Page 67 [67]
OCR
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 +
