping with current background beliefs . . . 6t in(ol(es the absurdity of assuming that
the self must somehow choose or in(ent itself before it exists# and presupposes a curious and in practice arbitrary capacity to distinguish between ephemeral# capricious acts of choice or commitment# and those that are for real. ,E

Christopher Lasch•s criti:ue of the effect of this debilitating philosophy on the culture of the +nited &tates re(eals an emoti(ist world where •psychological man• struggles •to maintain psychic e:uilibrium in a society that demands submission to the rules of social intercourse but refuses to ground those rules in a code of moral conduct.• *residing o(er this profound cultural dislocation are the high priests of pychology the therapists# the psychiatric masseurs of the national neurosis. They administer to the •anxiety# depression# (ague discontents•# the •sense of inner emptiness• of modern society# but gi(e •no thought to anything beyond its immediate needs•. 6t hardly occurs to them ! nor is there any reason why it should# gi(en the nature of the
therapeutic enterprise ! to encourage the sub/ect to subordinate his needs and interests to those of others# to someone or some cause or tradition outside himself. •Lo(e• as self!sacrifice or self! abasement# •meaning• as submission to a higher loyalty ^ these sublimations strike the therapeutic sensibility as intolerably oppressi(e# offensi(e to common sense and in/urious to personal health and well!being.,J

>E 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt Thus# in the laboratory of the feelings the encounter!group narcissist search! es for a deep cleansing of the self from the destructi(e# polluting structures of all social institutions. This is pursued in the name of a perfect purity of free aspiration# and realised in a series of personal intimacies unfettered by dead con(entions and traditions. *olitically# as recent 0merican history (i(idly demonstrates# this o(er! powering narcissism leads to disengagement and impotence. 0s long as the criteria for moral action are determined by reference only to the integrity of the self and are /udged by the authenticity of the feelings associated with them# then the subordination of those so!called •needs• in corporate# public action for a collecti(e purpose becomes increasingly difficult. $arcissism shapes a powerful form of political ac:uiescence; the indi(idual is responsi!

ble for him! or herself and for his or her own self!knowledge# and for the preser(ation of the community# whate(er its holistic moral character# only because he or she is aware that it is composed of other indi(iduals with the same kinds of problems in achie(ing self!authentication. 6n a narcissistic society# •awareness• becomes the (apid substitute for moral agency; the pursuit of self as a legitimate end can only make meaningful ethical /udge! ments impossible. With no yardstick beyond self!authentication# no actions can be regarded as reprehensible if they are sincere# or indeed if they a!!ear to +e sincerely e3!ressed. because their sincere expression is their ultimate /ustification.
Thus# as an indi(idual 6 look not for good or bad actions but for sincere people# and because 6 ha(e no means of knowing with what degree of sincerity another person carries out an action# 6 can only assess how sincere they seem. 3r# con(ersely# if 6 can con(ince others of my self!authenticity and of the sincerity in which 6 act# then 6 can reasonably demand to be /udged well. We are in the world of appearances# where what counts is the effecti(eness with which an agent adopts the appropriate role in a society made up of impro(ised encounters. &ociety re:uires of us that we present oursel(es as being sincere# and the most efficacious way of satisfying this demand is to see to it that we really are sincere# that we actually are what we want our community to know we are. 6n short# we play the role of being oursel(es# we sincerely act the part of the sincere person. . .,>

The self!/ustifying and self!referential nai(ety of this scheme of things has made it the ideological home of much charlatanry# as well as of the simple! minded and insecure. The encounter groups and psycho!dramas# happenings and lo(e!ins of the ,->Bs were all manifestations of a form of psychological escapism which had as its simple premise the deeply implausible not@ each other the 6t has to be: therapeutic pn unbearable #er gical distress , represent the fii enough not to primacy of self easily lead to the $ixon•s famous example# where# public that he !$ forget about the K wily politician a 4 (oters can be de actions so long as
Phenomenology" L

6t is my contention that theoreticians M 6 am suggesting tha home with #o!eru de!politicise content owing more to ot@ of course# #rofound grounded in a vie! , ideologically o##osed" its discourse.
6n attempting to G practitioners in the fid ground which is. brood for example# reeaa phenomenological #od ‚personal meaning• a apriorism of ?dmund 4 ‚essence• beyond all oa appeal to a disci#line a

usserl sa! it as ike the essences The 3mnipotent &elf >2

!hich la

plausible notion that the more indi(iduals exposed their •real• feelings to each other the better the world would be. 6t has to be said that the extraction of the moral dimension from the truly therapeutic processes of mental health care can release some patients from unbearable personal pressure. 1or those who ha(e suffered se(ere psycholo! gical distress through unreasonable feelings of guilt# such release may represent the first step towards reco(ery. owe(er# for those of us fortunate enough not to ha(e to inhabit the closed world of psychotherapy# the primacy of self!authentication o(er disinterested intellection can all too easily lead to the manipulation and exploitation of our perceptions. )ichard

$ixon•s famous •Checkers• speech on 0merican tele(ision in ,-J2# for example#
where# with tears in his eyes# he con(inced the 0merican (oting public that he was a man who lo(ed dogs# and therefore that they should forget about the election slush!fund in which he was implicated# taught that wily politician a lesson which ser(ed him well for nearly twenty!fi(e years: (oters can be deflected from scrutiny of a politician•s inept or corrupt actions so long as he or she appears to display sincere feelings in public.,.

Phenomenology" universale and the fallacy of individualism 6t is my contention that it is within the discursi(e framework sketched here that theoreticians of drama!in!education ha(e built their conceptual home. 6 am suggesting that in their denial of politics and culture they share this home with powerful forces within Western culture which also seek to de! politicise contemporary consciousness# but in the name of a naturalism owing more to obbes and 0dam &mith than to )ousseau and Blake. 6t is# of course# profoundly paradoxical that drama!in!education should be grounded in a (iew of the world to which so many of its proponents are ideologically opposed# and yet which continues# un:uestioningly# to inform its discourse. 6n attempting to make sense of this paradox we should note that leading practitioners in the field are sometimes regarded as occupying philosophical ground which is# broadly speaking# phenomenological. 'a(is and Lawrence# for example# regard Bolton as :uite explicitly •embracing a phenomenological position•#,C and plentiful reference in the literature to •personal meaning• and •uni(ersale• suggests how the neo!*latonic apriorism of 4dmund usserl#,- with his search for the 0bsolute# for an •essence• beyond all criticism#
upon which all knowledge can rest# could appeal to a discipline adrift in psychological theories of moti(ation. usserl saw it as the task of phenomenologists to identify and describe the essences which he thought made up our experience. 'rawing

>> 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt extensi(ely from psychology# he belie(ed that close attention to our mental processes would re(eal certain a priori truths intuited by the mind which could be isolated from any particular historical or cultural circumstances. 6n doing so# he set out to contain indi(idualism within an epistemology of a! temporal imperati(es concerning the nature of ob/ecti(e knowledge; under a transcendental phenomenological system of this kind it becomes possible to argue that simply •knowing oneself is the key to seeing the world as it actually is. To know oneself is to re(eal the essential structures# the •uni(ersals•# through which all knowing becomes possible; for usserl# taking things as they •appear to the consciousness• is to know their reality. The idea of phenomenological absolutes or uni(ersals fits neatly with the indi(idualistic premises of drama!in!education# and has been widely# if only implicitly# accepted. Betty "ane Wagner# for example# in a much!:uoted aphorism# claims that# •True gut!le(el drama has to do with what you at your deepest le(el want to know about what it is to be human•.2B 5a(in Bolton goes so
far as to list the •uni(ersals• re(ealed by drama. 0ccording to him# they •are to do with basic needs of protecting one•s family# /ourneying home# facing death# recording for posterity# passing on wisdom# making tools# etc•.2,

Latterly# 'orothy eathcote turned increasingly to primiti(ism in what seemed to be a :uest for forms of phenomenological absolute or •uni(ersal truth•. er students became accustomed to playing out the inter!cultural dilemmas of tribal communities# and to in(enting their own •rituals• for a wide range of simple acti(ities such as choosing a leader or agreeing on laws. 71or an example# see again. 0ppendix 0.8 +nderlying this simple noble sa(age (iew of so!called •primiti(e• societies are the phenomenologic! al assumptions already indicated; notably# that there are certain realities# or
essences. which form the common features of all human consciousness. 'escribing a drama session at

an exclusi(e 4nglish public school# for example# in which eathcote 7somewhat improbably8 had asked a group of boys in swimming trunks to •assume roles of a primiti(e tribe•# Wagner is confident that by •identifying and creating• the boys could •capture the essence of the primiti(e .

Both psychology and phenomenology can be seen as responses to twentieth! century secularism which seek to mystify the self and to create a morality of introspection. owe(er# neither can pro(ide a way out of the reductionist and self!regarding conceptual trap which drama!in!education has dug for itself# for neither system mo(es beyond the confines of the indi(idual consciousness. Both represent (iews of the world which can only lea(e us ethically helpless in the face of the social# cultural and political dilemmas confronting us# for unlike pre!modern# traditional societies# we ha(e lost the congruence of (alue through which a culture of membership confers id with a cu
self!referei the philos

. . . can moral : judgem< social ο assume itself no Without theory# tht search of t learning of the end be only deonto actions nee should sine
indi(idual I The trans its influend child!centre makes clear be all that# would scaro of (alue# or and opinion freedom in con(ention# the educatic assessment. < categorised ■ are held to I 'enied kk and beliefs oi or incon(enic things is thai the classrooa (iews and va

The 3mnipotent &elf >E confers identity and social meaning on the indi(idual. We are faced instead with a curious kind of disembodied identity# self!contained and entirely self!referential# a
•specifically modern• emoti(ist self# which# according to the philosopher 0lasdair %aclntyre#

. . . cannot be simply or unconditionally identified with any particular moral attitude or point of (iew
/ust because of the fact that its /udgements are in the end criterionless . . . o6tp has no necessary social content and no necessary identity can then be anything# can assume any role or take any point of (iew# because it is in and for itself nothing.2=

Without doubt this is the (acuum at the centre of drama!in!education theory# the existential# narcissistic wilderness around which we circle in search of truth# (alue and meaning# but in which all the so!called social learning of the drama class# howe(er conscientiously engineered# must in the end be condemned to wander aimlessly. 6n its desolate landscape the only deontological imperati(e is the absolute relati(ity of moral (alues; your actions need no other criterion to command my respect than that you should sincerely belie(e they are right for you. The moral attitude of an indi(idual has (alue by 1irtue of that indi1idual4s indi1iduality, The transparent circularity of this argument has failed to dislodge it from its influential position in contemporary education# where indi(idualistic# child! centred accounts of learning still predominate. But as "ohn 'unn makes

clear in his bleak account of modern liberalism# •indi(iduals might be all that# humanly speaking# was there; but this consideration alone would scarcely gi(e one grounds for treating them as a commanding focus of (alue# or for acknowledging a duty to tolerate their idiosyncratic tastes and opinions•.2E $e(ertheless# indi(idualism stands as the custodian of freedom in our society;
challenge it in any terms but its own# so says con(ention# and that freedom is threatened. Thus# the traditional butts of the educational radical# progressi(ist or %arxist 7state examinations# assessment# externally imposed curricula# (ocationalism# and so on8 are so categorised not for ideological reasons but precisely and solely because they are held to limit the free and arbitrary choices of indi(iduals. 'enied ideology in a society inclined to reduce the strongly held ideas and beliefs of others to symptoms of psychoneurosis if they are unpalatable or incon(enient# all the radical teacher can hope for under such a scheme of things is that by demystifying the processes and contradictions of society in the classroom# significant numbers of indi(iduals re!examining •their own (iews and (alues• may e(entually feel inclined to oppose them. 6t is what

>J 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt 'a(id argrea(es has called •the fallacy of indi(idualism•# or •the belief that if only schools can successfully educate e(ery indi(idual pupil in self! confidence# independence and autonomy# then society can with confidence be left to take care of itself•.2J 0s a programme for the institution of egalitarian change it
lea(es much to be desired.

6 The art forms of school drama 6n the pre(ious chapter 6 sketched a history which showed nineteenth! century )omanticism and twentieth!century de(elopmental psychology conspiring to shape post!war thinking about arts education. 6 argued that it was these two powerful forces that turned us away from thinking of art as a matter of making and appraising socially (alued products# and towards the idea of art as a therapeutic engagement with the inner world of indi(iduals. 0s a conse:uence of this reformulation# many arts educators ha(e come to see the •art process• originating in a kind of psychological dri(e perpetually stri(ing to •make sense of
the life of feeling•. 6n music# painting# and drama and the other arts# we de(elop languages# symbolic forms through which we may understand this uni(erse of personal response . . . They are the product of a compulsion to make sense of# express and communicate from# the inner world of sub/ecti(e understanding.,

This particular (iew of the aesthetic has been popularised by many writers on arts education in
recent years# most notably perhaps by %alcolm )oss. 6n the tradition of a line of expressi(e aestheticians like %ar/orie ourd# 0rnaud )eid and &usanne Langer# )oss belie(es that the extra(agant rmoti(ism of the )omantic spirit is simultaneously awakened and tamed by ihr orderly exercise of creati(ity# so that education through art is •education for emotional maturity•.

Thr arts teacher helps children•s emotional de(elopment by showing thrm how lu rxprriui thrir
leclings creati(ely and responsibly . . . 3ur

appening on the 0esthetic .B 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt

work differs from that of our non!arts colleagues in that we gi(e pride of place to the formulation of feeling!ideas# to the creation and response to forms that must 7and need only8 in the final instance# satisfy strictly personal and sub/ecti(e criteria.2 While *eter &lade and the early ad(ocates of Child 'rama had little doubt that drama was art of exactly this kind 7Child 'rama being an especially superior category •of ex:uisite beauty•# a •high 0rt 1orm in its own right•8=# the
promotion in later years of drama as a cross!curricular learning medium has meant some subordination of this aesthetic imperati(e.E 6n dramatic pedagogy# art 7or •art form•8 becomes a (ehicle for more generalised learning outcomes. 0ccording to 5a(in Bolton# classroom drama should no longer be considered as of necessity artistic at all. 6n his (iew# the •art form• is only manifest when conditions of •focus# tension and symbolisation• are present. J 3n the other hand# although what the children engage in# or produce# may not actually be •art•# he seems confident that participation in drama can ne(ertheless awaken their •latent sense of the aesthetic•. This aesthetic turns out to be another form of phenomenological essence# or uni(ersal# which •can be awakened in all of us•. > 1or Bolton# children•s •aesthetic sense• is something they •feel in their bones•. .

Thus# in one of drama!in!education•s more memorable concordances# •focus# symbolism# tension# resonance# ambiguity# contradiction# ritual# simplicity# contrast# anticipation# resolution# completeness and incompleteness# humour# magic# ambiguity and metaxis# etc . . . the inner forms of theatre that children of all ages can sense as significant•# are supposed simply to swim into focus as the drama progresses.C +nfortunately# the random :uality of Bolton•s list ser(es only to obscure the hypothesis which it patently seeks to declare; that is# that art# and drama in particular# seems to ha(e a special ability to engage with our apparent sense of !resence. to illuminate for us that momentary consciousness of existential insight which# for eidegger# was the key to understanding the complex relationship we ha(e with our experience in its immediate aftermath.- 6 shall return later to this idea of presence. While )oss has notably 7and rightly8 taken Bolton to task for the expansi(e pedagogic claims the latter has made on behalf of school drama#,B neither seems
to doubt the essential seaworthiness of the conceptual (essel upon which they both turn out to be embarked. When )oss expresses his dissatisfaction with the •non!arts outcomes• of drama teaching# he does so in the context of his •exclusi(e commitment• to an aesthetic with which Bolton would ha(e no trouble in identifying. 1or both# the dramatic •art form• is there to be disco(ered# its essential •rightness• declaring itself through a process of de(eloping aesthetic awareness. We are appening on the 0esthetic >>

The tradition of ?nglish &chool drama has not been alone on the curriculum# of course# either in its dedication to personal feeling and experience or in its pursuit of the •timeless truths• of the human condition. We can see in drama•s long educational association with 4nglish a striking affinity of purpose between the two fields. 6n the ,->Bs# writers like 'a(id olbrook# for example# e(angelised a new kind of 4nglish lesson designed particularly to draw into the 4nglish experience those children traditionally alienated by the formal curriculum# those for whom •creati(e drama•# free as it was from the demands of the written text# seemed un ideal medium. 4ike the pioneers of educational diainii# BolltB9ik loo tlrr! extensi(ely on psychological theories of

art and eie ti(ily# mill unci en led in iii$piriug a generation of 4nglish teachers with persuaded to see the creation and appreciation of art as a personal# sub/ec! ti(e# and psychologistically self!(alidating process# measurable only against the •integrity of the indi(idual•s feeling life•.,, 0 drama teacher sums it up perfectly:
The aesthetic dimension in 'rama is to re(eal deeper meanings so that children percei(e uni(ersal applications personally.,2

1or all this# )oss has ne(er been in doubt that school drama•s difficulties with art originate in the •wrangle between theatre and drama•. •'rama!in! education•# he claims# •is a doomed mutant unless it can draw life from the theatre•.,= By the ,-CBs we can obser(e attempts being made by Bolton and other writers to extend
a somewhat limp hand of friendship to •threatre art•. 6n ,-CC# for example# we find %organ and &axton speaking /auntily about rebuilding the bridge •between 'ramatown and Theatretown•. ,E owe(er# efforts during the ,-CBs to reconnect the pri(ate# dispositional outcomes of educational drama to the demonstrably public ones of the theatre# mainly by the 7strictly pleonastic8 ad(ocacy of the use of •theatre form• in the drama lesson tended to lack con(iction. 0ny progress on this front continued to be inhibited by traditional suspicions of public performance and an unwillingness to disengage from that o(erriding commitment to personal feeling!response that 6 ha(e charted here. Thus# while Bolton was happy to acknowledge that •drama• and •theatre• might be less educationally incommensurable than pre(iously thought# it turned out to be only to the extent that he seemed prepared to legitimate a limited number of suitably authentic •theatre• experiences.,J

>. 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt the same kind of progressi(e idealism that we ha(e already seen in the writings of *eter &lade and Brian Way. 6n reality# it is hard to see how drama could ha(e gained e(en a tenuous foothold on the curriculum without the wide acceptance of the centrality of 4nglish. Conceptually and ideologically# the tradition of which olbrook was such an able representati(e and ad(ocate pro(ided much needed off! the!peg credibility for the emerging practices of drama in schools. That tradition# most commonly associated with the teaching and writing of 1. ). Lea(is and his fellow •&crutineers•,> had such a per(asi(e influence that it is difficult to imagine that the study of 4nglish# as defined by these pioneers# has not always had its dominant position in our educational consciousness. But# as Terry 4agleton reminds us# in ,-2B 4nglish was still considered the pro(ince of
a tiny coterie of •patrician dilettantes• on the fringes of academia. Within the space of ten years# these Cambridge radicals so re(olutionised its status# that# by the outbreak of the &econd World War# and in spite of fierce academic opposition# 4nglish could with /ustification claim to be the secular heir of classics and theology# the (ery yardstick by which what it meant to be •educated• could be measured. 4nglish was not only a sub/ect worth studying# but the supremely ci(ili;ing pursuit# the spiritual essence of the social formation . . . 4nglish was an arena in which the most fundamental :uestions of human existence ! what it means to be a person# to engage in significant relationship with others# to li(e from the (ital centre of the most essential (alues ! were thrown into (i(id relief and made the ob/ect of the most intensi(e scrutiny.,.

The tradition so influentially constructed by the &crutineers was based on a belief in the existence of a transcendent humanism# an intense# <antian morality that could be authentically felt through the experience of literature. This tradition defined and guaranteed an expressi(e and interpretati(e discourse which could be said to ha(e usurped the (alue!inspiring role of

religious education and to ha(e secured for 4nglish a dominant position in the minds of curriculum planners thereafter. We may see drama!in!education as ha(ing stowed away on this same humanising mission# happy to share with the tradition of 4nglish the apodeictic belief that beyond the messy uncertainties of history lie cosmic (alues# the eternal (erities of liberal ci(ilisation. The so!called •uni(ersals• of the drama lesson# the phenomenological essences# turn out on closer inspection to be no more nor less than the moral assumptions of Lea(isite humanism# whose truths it seems may be as satisfactorily soaked up in the suspended disbelief of the drama class as contemplated and absorbed appening on the 0esthetic .= through •close reading•. 6n opting always for •a le(el of greater generality or uni(ersality•#,C the dramatic pedagogues unconsciously guide their classes not towards the trans!cultural commonalities of their imaginations# but in fact to something (ery like the ideologically prescribed goals of the &crutineers. Thus it is that for all their professed commitment to the •felt (alues• of the indi(idual child# the choice of •uni(ersals• and the appro(al or disappro(al of their outcomes is rarely in doubt. When eathcote uses a drama about a refuse collectors• strike as •an effecti(e tool for gaining insight into the patterns and tensions of community life•#,- complex political and moral statements become muffled in the simple humanising message of tolerance and reconciliation. owe(er# as exemplified by the Tictorian no(elists# who felt sympathy with the poor until the moment they took action against their po(erty# the liberal humanist tradition is notably silent on :uestions of social action or ci(ic responsibility. 6n this context# )aymond Williams• comments on the author of Hard "imes 7a no(el in which Lea(is belie(ed 'ickens to be •possessed by a comprehensi(e
(ision• of the •inhumane spirit• of industrialism8 could not be more apposite: is positi(es do not lie in social impro(ement# but rather in what he sees as the elements of human nature ^ personal kindness# sympathy and forbearance.2B

0s Williams points out# attracti(e and desirable though they might be# these are not the (alues of the gods# but merely those ele(ated by a society anxious to preser(e its social and moral fabric# if necessary at the expense of conflicting# yet historically more powerful# claims of /ustice and e:uality. 6n drama!in!education# as in 4nglish# selecti(e perspecti(es of this kind are additionally legitimated through appeals to the aesthetic. Tolerable feelings we might happen to ha(e about something are ele(ated and reconstituted as our •aesthetic awareness• and their sense of •rightness• further endorsed. +nfortunately# although Bolton insists that •aesthetic meanings are felt rather than comprehended•2, he has no Lea(isite canon against which to measure them and thus no
account of how we might distinguish between the feelings of aesthetic and non!aesthetic meaning. The transcendence of this idea of the aesthetic# existing in a sphere beyond the mere intellectual and utilitarian concerns of society# accessible only through the imagination# insulates it perfectly from those inclined to locate artistic experience in our more earthly preoccupations. 6f the sub!text of the

drama class reflects the ideals of Lea(isite 4nglish# then its text is a maii:iirrade of moral and aesthetic sensibility where experience and feeling

.E 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt too often stand in the place of interpretation and /udgement# and where ultimately# in 4agleton•s (i(id and disturbing example# •the truth or falsity of beliefs such as that blacks are inferior to whites is less important than what if feels like to experience them•.22 The difference between drama!in!education and the tradition of 4nglish# and it is a crucial one# lies in the latter•s emphasis on criticism. owe(er idiosyncratic and contested their conclusions# the &crutineers were unambi! guous about the need for aesthetic discernment# for the allocation of 1alue in
the arts. Their patrician acceptance that only a minority would be capable of the •genuine personal response• necessary for the appreciation of their canon had at least the (irtue of honesty# and they really did belie(e that# in return for the gift of insight# the few had a profound responsibility for the education of the many.2=

The contrasting e(asi(eness of drama!in!education o(er matters of aesthetic and moral /udgement has already been noted. 6n recent years# 4nglish has made striking efforts to break away from the decontextualised# child!centred preoccupations of the past# and has begun to address itself seriously to the wider determining issues of culture and history. *robably more influenced now by the post!structuralism of 1oucault and Barthes# and the cultural politics of )aymond Williams# than by the reassuring metaphysic of the Lea(isite legacy# a substantial group of 4nglish teachers is now ad(ocating a radical alternati(e prospectus.2E 1or them# literature#
like drama# does not transcend politics; they can see that the aesthetic which legitimated the surpremacy of their sub/ect and which helped to gi(e drama its entree into schools is as much a product of the processes of history as the alternati(es which seek to replace it.

=aturalism and the theatre 6f the aesthetic of drama!in!education owes much to the tradition of 4nglish# it is also# despite the recent emphasis on forms of pedagogy# deeply indebted to twentieth!century dramatic naturalism. To explain this we shall ha(e to start by looking more closely at the form of the dramatic experience itself. 1or drama in the classroom to +e drama 7and not social studies or 4nglish# for example8 it must recognisably incorporate certain fundamental common features. Thus# if there were not groups of children in some sense taking on imagined roles or characters in a defined space for their own or an audience•s satisfaction# strictly it would be difficult to describe a classroom acti(ity as •drama•. 6f we look carefully at this dramatic action as it is
appening on the 0esthetic

>most commonly manifest 7and that is to exclude any preceding or subse! :uent debate8 6 would argue that what we in(ariably find is deeply natural! istic in its form. 4(ery day and across the country children are making up impro(ised plays with short# tele(isual scenes# or spontaneously taking on •roles• which purport to place them in an imagined •reality•.

This heritage of dramatic naturalism is readily identifiable in the statements of earlier practitioners. When *eter &lade# for example# assures us that •there is no more certain way of understanding 'rama than to act sincerely#•2J and
exhorts us to •recognise how the (ital characteristics of Child 'rama# particularly &incerity and 0bsorption# blossom on and on with the right handling•#2> it is difficult not to be reminded of &tanisla(ski•s creati(e •if# that •imagined truth which the actor can belie(e in sincerely and with greater enthusiasms than he belie(es practical truth# /ust as the child belie(es in the existence of its doll and of all the life in it and around it•. Like &lade# &tanisla(ski belie(ed that the successful actor had •to de(elop to the highest degree his imagination# a childlike nai(ety and trustfulness# and artistic sensiti(ity to truth and to the truthful in his soul and body•.2.

1ew drama teachers today# 6 think# would fail to be similarly concerned with the truthfulness with which children portray reality in their impro(isations# a truthfulness measured not by the accuracy of impersonation so much as by the apparent sincerity and commitment of the attempt# the so!called •authenticity of feeling• associated with it. 6ndeed# it would seem that# gi(en characters with whom they can empathise and situations close at hand# few children lack the potential spontaneously to enact human encounters with unselfconscious (erisimilitude. 6n the right circumstances a child shares with the actor the ability to transform# in &tanisla(ski•s words# •a coarse scenic lie into the most delicate truth of his relation to the life imagined•.2C 6t is this unselfconscious commitment to an authentic •inner truth•# combined with progressi(ism•s traditional mistrust of the critical or analytic# that binds drama!in!education to that same per(asi(e naturalism which so decisi(ely frames tele(ision drama. The reluctance to make the step from describing the world through the eyes of indi(iduals# from promoting children•s or an audience•s awareness# to any interpretation of those descriptions# draws both the drama of the classroom and that of the flickering images in our front rooms irresistibly back to that ideology of non!ideology which# for Terry 4agleton •de!historici;es reality and accepts society as a natural fact•. This draining of direction and meaning from history results in the art we know as iiithuiilism . . . Meticulously observed detail replaces the .B 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt portrayal of •typical• features; the truly •representati(e• character yields to a •cult of the a(erage•; psychology or physiology oust history as the true determinant of indi(idual action.21or all its pedagogic claims# 6 doubt that much classroom drama bears resemblance to the dramatic didacticism of lehrstuc) and agitprop with which its more radical ad(ocates often seek to be identified.=B The fun! damental lack of specificity in its learning ob/ecti(es# for one thing# makes it difficult to see how dramatic pedagogy can be commensurate with the didacticism of Brecht or *iscator. 0lso# drama!in!education•s traditional commitment to (ariations of such existentially passi(e aims as •awareness•# •symbolisation• and •significance• suggests that many practitioners would be more at ease with the introspecti(e symbolism of the later &trindberg# •pre! eminently the dramatist of a dynamic psychology•#=, than with the raucous theatrical
polemics of the Weimar )epublic.

The low!key emotional approach of 'orothy eathcote clearly re(eals this commitment to naturalism. 0t first sight# many of her techni:ues# such as the breaking up of narrati(e and the limiting of characterisation# seem sympathetic to Brechtian practice. Where she parts company with Brecht is precisely at the point where# in his own words# •the means must be asked what the end is•. =2 6t is there that she in(ariably yields to that •cult of the a(erage•# denying both the specificity and the mo(ement of history in her attempts to uni(ersalise the dramatic experience. eathcote claims that the end product of the drama is changed students# •changed in that their areas of reference are widened# their growth as people is furthered# their understanding of humanity is extended•.== 1or her it is sufficient to assume that a process of •internalisation• has taken place# that the children ha(e •li(ed through a problem• and ha(e been encouraged to reflect upon it. 1ine aims# certainly# and a worthy description of the personal /ourneys made by the characters in any Chekho( play. But# as we know# neither )anye(skaya•s understanding of humanity nor her reflection upon her problems will sa(e the cherry orchard. These are precisely the limitations of a naturalism which# as 4agleton makes clear# •can create no significant totality from its materials•# where •the unified epic or dramatic actions launched by realism collapse into a set of purely pri(ate interests•. =E

The high expectations raised by a dramatic pedagogy which seemed not only to oiler a new grounding for school drama# but also to restore to drama teaching a sense of direction and purpose# a humane seriousness through which the inner and outer worlds of our experience might be reconciled# run only in the end be frustrated if practitioners methodically turn away from the implications of its outcomes. 1or if naturalism•s strength lies in its •G 6 unmet ob/ecti(ity•# its ability to portray the sull•ering and in/ustice of the
appening on the 0esthetic

.. world with startling clarity# its weakness is that it remo(es these perceptions from the field of human responsibility.=J 0ccording to the %arxist critic 4rnst 1ischer# there comes a moment of decision when naturalism must either break through to forms of interpreta! tion and action or •founder in fatalism# symbolism# mysticism# religiosity# and reaction•.=> The so!called •moment of understanding•# the confident achie(ement of the drama
•process•# is also# and crucially# the moment of choice. We are warmed by recognition# like Brecht•s audiences for dramatic naturalism# •res# 6 ha(e felt like that too#• but our new!found awareness can too easily collapse into the self!regarding inertia and pessimism of a %asha or a Tanya without a parallel understanding of the ideological structures which are the key to change. 6n drama!in! education# the choice which Brecht would wish to place for us at the heart of the dramatic experience has too often been effecti(ely obscured# usurped by a (icarious submission to the changeless# where •the specific nature of a historical moment is falsified into a general idea of +eing4,56

The passi(e# internalised ob/ecti(es of educational drama# the •inner! standings•# •awarenesses• and •moments of significance•# are products both of traditional humanism and the naturalistic con(entions within which they are in(ariably acted out. They reflect a commitment to a transcendent (iew of the aesthetic which is uncritical because it is beyond criticism. 6t is this peculiar wrapping of the metaphysical in the commonplace that has con! tributed so profoundly to school drama•s problems with e(aluation and assessment. +ntil drama!in!education can relocate its practices in the cri! tical# public world it is unlikely that they will be resol(ed. 84 0no!ing !hat you feel

1rom the end of the ,-.Bs# largely under the influence of

eathcote and Bolton# ideas about creati(ity and personal de(elopment in drama were displaced with attempts to formulate theories of learning. This new pro/ect# with its emphasis on cognition# represented a determined attempt by leaders in the field to redirect the energies of drama teachers into areas less o(ertly reliant on the principles of progressi(ism. Conscious perhaps that school drama•s roots in children•s play ga(e them a hold on naturalistic theories of learning# they turned once again to psychology# and in particular this time to cogniti(e psychology# as a basis for the de(elopment of a comprehensi(e theory of drama as a way of knowing. The ideas that emerged looked to the internal processes go(erning the reception and ordering of our experience# the personal aspects of knowing# but ignored the social and cultural context in which knowledge is defined.

Thus# for Bolton# •drama for understanding• was •a process of personally engaging with knowledge•., 6n play and in drama there is ob(ious learning potential in terms of skills and ob/ecti(e knowledge#
but the deepest kind of change that can take place is at the le(el of sub/ecti(e meaning. The learning . . . has to be felt for it to be effecti(e.2

The affirmation of the •sub/ecti(e response• indicated here# with its e(oca! tion of the )omantic ideals of liberated emotion and natural spontaneity# seems to be an attempt to raise the theorectical status of feelings. 6 n a simple conflation of the •ob/ecti(e• and •sub/ecti(e• worlds of our post!
&ignificant <nowing

.4nlightenment consciousness# Bolton asserts that •true knowing• is #hat you
)no# you feel,

The teacher tries to put children in touch with what is deeply felt and then proceeds to initiate a slow process of disengagement from those feelings and (alues# not necessarily with a (iew to changing them but with a (iew to knowing what they are.= By this account# because drama!in!education uni:uely offers children access to this authentic emotional inner world# it is specially placed to help them •feel their way into knowledge•.E 6n keeping with progressi(ism still# the ob/ects of this
knowledge are not# of course# to be the superficial facts of the traditional academic curriculum# the so! called •(alue!free ‚detached‚ knowledge of sub/ect disciplines•. J 6nstead# learning through drama in! (ol(es a •felt change in (alue•#> and it is •these felt (alues that contribute to the child•s sub/ecti(e meaning in playing and are a central feature of the acti(ity of drama•. . 6t is not the teacher•s place to examine these (alues in public# nor to mediate between (ariant moralities within the group. e or she should instead harness the capacity of drama to enable children sim!ly to realise #hat their 1alues are,

0 teacher may from within the drama use herQhis role to open up the door of opportunity for such )ealisation. The teacher cannot know exactly what each child will learn or how significant the learning will be. That does not matter. erQhis responsibility lies in detecting which door and when to open it . . .C 6t seems that the only criterion for the knowledge sought during this kind of experience is that it should be significant to the learners. that it should mean something
7though not necessarily the same thing8 to each indi(idual. •%eaning• would thus appear to be a goal in itself# circumscribed by its own intransiti(ity and re(ealed in those rare high points of dramatic concentration and focus that eathcote once characterised as •moments of awe•. ere is Bolton again# analysing a lesson he himself had recently taught:

...

6 could not be specific in terms of what was to be learnt ! my inter(ention changed the mode of experiencing and thinking# an act of faith that the switch from the pupils• being outside the sub/ect

matter t o i n s i d e i t h a d some k i n d of learning potential . . . 6 am con(inced t h a t u s e d for personal knowledge of this k i n d is e d u c a t i o n a l l y i h • I G R h s D s G R # . . • •

dramatic acti(ity

&ignificant <nowing till 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt
6• m nil 6 t i r sanguinity of these assertions it is not easy to see how they can l i e N h i s s e d a s anything but acts of faith. 0part from anything else# as e(ery school d r a m a teacher knows# these apparent •moments of significance• are in reality extremely difficult to achie(e. 4(en eathcote and Bolton in the controlled conditions of their demonstration workshops would often take se(eral sessions to build up the re:uired tension and commitment. 6n the pandemonium of the ordinary school day these •awesome• dramatic occasions must be (ery rare indeed. 6t might reasonably be argued that the time and energy expended on such painstaking ob/ecti(es# the ultimate /ustification of which seems to rest on intuitions no less :uestionable than those of the discredited •drama for personal de(elopment•# could be more profitably spent. 6t is tempting to conclude that for all the new dressing# this ambitious pro/ect re(eals little genuine ad(ance on the $ewsom )eport of twenty years earlier# which endorsed school drama as a way of helping young people •to come to terms with themsel(es•# working out •their own personal problems• by acting out •psychologically significant situations•. ,B

owe(er# we must not forget that drama!in!education has also sought to link this idea of personal knowing to the wider pro/ect of liberal humanism through its claims to facilitate access to the transcendental essences of phenomenology. 6mplicitly agreeing with usserl that only through self! knowledge can we unlock the fundamental structures of the world and see it as it really is# proponents of dramatic pedagogy ha(e argued that the personal knowledge gained as a result of the drama experience is not as random and solipsistic as first made out# for it has as its ob/ect these selfsame trans!cultural essences. +nder this system# therefore# meaning is both personal and uni(ersal. The literature of drama!in!education is full of references to this concept of the hidden uni(ersal# from the surrealism of eathcote•s public!school boys in swimming trunks capturing •the essence of the primiti(e• that we ha(e already noted# to Bolton•s hypothetical drama about the ,-CE!J miners• strike
re(ealing the •fairly common uni(ersal• of •how people cope under stress•. 1or example# the topic may be about an arrest on the picket line but it is really about a torn community . . . 'rama can normally only engage with a topic or issue obli:uely# for drama•s contextual meaning is but a (ehicle for a le(el of greater generality or uni(ersality. ,•

The moral and political implications of this retreat from culture ha(e already been noted; the •obli:ueness• in the abo(e example really ser(es to fudge and obscure an issue rich in its particularily. 5eneralisations about &ignificant <nowing C, •torn communities• seem a poor substitute educationally for the dramatic learning potential in the politics of the actual# li(ed e(ents. Back in the classroom# the assumption that life can be reduced to a series of
simple# timeless statements#,2 can lead all too easily to that kind of drama teaching in which the dense# thrilling language and brilliant thematic organisation of# say# the first scene of $ing Lear. are abandoned in fa(our of platitudinous impro(isations about family s:uabbles# on the grounds that its themes are •uni(ersal•.,= 'rama then becomes a form of reduction to the ob(ious# its learning ob/ecti(es triumphantly achie(ed only because they are so undemanding.

Personal kno!ledge owe(er :uestionable the argument for personal and uni(ersal knowing# it is ne(ertheless plain that something :uite unlike the normal scholastic knowledge transaction is going on in the manipulated make!belie(e of a successful educational drama session. Children under the pressure of sus! tained role!playing do indeed# on occasions# display surprising insights# and it certainly seems that by inducing deep emotional commitment to an idea in this way# the skilled drama teacher can stimulate high le(els of expressi(e coherence in indi(idual children.,E $either is it difficult to see how this might be interpreted as the manifestation of a special kind of learning# particularly as the circumstances surrounding such •moments of significance• tend to be powerfully mesmeric. %any children seem to exhibit an unfamiliar capacity both for perception and commitment under these conditions. owe(er# the reliance of so much of the drama!in!education methodology on transient and unpredictable •moments• of this kind make its outcomes difficult# if not impossible# to pin down. The process relies hea(ily on the intuition of the teacher# and although Bolton suggests that drama examiners should be primarily concerned with •the :uality of meanings the participants sought and found in the material•#,J he fails to indicate any :uality criteria. While he seems
satisfied that when he himself participates in drama he experiences •a knowing in my bones•# he ob(iously recognises the problems faced by drama teachers when arguing for the acceptance of their sub/ect on these kinds of grounds. 0s he rightly points out# •how do we argue a case for its inclusion in our school curriculum if we are not able to identify itK ow do we know what we are teachingK What do we put in our syllabusesK•‚• ow and what indeedK 0ttempts to address these fundamental dilemmas ha(e# not surprisingly# iocusscd increasingly on theories of knowledge which seem to gi(e support

C2 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt to the primacy of the sub/ecti(e experience school drama has staked out for its own. 6 ha(e already indicated how aspects of phenomenology seem to ha(e pro(ided a conceptual framework within which Bolton and others ha(e defended educational drama•s agenda of essential meanings and inner knowing. 1or this complex and difficult epistemological brief# howe(er# perhaps the most persuasi(e argument is a(ailable in the writing of %ichael *olanyi# whose book Personal $no#ledge pro(ides the title of this section. *olanyi•s theories of
11

•tacit understanding• and •intellectual passion• ha(e pro(ed irresistibly attracti(e to drama!in!education and deser(e some attention here.,C

6 ha(e already noted that in his claims for drama as a learning method Bolton remains loyal to the factQ(alue distinction. e has maintained that drama!in!education•s uni:ue contribution to understanding is made through its reference both to the •ob/ecti(e• world outside the child# and to his or her •sub/ecti(e• internal world# the resultant meaning being 7in his words8 •poised dialectically• between the two. Thus for # the creation of a drama is •an opportunity for the child to express his feelings about the ob/ecti(e world•.,-

'olton

*olanyi argues for a related distinction. 1or him# e3!licit knowledge is that most
usually described as knowledge# such as information in libraries or the content of school syllabuses; it corresponds most closely to educational drama•s •ob/ecti(e• category. "acit knowledge# on the other hand# he describes as that pre!(erbal# a!critical awareness which we share with all animals# and upon which our ability to understand what we explicitly know ultimately depends.

. . . the function of understanding oisp that of knowing what we intend. what we mean. or what we do,
To this we may add now that nothing that is said# written or printed# can e(er mean anything in itself: for it is only a !erson who utters something ^ or who listens to it or reads it !who can mean something +y it. 0ll these semantic functions are the tacit operations of a person. 2B

owe(er# as Polanyi makes clear# this tacit knowing# or understanding# while it is necessarily a function of the person# is not /ust another form of sub/ecti(ity# simply a :uestion of the interpretation of •reality• by an emoti(e inner world gi(ing us each our •personal meanings•. *olanyi here makes a crucial distinction between the passi(e feelings we all experience# such as pain# desire# /ealously# and so on# and the acti(e commitments of what he calls our •moral and intellectual passions•. 1or him# it is these commitments which define the personal. &ignificant <nowing .J ...
we may distinguish between the personal in us# which acti(ely enters into our commitments# and our sub/ecti(e states# in which we merely endure our feelings. This distinction establishes the conception of the !ersonal. which is neither sub/ecti(e nor ob/ecti(e. 6n so far as the personal submits to re:uirements acknowledged by itself as independent of itself# it is not sub/ecti(e; but in so far as it is an action guided by indi(idual passions# it is not ob/ecti(e either. 6t transcends the dis/unction between sub/ecti(e and ob/ecti(e.2,

Bost importantly here# *olanyi attempts in this formulation to reconcile Nthe indi(idual with his or her cultural membership# by re/ecting both the .ttnpiricist (iew that knowledge is simply ob/ecti(ely out there to be dis! covered and the relati(ist one that it is nothing more than the arbitrary Construction of the knower.
e proposes instead that the meanings we make for oursel(es as indi(iduals must be commensurate with those of the Culture to which we belong# and that we are moti(ated towards this C3tnmensurability by our natural intellectual passion to disco(er correct &olutions. The sense of a pre!existent task makes the shaping of knowledge a responsible act# free from sub/ecti(e predilections. 0nd it endows# by the same token# the results of such acts with a claim to uni(ersal (alidity. 1or when you belie(e that your disco(ery re(eals a hidden reality# you will expect it to be recogni;ed e:ually by others.22

Thus# Bolton•s •knowing in my bones• and the sense of OTightnessO felt by
participants in an impro(ised drama could be said to be manifestations of the tacit feeling of satisfaction gained from ha(ing successfully ad(anced from the problematic to a resolution. 6t is by this mo(ement to an intellectual position of greater satisfaction# according to *olanyi# that •we e(entually come to hold a piece of knowledge to be true•# 2= and# •our adherence to the truth can be seen to imply an adherence to a society which respects the truth# and which we trust to respect it. 2E

0t first sight# *olanyi•s theory of personal knowledge seems to offer the knowing!through!drama pro/ect a new intellectual coherence. 6t clarifies and diffuses the ob/ecti(eQsub/ecti(e dichotomy# it draws a distinction be! tween the dri(ing passions of intellect and morality and what are thought to be our simple# felt responses# and it seeks to identify these passions as unfailingly directed towards
the satisfactions of uni(ersal truth.

lis weakness# which it passes on to drama!in!education# is that its essentially emoli(ist premises still fail to o(ercome argrea(es•s fallacy of indi(idualism. Like psychology# it attempts to reduce human moti(ation to the

.> 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt satisfaction of instinctual dri(es.2J Thus# although the theory pro(ides us with a workable
description of our feelings about the knowledge we possess# or seek to possess# it cannot gi(e an ade:uate account of the ways in which those feelings are themsel(es determined by the ways we know the world. 1urthermore# its commitment to a paradigmatic liberal society which fosters •lo(e of truth and of intellectual (alues in general•# 2> and its concomitant suspicion of ideology# leads its author to the same ontological source as *opper and 4ysenck. 6n much the same manner that 4ysenck attempted to portray ideological commitment as psychoneurotic disturbance#

Polanyi

delivers a !ithering attack on Barxism" Oa fanatical cult of #o!er•# on the grounds that# by denying them their natural uni(ersality# it
2.

represents no more than the propagandistic misappropriation of moral passions. Like 4ysenck# he sees little distinction between the •extremism• of left and right; he is anxious to remind us that • itler greatly profited from the Bolshe(ik example•.2C

=e!s from no!here The increasing acknowledgement of the political dimension of knowledge and meaning by teachers on the political left of drama!in!education in the ,-CBs seemed at first sight likely to present an o(ert challenge to the naturalism implicit in theories
of dramatic pedagogy! owe(er# what emerged o(er that decade was in effect a complementary argument# claiming to reconcile a personal# indi(idualistic theory of cognition# with an understanding that knowledge is both public and contested. 1or those on the left prepared to admit 5ramscian theories of ideological hegemony 2- into their class analysis# •meaning• has been explicitly understood as the primary hegemonic battleground of the class war# with the state# its institutions 7including schools8 and its go(erning class# intent on maintaining their dominant position. 1or them# the answer to Bolton•s :uestion is :uite clear: children should be encouraged •to challenge and resist those unacceptable trends they see in the world around them•. The knowledge pursued in the school drama class is une:ui(ocally political.

...

if children are learning through drama# then #hat are they learningK . . . abo(e all# they are learning that drama and theatre pro(ide a potent means of exposing and challenging the dominant ideology and its pre(ailing modes of intimidation.=B

6n the epistemology of the radical left the (ocabulary of liberal progres! si(ism is displaced by the axioms of struggle; the comfortable (alues of &ignificant <nowing CJ •tolerance•# •understanding• and •awareness• succumb to the robust (itality of •resistance•# •solidarity• and •class!consciousness•. 1or example# in whose interests is it that women and men hold the roles that they doK 6t is in the interest of those who ha(e social and political power. <nowledge therefore# is a social construct. Those who control knolwedge ha(e power.=, owe(er# there are many problems with assertions of this kind. 1or one thing# in the ad(anced capitalist democracies it is difficult to argue that women or workers or children are generally and un:ualifiedly exploited.

3ur society certainly contains examples of•intimidation•# and thereby tasks of emancipation# but the former do not hold as a general characterstic of life# in schools# or out of them. There are logical inconsistencies# too. Warwick 'obson# for instance# proposes that •the drama work that goes on in an institution• should ser(e to expose and challenge •the (alues and assumptions that constitute its (ery foundations•. owe(er# he further claims that his (iew of drama •is based firmly on an acknowledgement of the relati(ism of morality•.=2 While on one hand# it is easy to see how 7in lupport of his relati(ism8 'obson might wish to challenge the right of an institution to make o(erwhelming claims about its moral codes# it is unclear by what token such a committed relati(ist can imply /ust such a status for his own scheme. 3n the same grounds# howe(er much we may disappro(e of the meanings our children absorb from a culture whose (alues we re/ect# !e cannot as relati(ists# e(en were it practicably possible# simply replace them absolutely with meanings of our own. *aradoxically# one ma/or strength of the naturalism of eathcote and Bolton was that# intuiti(ely# it a(oided this central problem. 0 uni(ersality of moral feeling# ele(ated abo(e the e(eryday conflicts of moral choice# had no need to engage in unseemly political debate. 3nce again# it is the fallacy of indi(idualism# limiting radical protest and progressi(ism alike to the Cause of the indi(idual against the institution !er se. which forces 'obson and like!minded educators on the political left back into the world of personal feelings and (alues. Clark and &eeley# for example# direct their Item anti! racist polemic against those teachers who ha(e failed sufficiently to examine
the authenticity of their inner understanding: We start from the recognition that e(ery indi(idual has her own set of meanings . . . This is why we as teachers ! part of a power group in society ! must be aware of these personal meanings at more than /ust it lokenistic le(el . . . 0re we interested in gi(ing children power and responsibility for change or are we /ust playingK . . . %aybe we ha(e

C> 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt stopped engaging with our personal meanings and are using the •teacher! (alues• which are established by the institutions and systems within which we work . . . +nless we take oppression personally we will remain self!oppressed.== The transparent naturalism of these slogans# their clear# almost purifying# commitment to the integrity of the self and to a (ision of a potentially corrupting world of hegemonising institutions# is more than a little remi! niscent of )ousseau•s diatribes against 1rench public life. 6ts consistent pat! tern of self!reference certainly has little in common with the traditional collecti(ism of the left. The •de(eloped person• of earlier theories of educa! tional drama# notably those of Brian Way# owed much to the compassionate and enlightened indi(idualism of )ousseau•s sa(age. What we seem to be presented with here is an attempt to naturalise the %arxist ethic itself; a new (ersion of $atural %an# founded not on an emerging bourgeois con! sciousness# but on (isionary socialism. ere# examination of •the true and uncorrupted conscience• will lead children and their teachers to the uni(ersal and unchanging freedoms# if not of Das $a!ital. then at least of 'e#s from 'o#here78

These attempts to graft the ideologies of the political left onto pre(ailing phenomenological models of knowledge and meaning# can lead only to confusion and incoherence. 6f we are to establish a firm intellectual ground! ing for drama in schools# we shall need to re!examine the fundamental premises upon which we base our theories of knowledge# and try to under! stand more completely not only how things come to mean what they do# but also to what extent it makes sense to talk about making or changing meanings for the children we teach. 8D 9("& :ut #hen ( loo)ed round. me mother had sto!!ed singin4. an4 she #as cryin4 , , , ( said. 4;hy arey4 cryin4. Mother74 <he said. 4:ecause -+ecause #e could sing +etter songs than those,4
&nd that4s #hy ( came +ac), &nd that4s #hy (4m staying,

7Willy )ussell# ,-C,.8

,

%eally useful kno!ledge and the tradition of dissent %y criti:ue so far has sought to demonstrate that thinking about drama!in! eduction has been limited by an inheritance of psychologistic and phe! nomenological ontologies. These# 6 ha(e argued# ha(e conspired respecti(e! ly to internalise and uni(ersalise the dramatic aesthetic# concealing in the process the ideological
formations within which school drama has traditionally been held. 1rom a broader perspecti(e it is also possible to see that the emphasis on the !ri1ate implicit in this conspiracy is itself part of a wider historical mo(ement in which the increasing sub/ection of public life to marketplace principles has been skilfully represented as a series of pri(ate emancipations. The approbati(e picture of the •uni:ue indi(idual• in perpetual opposition to a shadowy and generally ill! defined •system• or •state• turns out to be /ust as important to the •enterprise culture• as it is to the 6ndi(idualistic humanism of progressi(e education. $e(ertheless# drama teachers are surely right to regard these forms of pri(atisation as a threat to many of their most deeply held principles.

3e should not forget that for all its methodological :uietism# drama!in!education had its origins in
radical forms of educational thinking. 6t can Ltill count among its allies those concerned to offer more egalitarian and humane alternati(es to the present market!bound codes of the 4nglish ichool curriculum. %oreo(er# many of the (alues and principles implicit in the actual drama lesson can be seen to deri(e from a long# dissenting tradition in 4nglish education# a tradition deeply opposed to forms of narro!" sell!seeking indi(idualism. 6t is as the modern heirs of this tradi

Culture and *ower .C 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt tion# and not as the standard bearers of the personal and the pri(ate# that drama teachers are likely to find themsel(es healthily at odds# and in! creasingly so# with the forces that are at present so energetically engaged in redrawing the map of 4nglish education. 0t a conference in ,-C,# sociologist %ichael roung called upon drama teachers to keep the
dissenters• struggle going for a curriculum of •really useful knowledge•. 2 1or roung# it was the battle o(er who decides what counts as educational knowledge that should be central to our concerns. ow does it come about# that certain categories of knowledge and skill are guaranteed a place at the core of the curriculum# other kinds are relegated to the perimeter# and still others# most# probably# fail to :ualify entirelyK owe(er •natural• they may seem# these choices represent a particular set of emphases and omissions reflecting consciously and unconsciously the history of what has been thought of as education in our culture.=

This does not mean# of course# that curriculum content is not powerfully contested. 6f for no other reason# the slow pace of cultural change guarantees a mixture of residual# dominant and emergent sub/ects# as )aymond Williams explains: 0n educational curriculum# as we ha(e seen again and again in past periods# expresses a compromise between an inherited selection of interests and the emphasis of new interests. 0t (arying points in history# e(en this compromise may be long delayed# and it will often be muddled. The fact about our present curriculum is that it was essentially created by the nineteenth!century# following some eighteenth!century models# and retaining elements of the medie(al curriculum near its centre.E When Williams wrote this in the early ,->Bs it was easier to belie(e that in the
compromise between the new and the inherited# between the emergent and the dominant and residual# the liberal arts# (anguards of the new progressi(ism# were fast guaranteeing for themsel(es a central place in the curriculum of the future. Then the traditional methods and academic content of the grammar school curriculum could be easily represented as fusty and reactionary in the face of the new comprehensi(e ideal# for there was a Whiggish confidence in the slow but ine(itable (ictory of progressi(e forces. Twenty years on# howe(er# the ideological landscape must ha(e looked less accommodating to the nurserymen and women of what now can only be described as •traditional• progressi(ism# as a new set of interests# Culture and *ower

Cmore concerned with consumer choice than intellectual autonomy# em! barked upon a policy of systematic educational enclosure. The current dominance of these interests# of course# has led to some scepticism as to whether history is# after all# ultimately on the side of the liberal ethic.J 6n appropriating the words •radical• and •reform•#> these new interests ha(e effecti(ely redefined the spokespeople of the progressi(e optimism of the ,->Bs as themsel(es agents of outdated# inherited interest. Teachers# liberal college lecturers# once!thought!to!be!enlightened local au! thorities# are now said to stand in the #ay of !rogress, 6t is something of an irony that the world •conser(ati(e• is widely applied to the assumptions and practices which at one time seemed as if they might change the educational agenda for e(er. Those dissenters for whom the o(erthrow of the uni(ersity! dominated school curriculum in fa(our of one made up of •really useful knowledge• once seemed within their grasp# now find themsel(es out! manoeu(red and disinherited# fighting to •conser(e• what they can of the ,->Bs settlement. 3f course# drama teachers ha(e long been accustomed to working at the boundaries of acceptable educational knowledge. %ost probably percei(e their work as constituting a modest challenge to traditional pedagogic practices and to the idea of •fitting in•. 0lso# and commendably# they ha(e become accustomed to taking their stand beside the less able and under! pri(ileged in the latter•s all too fre:uent confrontations with an unsym! pathatic world. Whate(er their practical politics# therefore# it is apparent that most drama teachers are acutely aware in some sense that they# their sub/ect# and
probably most of their pupils# are threatened by historical forces which now seem deaf to the claims of the old humanist consensus.

+nfortunately# gi(en the cultural and historical formation of drama in schools which 6 ha(e outlined# with its suspicion of the intellectual and the analytic and its faith in psychology and personal enlightenment# it is perhaps hardly surprising that a coherent opposition from within the field to this threat has failed to materialise. There has# howe(er# been a closing of ranks around two in(iolable notions which we must now examine more closely. They are the imperati(e of •need• and the idea of the moral relati(ity of cultures.

%eason not the need 6n recent years the unpredicated use of the word •need• has become ubi:ui!
tous$ 6n education# children•s •needs• ha(e tended to be identified either in the context of an indi(idual child•s psychological or physical capabilities 7•7"ltire needs to work with a group more sympathetic to her needs•8 or of a

-2 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt imaginati(e empathyK,B 'oes closing our eyes and walking across the room# for example#
really allow us to percei(e the world as a blind person doesK ,, Can we honestly say that the children in the tribal impro(isation ha(e really •experienced the classic confrontation of the traditional tribal

leader with members of the community•K,2

These are# of course# not unimportant :uestions for a set of educational practices which ad(ertises so confidently its ability to facilitate the brief occupancy by children of other people•s moral worlds# and sets out to deri(e a pedagogy from it. The social anthropologist Clifford 5eert; is clear that we can apprehend such worlds •at least as well as we apprehend anything else•# but maintains that •we can ne(er apprehend another people•s or another period•s imagina! tion neatly# as if it were our own•.,= 6nstead# he insists that we are ine(itably and inextricably bound by the imaginati(e and moral matrices of our own history and culture# which# while they will intersect in complex ways with other consciousnesses# will ne(er allow the latter to be ours in the sense that we can inhabit them. 6n this respect# the generalities elided from tribal role! playing may turn out# on closer inspection# to be less like uni(ersals and more like (ery selecti(e pro/ections onto an unfamiliar social structure of the cultural matrices of our own. $e(ertheless# as 5eert; points out# the idea of the cultural integrity of •simpler• peoples is one of •the most thoroughly entrenched tropes of the liberal imagination•.,E Thus# when children take on the roles of 0merican 6ndians in drama# they are likely to be doing so not so much in order to get to the roots of the 6ndians• imaginati(e world but to highlight two important principles. The first is that whate(er their •superficial• differences in customs# work patterns and social arrangements# there is a uni(ersal •human! ness• which unites the children with the 6ndians: the second# that (iewed from inside 7a perspecti(e# it is claimed# made possible through the adoption of role8 a seemingly alien culture can both be understood and =ustified in
terms of its own internal logic and sense of moral order. 6n respect of the first of these principles# our attempts to mine fundamental truths from the superficially more accessible opencast workings of •simpler• societies rather than from the deep pits of our own may lead us deeper than we imagined. The image of the past 7or the primiti(e# or the classic# or the exotic8 as a source of remedial wisdom# a prosthetic correcti(e for a damaged spiritual life ! an image that has go(erned a good deal of humanist

thought and education ! is mischie(ous because it leads us to expect that our uncertainties will be reduced by access to thought!worlds constructed along lines alternati(e to our own# when in fact they will be multiplied.,J

Culture and *ower C, +nderlying the second principle is a familiar and understandable reluctance on the part of our post!imperial liberal consciousness to downgrade# or be seeming to patronise# unfamiliar cultural forms. But there is a profound dilemma here. What if the cultural practices portrayed turn out to be horribleK To what extent do we •respect• a culture that is deeply racist# for exampleK 0re tolerance and understanding really sufficient responses to a society which looks appro(ingly on female circumcision or ac:uiesces in the systematic extermination of "ewsK What is our response to a %uslim community which expresses a wish for its women to be specifically excluded from e:ual opportunities legislationK 0re our strong feminist and anti!racist con(ictions simply to be abandoned as we cross national or e(en local boundariesK Written accounts suggest that in practice these difficult :uestions are rarely addressed in the drama class. 0s we ha(e seen# the primiti(ism most commonly e(oked is of a strictly acceptable kind# •noble sa(agery• at its best; children line up solemnly to honour the tribe•s dead or to choose a new chief.,> The tenets of liberalism are rarely challenged.
6n many ways# the Weismullerian tribalism of these rituals is harmless enough# so long as no great moral or anthropological conclusions are drawn from it. 0lso# to draw attention to the limits of liberal humanism in this context is by no means to deny its (alues# or its importance as a concept in the educational processes of a humane society. owe(er# we should not forget the moral limitations of its comfortable consensus!seeking# and be clear that tolerance and understanding can be both a /ustification for oppression on the one hand and a recipe for feebleness on the other. 6f drama and the other arts are to ha(e a liberating and empowering social function# then we will ha(e to look beyond the simple assertion of the •self!e(ident• truths of liberal indi(idualism and examine more closely the complex relationship between culture and power in our society.

Singing better songs The coupling of •needs• to the idea of the moral integrity of cultural groups has led to the establishment of
a simple but influential formula. This tells us firstly that we ha(e an obligation to respect i!so facto the (alues# belief systems and cultural expression of any gi(en community or cultural group. Then# by designating the furtherance of these (alues# beliefs and expressi(e forms as a •need• 7conse:uent upon a community simply ha1ing particular ideas and customs8# any attempt to disseminate alternati(e cultural (alues among members of this community can be dismissed at best as an irrele(ance and at worst as an un/ustifiable imposition.,.

This pious# although by no means uncommon# (iew is not only awed in C, 4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt its casual and unpredicated use of •need•# but also because it seems not to recognise the community•s place in a wider social and cultural context. 6n a commendable desire to empower those social groups at present alienated from the formal and informal hierarchies of the state# conclusions of this kind are drawn from a (ery narrow analysis of group identity and esteem. The limitations of such an approach ^ which assumes firstly that a •community• is a consensual entity existing
within fixed boundaries# secondly that its •needs• are unambiguous and readily identified# and thirdly that

they can be pursued in isolation from the interests of the dominant culture ! are not difficult to see. 6n the context of a multi!racial society# for example# it is a perspecti(e which •reflects a white (iew of black cultures as homogeneous# static# conflict!free# exotic•# and •ignores the power relations between white and black people# both in history and the present•.,C

While education clearly has an important function in fostering what 'a(id argrea(es has called the •dignity and solidarity• of communities 7of which# incidentally# the school itself is one8# to see schools as only# or e(en primarily# ser(ing this end is to subscribe to a distinctly cross!eyed (iew of culture. To propose that different cultural groups in our society 70fro!Caribbean# Bangladeshi# working!class# middle!class# howe(er one chooses to draw the di(ide8 should be educated solely according to their ascribed cultural •needs• is at best to enter into an organisational nightmare# and at worst to practice# as argrea(es suggests# a form of•educational apartheid•. 0s he points out# •an exclusi(e focus on community regeneration in depri(ed areas distracts attention away from national regeneration. 0 community education which loses sight of the nation as a whole as a community is not worthy of its name and can /ustifiably be condemned as parochial•.,6n making claims on the •common!sense curriculum•# drama!in!education has deliberately set out to engage with the localised experience of specific groups of children. owe(er# without any really satisfactory critical dimension# it has at the same time denied itself access to culturally endowed systems of appraisal# and thus to the means whereby this strictly local experience may be held up against greater wisdoms. 0bo(e all# we should beware of mistaking this •common!sense curriculum• for the •really useful knowledge• of the dissenting tradition. 0s 5rams!ci has taught us# the whole idea of•common sense• is elusi(e and decepti(e# made up as likely of shared pre/udice and ignorance as of collecti(e sagacity 7for Bertrand )ussell# •the metaphysics of sa(ages•g8. The Black *aper assaults on education# for instance# might be said to ha(e been popular# not because they were presented as a series of carefully argued propositions# but precisely because# with their emphasis on standards# basic skills# freedom of choice# and so on# they appeal to •common sense•. Who could reasonably oppose these principlesK The point about •really useful knowledge• is t h a i it is /ealously guarded# often far from ob(ious# and rarely displayed in 6 lie
Culture and *ower

-J columns of the <un or the Daily Mirror or in the •popular• discourses of Coronation &treet or 0lbert &:uare. *olitics# sociology and philosophy# those disciplines at the intellectual core of moral understanding and social action are significantly absent from the •common!sense curriculum•. 6 belie(e there is a real danger that in our well!intentioned efforts to respond to the claims of children•s sub!culture 7their knowledge8 we effecti(ely deny them the knowledge through which they can effect change 7our knowledge8. +nder such a scheme# we go to Hamlet at the $ational Theatre while they must be content with role!
playing and impro(isation# not only because we designate these latter acti(ities as more rele(ant to their needs# but also because professionally we are not prepared to make :ualitati(e /udgements between the two experiences. Who are we 7the argument goes8 to impose our middle!class cultural (alues on working!class children# when their needs are so patently differentK

There is more than a hint of hypocrisy here. 6n reality# of course# few of us are not disposed to pass critical comments on the dramas we see outside the classroom# and 6 suspect many drama teachers at the upper end of the secondary school slip more easily than they would perhaps be prepared to admit into the assessment rituals of 5C&4 and 0 le(el. The anxiety to protect the cultural authenticity of their pupils• work from the criteria of appraisal is rarely comprehensi(e. 0longside this reluctance to admit the wider culture as a frame of critical reference there is sometimes a corresponding tendency to dismiss the art of the past as an irrele(ance. 6n one sense this represents a recognition of the class!based domination of certain well!defined cultural forms and an understandable desire to challenge that hegemony at e(ery point. owe(er# 6 would argue that if such a challenge is to be effecti(ely mounted# then it will re:uire acti(e engagement with the (alues of that hegemony and its (ehicles rather than a simple re/ection of its iconography. 6f teachers wish to take up arms against the dominant culture on behalf of their pupils then they will achie(e little by turning their backs on it in the hope that it will wither away if suitably ignored. 6ts forces 7to pursue the metaphor8 are being continually reinforced from the ranks of the pri(ileged and the powerful# and will not easily be dislodged. 1urthermore# it is less clear than is sometimes made out that the art of 6 hr past and its present day e:ui(alents# howe(er superficially •middle!class•# can so simply be dismissed on ideological grounds. To do so assumes the existence and recognition of an emergent alternati(e which is nlile in superior ways to engage with our sense of presence. 0lso# 5eorg laikacs surely had a point when he argued that a social class only thinking •thoughts imputable to it• will be •doomed to play a subordinate role• unless it can s l i i k e a t 7lie heart of •llie totality of existing society•. 2B

66 ->

#is lr.+ + + + P + Oe we i i i e le.ill( concerned t o make e:ual opportunity for all

4ducation and 'ramatic 0rt our pupils a reality# whate(er their racial or social identity# then we surely ha(e a responsibility to e:uip them with the means to interpret and appropriate the world in which they li(e in the widest possible context. There is a real danger that the class!based exclusi(ity of certain cultural forms will be perpetuated and reinforced so long as we continue to assert that there are special kinds of cultural experience and knowledge appropriate for pupils# which they can somehow come •authentically to know• through a set of intuiti(e# impro(isatory processes with no reference to the lexicon of the culture. To deny young people critical access to the art of their society in the name of a specious commitment to sub! cultural •need•# is to remo(e them e(en further from meaningful access to the hierarchies of control. 1or drama teachers# this will mean opening up their classes to dramatic representations of all kinds# to dramas from the theatre and the street# to the
popular narrati(es of the tele(ision screen. %ost of all# howe(er# it will mean restoring to drama!in! education a coherent discipline!based epistemology.

Part Three Towards 'ramatic 0rt i > y