Page 67 [67]
CHAPTER ONE: LIVING THROUGH DRAMA
These points of connection affirm the compatibility of LTD and Bond’s
work. I discuss the directions of development and summarise the components
of LTD practice that can be explored further in the research in the final
section of this chapter.
SUMMARY: POSSIBLE FURTHER DEVELOPMENTS
OF LIVING THROUGH DRAMA
Following the examination of examples of LTD; a comparison with other
re-interpretations of the living through approach; a review of criticism that
has been measured on it and its connects with Bond’s theory I examine
the possibilities of developing my LTD practice. First, I discuss the general
contemporary educational and social context to define what is lacking in
the field of drama education. Then, as a summary, I look at which specific
aspects of LTD offer themselves for developing drama lessons that incorporate
elements of Bond’s theory and practice.
Drama and the Contemporary Context
Davis claims that in the field of drama education most authors “set aside
any examination of the growing social and cultural crisis that is the context
of the drama methods being promoted. Many limit their role to serving
the curriculum”. If drama aims to offer the possibility of understanding
our values, then the current socio-economical context needs to be taken
into consideration. This does not mean that that drama should solely deal
with issues from newspapers, but the nature of our ‘reality’ should be taken
into account. Especially if one of the aims of drama education is to facilitate
participants to form a relationship with the world they live in.
The central problem with drama practices today seems to be that they
are not taking into account the question of the perception of reality. What
is considered ‘reality’ is a culturally constructed understanding of material
and social world that surrounds us. This phenomenon is discussed further in
the next chapter in relation to Bond’s work. For now, with some simplification
we can say that the questioning of what is considered to be ‘real’ is missing
from contemporary drama practices.
This is a central question because we rely on what we consider real in
reflecting on the fiction engaged in. Davis claims that even in cases when
the drama engages in social problems where there are obvious ideological
issues in the background “there is still no real examination of what sort of
224 Davis: Imagining the Real, 45.
+66 +