Using the 6-Key Model as an intervention tool in

drama therapy1

Susana Pendzik, PhD, RDT

Depatment of Comparative Literature

Bar-Ilan University, Ramat Gan, Israel

pend@netvision.net.il

1
NOTICE: this is the author's version of a work that was accepted for
publication in The Arts in Psychotherapy. Changes resulting from the
publishing process, such as peer review, editing, corrections,
structural formatting, and other quality control mechanisms may not
be reflected in this document. Changes may have been made to this
work since it was submitted for publication. A definitive version was
subsequently published in The Arts in Psychotherapy, 35 (2008),
349-354.

1
Abstract

The 6-Key Model is an integrative, drama therapy-based, method of assessment

and intervention. The model is anchored in the notion of dramatic reality – which

it views as a genuine therapeutic force and a paramount tool for intervention in

drama therapy. Each key is connected to a different aspect of dramatic reality

(including form, content, and occurrences outside dramatic reality). The model

provides the therapist with a systematic means for mapping drama therapy

processes and structuring the therapeutic work. By presenting an overall picture

of the situation, the model signals at specific keys where therapeutic

interventions would be most effective. This paper presents the basics of the 6-

Key Model, focusing on its use as a tool for intervention in drama therapy. The

article offers concrete ideas for intervention in each key, and a case example.

Keywords: drama therapy, dramatic reality, assessment, intervention, drama

therapy-based model

2
 “Of all delectable islands the Neverland is the snuggest and most
compact; not large and sprawly, you know, with tedious distance
between one adventure and another, but nicely crammed. When you
play at it by day with the chairs and table-cloth, it is not in the least
alarming, but in the two minutes before you go to sleep it becomes
very nearly real. That is why there are night lights.”

J. M. Barrie, Peter Pan

Introduction

Dramatic reality has been recognized as a central therapeutic tool by most

drama therapists (Blatner & Blatner, 1988; Duggan & Grainger, 1997; Jenkyngs,

1996; Jennings, 1998; Johnson, 1991, 2000; Jones, 1996; Lahad, 2000; Moreno,

1987; Pendzik, 2006, 2008, among others). The possibility of creating a space

where the imaginary becomes tangible lies at the heart of any drama therapy

endeavor. All the methods and techniques employed by drama therapists –

including play and character work, improvisation, stories, metaphor, puppets,

masks – aim at ‘downloading’ the imaginary realm and giving it material form in

dramatic reality. Dramatic reality is a half-way place between the subjective

realm of imagination and the concrete world of reality.

The concept has been baptized with a variety of names; yet they all point

to a similar idea that is concurrent with Winnicot’s (1971) view of the potential

space as the natural locus of therapy, and with Stanislavski’s (1936) definition of

the as if as the conscious mechanism by which performers transcend into the

realm of the imaginary. Not for just for the sake of adding one more name, but

3
perhaps in order to invoke one that might help to further clarify the concept, one

might say that dramatic reality could be called Neverland – because it is precisely

that island where imagination becomes manifest in the here and now. And very

much like J.M. Barrie’s legendary Neverland, dramatic reality is a place of

transformation, change, and personal growth.

The 6-Key Model

In the same way that the transference process constitutes an indicator of

progress and a chief treatment instrument in dynamically-oriented psychotherapy

(Jones, 1963; Yalom, 1975), dramatic reality can be seen as the compass that

guides the practice of drama therapy: It is a paramount therapeutic factor and a

necessary one in order for drama therapy to work effectively (Pendzik, 2006).

Bearing in mind that all drama therapy work entails a journey into dramatic

reality, it seems only natural that drama therapy-based assessment and

intervention methods would evaluate therapeutic progress, consider change, and

define its goals, in terms of dramatic reality. This is the idea on which the 6-Key

model is built.

In the context of this model, dramatic reality is broadly defined as the

manifestation of imagination in the here and now. This may be done in a variety

of forms – of which theatrical enactment is only one mode. The word ‘dramatic’

should not be misleading here: I am using it in its etymological sense (from the

4
Greek, ‘a deed, to do’.) Thus, story-making or movement techniques would be

considered valid forms of dramatic reality. In fact, dramatic reality can take the

shape of any activity along the EPR (embodiment-projection-role) paradigm as

defined by Jennings (1998, 2004). Embodiment includes body or sense oriented

activities; projection comprises all the range of projective techniques, from small

worlds, to art-work, puppets, image work, and so on. Role refers primarily to

enactment and scene work. Conceptually, the borders of dramatic reality can be

delineated according to Schechner’s (1988) notion of the seven performance

activities (theatre, music, dance, play, games, ritual, and sport) which have the

capacity to manifest a world within a world. To put it succinctly, in order to

qualify as dramatic reality, an imaginary experience requires that some aspect of

it would become incarnate in the actual world (Pendzik, 2006).

The 6-Key Model looks at six core parameters of dramatic reality around

which drama therapy processes tend to gravitate. Altogether, these parameters

comprise a map of dramatic reality and its surroundings, offering a picture of the

state of affairs (assessment), pointing at directions for intervention (treatment)

and evaluating progress (evaluation). In a previous article, I have introduced the

model as an assessment method (Pendzik, 2003). The current paper briefly

reviews that information and develops it further by presenting its use as an

intervention tool, and offering ideas for intervention in each key.

Figure 1 provides an overview of the model: Each key addresses a

particular aspect pertaining to dramatic reality. The first two keys are vital for the

5
development of drama therapy processes, since they have to do with the very

existence and basic functioning of dramatic reality – without which, no proper

drama therapy takes place. These keys are concerned primarily with form. They

tend to relate to ‘how’ questions: ways of access, modes of improving dramatic

reality, style issues. The second pair of keys is connected to the contents of

dramatic reality: it examines ‘who’ and ‘what’ occupies it. The 5th and 6th keys

contemplate occurrences that take place outside of dramatic reality: they look at

people’s reactions to the experience, and at what is not being said, or remains

‘between the lines’.

The model can be used to summarize a single session or to create a

profile of an individual or group. The drama therapist deconstructs the process

by writing her or his impressions about each key based on subjective

observation. This simple procedure usually illuminates one or two ‘charged’ keys

– those in which intervention would be most effective. The keys are conceived of

as an interconnected and dynamic whole, so that an intervention made in one of

the keys would invariably have an impact on the others.

1st Key – Passages

There are almost as many ways to get to Neverland as there are people or

groups. The island can be reached by flying-horses, closing one’s eyes, or just

6
using plain magic. Some people (particularly children) would jump into dramatic

reality, while others may need preliminary warming up steps and guidance.

The particular way in which individuals enter and exit dramatic reality is

important in drama therapy. Observations in this key include thoughts on the

relationship between the two realities, the ability or difficulty that a person or

group experience when invited to go beyond ordinary reality – and to return –,

as well as the ways of facilitating the passage. Disturbances in this key may

reveal developmental blockages, poor ego-functioning, interpersonal issues,

transitional issues, trauma, or resistance to therapy.

This key is usually perceived as charged when:

1) individuals require a lot of assistance in performing the transition

(either way),

2) the passage is not properly made (individuals constantly go in and out

of dramatic reality),

3) the boundaries between realities are not clearly differentiated

(individuals display confusion between ‘pretend’ and ‘real’).

Ideas for intervention in the 1st Key: Facilitating transition/creating boundaries

a) Establish rituals for entrance/exit dramatic reality.

b) Provide clear structures for the processes of en-roling and de-roling (e.g.

sing a song to enter, ‘shake it out’ when coming back).

7
 c) Create separate spaces for interactions outside and inside dramatic reality,

something along the lines of Cattanach’s (1992) ‘blue mat’ – a portable

safe space that defines the boundaries of the playing area.

d) Create levels of passage: Establish a ‘transitional stop’ between dramatic

reality and the ordinary world. For instance, set up an ‘editing room’

where clients can take a seat at the exit/entrance of dramatic reality to

comment on it, as if they were viewers of what happened in it, or creators

(authors, directors) discussing what they want to see. A transitional stop

could simply be marked by placing chairs at the threshold of the area in

which dramatic reality takes place.

e) Become aware of the EPR (embodiment-projection-role) modes that

smooth the progress of the passage.

f) Find out which artistic forms (drawing, writing, story-telling, etc.) facilitate

the transition for this particular person/group.

2nd key – Quality

This key involves two aspects: First of all, in order to be effective, a

journey to dramatic reality has to be experienced as vivid and real: Otherwise it

becomes futile, and the meaning of the contents explored in it is lost. If it is not

felt as a reliable experience, individuals may sense that their stay in dramatic

reality is inadequate or irrelevant (“just pretending,” “children’s stuff”). This

8
would not only strengthen their resistance to participate, but also weaken their

ability to create a dramatic world where contents can be safely explored and

elaborated. To put it in Winnicott’s (1971) terminology, the quality aspect calls

for the establishment of a ‘good enough’ level of dramatic reality (see box). In

this sense, quality refers to the capacity of an individual or group to establish an

as if that is truthful enough to work with.

The second aspect of quality is associated with the style or mode that

dramatic reality takes: It looks at the attributes, the specific features of the

dramatic world created. This may include particular characteristics, such as slow

pace, euphoric, full of surprises; or genres: video-clip, animation, stand-up

comedy, absurd theatre, fairy-tale, and so on.

Perhaps this two-fold aspect of the quality key could be clarified if we

compare it to car-driving: One aspect of driving is concerned with being a good

enough driver; the other is that each person has a distinctive way of driving,

which constitutes their driving style. An individual’s driving style may have an

impact on their being a good enough driver (for example, if the style it is too

risky); yet the style is also independent from the good enough requirement. So

the two aspects are closely connected, but autonomous. The same applies to

dramatic reality: A good enough quality precedes style consideration. However,

regardless of how good enough a dramatic reality may be, an intervention in this

key may be called for in the style aspect. Accordingly, there are two kinds of

9
interventions in this key: One that is concerned with improving and enhancing

the quality of dramatic reality; the other with altering or developing its style.

This key is charged when dramatic reality seems chaotic, shallow or

stereotyped, is boring, going on loops, or is disconnected from emotions. In the

style aspect, distortions appear as repetitive patterns, recurrent forms, or

ineffective use of genres (as when dramatic reality inevitably turns out to be a

melodrama, a caricature, a tragedy, etc.)

Some indicators of ‘good enough’ quality of dramatic

reality
1) Good aesthetic distance: people are emotionally involved but able to
observe it and recognize it as ‘as if’.

2) A fair level of concentration and involvement.

3) The flow is dynamic and good; permanence in dramatic reality is

stable.

4) Dramatic reality is shared with others, as appropriate – not performed

exclusively in isolation.

5) Offers by the drama therapist or other members are at least

contemplated (not regarded invariably as intromissions).

6) Some measure of aesthetic pleasure. (Even if the contents are difficult,

the person seems to derive some pleasure from her/his engagement
with creating around them).

7) The action follows some form of internal coherence – is not entirely

chaotic, dizzying, jumpy, etc.

8) The action is not perceived as boring or emotionally intimidating for

either therapist or client.

10
Ideas for intervention in the 2nd key: Improving or altering the quality

a) Use theatre tools to influence the quality: Soliloquies, play it without

words, express it only with your hands, exaggeration or amplification,

repeat the phrase with different intonations, etc.

b) Use ‘cinematographic’ tools to influence the quality: zoom in, wide angle,

slow motion, fast forward, flashback, framing, freeze into still pictures.

c) Change the aesthetic distance: turn the personal account into a fictional

story; switch roles; change the EPR mode (for example, from human size

to miniature) or the art form employed (from story-telling to sculpting).

d) Frame the contents as a genre. (For instance: “if this experience was a

movie, what genre would it be?). Translate the contents into another

genre (“Let’s try to present this dream as an old Chinese parable.”)

e) Alter the position of the drama therapist or of the client in relation to

dramatic reality (from performer to director or spectator). This can be

achieved by changing the technique: For instance, from developmental

transformations interactions (Johnson, 1991, 2000), to playback theatre or

dramatic resonances, where the client plays the audience role (Pendzik,

2008).

11
3rd Key – Roles and Characters

The 6 Key-Model differentiates between roles and characters. Roles refer

to a more archetypal level – such as Mother, Child, Aggressor, Victim, etc. It also

includes the roles that pertain to the functioning of dramatic reality: performer,

director, audience, etc. Characters refer to incarnated roles: Peter Pan, Wendy or

Hook – although not exclusively fictional characters. A character usually has

various roles. For instance, Peter Pan is the eternal child, the guide of the

children into Neverland, the archenemy of Hook; Wendy is the oldest sister, a

mother to the Lost Boys, a story-teller, and so on. Thus it may happen that the

dramatic reality created by a child includes a lion, a rat, a policeman called Sam,

Tom and his mother; yet all these characters in fact only play the roles of Victim

and Aggressor. Sometimes the profusion of characters does not necessarily imply

richness in role repertoire. In this case, an intervention is called for that would

help the characters to play out other roles.

There is a wealth of literature on the notion of role in drama therapy

(Blatner, 1988; Duggan & Grainger, 1997; Emunah, 1994; Jennings 1998; Jones

1996, to mention only a few). Particularly Landy (1993, 1996, 1997, & 2000) has

developed the concept in depth and offers several methods for intervention in

this key. In addition, many of the techniques on character work coming from

theatre constitute a rich source of ideas for intervention.

12
Ideas for intervention in the 3rd key: Developing a flexible role/character system

a) Use theatre techniques to develop characters: Forge for them a personal

history, create their house, a profile of their ‘like/don’t like’, a picture of

their childhood, write a character analysis, interview characters, etc.

b) Create the character from a role by personalizing it – as in Landy’s (1993

& 2000) eight-step method.

c) Transform opposite or ambivalent feelings into antagonistic characters.

d) Expand the repertoire of roles by introducing new, necessary roles – as in

Landy’s (2000) notion of role/counter role/guide.

e) Expand the repertoire of roles by switching roles (e.g., having the person

play the antagonist, as in psychodrama).

f) Move from a character’s predominant role into complementary or sub-

roles that this character could assume, for instance by transporting into

the past or future – a time in which the character would have to play a

different role.

g) Focus on suppressed characters by allowing their perspective to be heard.

h) As in the previous key, change around the roles of audience, performer,

or director between therapist and client in order to develop her or his

sense of authorship over their lives, get perspective from situations, etc.

13
4th Key – Plot, conflicts, themes, and more

While the previous key is concerned with a specific category of contents

(characters/roles), this one includes contents in a broader sense: plot, themes,

conflicts, complexes, symbols, issues, etc. The contents of dramatic reality can

be seen as the images of a kaleidoscope: They take on a different shape

depending on the philosophical framework from which one looks at them. Thus

this key intersects with the particular psychotherapeutic approach embraced by

the drama therapist.

My personal orientation is informed by narrative and literary methods, as

well as feminist, existential, and Jungian approaches; therefore my ideas for

interventions in this key draw from from these theoretical contexts: I look for

ways of storying experience, moving the plot ahead, de-constructing and

challenging the official narrative, empowering alternative discourses, finding

healing metaphors, connecting personal experiences to universal myths and

stories, etc. (Campbell, 1972; Cox & Theilgaard, 1987; Gersie, 1997; Wehr,

1988, White & Epston, 1990, among others).

Most people (certainly adults) usually come to therapy with specific issues,

themes, conflicts, in mind. So there is always a certain amount of charge in this

key. An invitation to bring these contents into dramatic reality is always a good

starting point as an intervention. Although the keys are interconnected as a

whole, there seems to be a particularly close link between the 2nd (quality) and

14
the 4th keys: An appropriate change in the quality of dramatic reality tends to

move the plot ahead, release stuck issues, reveal hidden conflicts, and so on.

However, direct intervention in this key is called for when there is overpowering

theme, or an impending conflict.

Ideas for intervention in the 4th key: Healing the story

a) Help clients to story their experiences: divide the story into main

scenes; find a title for it, etc.

b) Translate personal experiences or issues into works of fiction (e.g., a

movie, a novel).

c) Use literary tools to elaborate personal experiences: description,

metaphor, rhyme, etc.

d) Use narrative techniques for advancing the story. (For instance: “a

hero can only fail twice; the third time it should work.”)

e) Help to establish a context in which alternative, suppressed, discourses

can be expressed (e.g. a Pirate Radio that transmits unconventional or

revolutionary ideas).

f) Work with genre: Frame an experience as a genre; use the genre’s

attributes as a means to advance the story: (“Your Hero cannot die

here, because the plot will get stuck too soon; or if he does,

something needs to happen after death...”). Switch genres.

15
 g) Ride on accurate metaphors – find concrete ways of expressing them

and allow them to unfold and mutate.

h) Use universal stories to link personal experiences or issues with

collective symbols (See Gersie & King, 1990; Gersie, 1991, 1997;

Lahad, 2000).

5th Key: Response to dramatic reality

Upon returning from Neverland, the first thing that little Michael says is:

“Let me see father,” and then adds in frank disappointment, “He is not so big as

the pirate I killed” (Peter Pan, p.169).

The return from dramatic reality – just like coming back home from a

journey – frequently elicits comments, reactions, thoughts, feelings, etc. The

response does not necessarily have to be elaborate and verbal: A child may just

say,”That was fun…!” or the vitality of her smile may say that for her. Whether

spoken or unspoken, a response is usually there; and as Johnson (1981) points

out, people’s attitude towards their performance in dramatic reality may reflect

their view of themselves and their accomplishments in the real world. Thus, this

is the key where value-judgments are created and perpetuated. Furthermore,

this is where the therapeutic worth of drama therapy is evaluated – asserted or

discarded.

16
 This key is charged when the journey to dramatic reality is minimized or

dismissed by the client upon return. Sometimes, people are perceived as being

engaged in dramatic reality, but would comment on it with sarcasm, or deny

their emotional involvement when stepping out of it. Generally, a charge in this

key is not recognized in one meeting, but becomes clear over several sessions.

Occasionally peoples’ response during the session is positive; yet the following

time they report that their work in dramatic reality was of ‘no use or value’ to

them. This may indicate that the person experiences difficulties in translating

positive outcomes in dramatic reality into real life accomplishments. In many

cases, this is connected to the presence of a critical inner figure that is tacitly

‘sitting in the audience’, invalidating the therapeutic process.

Both the fifth and the sixth keys refer to occurrences that take place

outside of dramatic reality. Thus the main intervention strategy here is to bring

the contents inside dramatic reality, so that they can be worked out.

Ideas for intervention in the 5th key: Bringing the censor to the limelight/

fostering helpful criticism

a) Make sure you leave plenty of room to process the experience in dramatic

reality. Raise the issue, extending an invitation to deal with it in dramatic

reality. (This turns it into a theme that can be explored through any of the

ideas presented in the 4th key: “Last time you seemed so moved by what

17
 we did, and yet today it feels “useless.” Is this a known pattern to you?

What would you call this pattern?”

b) Set up a game that brings the harsh Critic to participate in dramatic

reality. For instance, invite the client to evaluate what was done in

dramatic reality: “On a scale from 1-to-10 (1= insignificant/ 10 = very

meaningful) how would you grade what we did in this session?”

c) Bring the criticism into dramatic reality by transforming it into a character,

and developing it as in the 3rd key, using character work. “Imagine these

sarcastic comments were said by a character, what would he or she look

like? What kind of voice would they have?”

d) Create a visual image of the censor; make three desired changes on it.

e) Find out who could be the censor’s antagonist and develop it as a

character (as in Landy’s (2000) notion of the counter role.)

f) Find an appropriate fictional work that resonates with the client’s inner

critic, and work on it.

6th Key: The subtext and the meta-reality

This key is most elusive, as its contents are by and large unelaborated,

evasive, and even inexpressible. The subtext is what lies underneath a text, what

cannot be said or done, what is veiled and only obliquely expressed. According to

Cuddon (1991), it refers to the marginal, hinted at, or ambiguous aspects of a

18
text. In drama therapy, the text can be gathered from two sources: the

therapeutic encounter (ordinary reality) and the as if (dramatic reality). These

operate like two parallel channels of ‘here and now’ in constant and open

interaction. There is a flow of contents from one to the other, so that usually

texts that cannot be articulated in ordinary reality find expression in dramatic

reality. However, on occasions, the flow is blocked, thus generating a meta-level

of subtext. Meta-reality is the place that harbors all the contents that cannot be

channeled via the open conduits. This is the level at which transference and

counter-transference processes operate. Still, this key is not exclusively about

transference processes: Other intangible factors may be at work in a therapeutic

encounter, affecting people in a subtle, imprecise, manner – such as a national

event, social tension, or even climatic influences.

A charge in this key may be perceived in the form of intuitions or vague

feelings, which have an almost ethereal quality. When these are acknowledged

at any of the communication channels, their hidden influence gradually dissipates

or gives way to meaningful therapeutic work. It is only when denied recognition

in both planes that these contents may settle as subtext. For example, a child

may not talk directly about an experience of abuse to his therapist; yet if the

issue appears in dramatic reality, it would be considered by the drama therapist

as a text which calls for interventions on the 4th key (theme). On the other hand,

if the child does not bring up the issue neither in the ordinary interaction with

the therapist nor in dramatic reality, this content is likely to create a subtext

19
level. A sensitive therapist would soon get a hunch that “something connected to

abuse is going on here” – although he or she cannot explain why.

It is important to point out that this key is not always at work in drama

therapy. Having two levels of outlet allows for many contents to find their way

into dramatic reality – which is a more flexible and tolerable place to express the

inexpressible. Yet when the subtext is trapped in meta-reality, all the other keys

do not function properly. It then becomes a priority for the drama therapist to

intervene directly in this key.

Ideas for intervention in the 6th key: Release the subtext from meta-reality

There are two main roads for intervention in this key, concurrent with the two

levels of reality:

1) Find avenues for allowing the contents to emerge in dramatic reality:

a) Use aesthetically distanced approaches (e.g., use fictional works that

resonate with the theme, create fictional stories)

b) Use techniques that activate the right-brain function (moving or

drawing with eyes closed, guided imagery, etc.)

c) Introduce the issue through therapist involvement in dramatic reality:

take a role that gives it a voice in the enactment.

20
2) Bring up the contents outside of dramatic reality

a) Raise the issue with the client, as it is done in verbal psychotherapy.

b) Bring up the issue in supervision: Meta-reality usually changes form

when elaborated. This is not only due to possible counter-transference

processes, but also to the fact that awareness and alertness by the

therapist contribute to bring underlying themes to light.

Case Example

Marta (not her real name) was referred to me by her former

psychoanalyst, after more than two years of fruitless treatment. A single woman

in her forties, Marta was a devout Catholic who lived with her family of origin,

had a secretarial job, and had never had a romantic relationship or a sexual

partner in her life. She was lonely and resentful, and suffered from an extremely

low level of self-esteem. She dressed in a very formal and uptight manner, and

seemed unable to relax inside her clothes.

In our first session, she told me about her anger towards her family, and

her feelings of isolation and inadequacy. She complained that nobody had ever

showed any respect for her or loved her. As she spoke, she began to cry, and

continued to speak while sobbing helplessly for the rest of the meeting. At the

end, she said she felt “much better;” we talked about people with whom she had

21
a good emotional connection, and I asked her to bring a list of them for the next

time.

The following session, she didn’t bring the list; instead, she wanted to talk

about something that had happened at work with her job mates. A similar scene

then took place: As she recalled the situation, she began to cry while speaking,

and wept inconsolably for the entire session. At this point I realized that it was

almost impossible for me to interject anything: I felt restricted in my ability to

intervene: Any suggestions I tried to make hit a wall of anger and tears. I felt

useless as a drama therapist, as Marta allowed no incursions into dramatic

reality. I wondered if this pattern was related to her previous experience in

therapy, and questioned if (like her former therapist) I would be unable to help

her too.

The third time, Marta began immediately by complaining about the

people in the Church she belonged to. However, as I saw the pattern repeating

itself, I interrupted her and brought up my reflections about the former sessions.

(6th key: Raising the contents outside dramatic reality). I said I had the feeling

that my capacity to use my skills as a drama therapist with her was limited. I

talked about how drama therapy worked, and asked her if she’d like to try out.

Marta looked quite surprised, but she agreed.

Entrance into dramatic reality was done through projective work: Using

Moreno’s (1987) concept of the social atom, I asked her draw her significant

social relationships on a paper (1st key: finding the EPR form that smoothes the

22
passage). As Marta had numerous complaints about the people surrounding her,

I invited her to ‘dissect’ the resentful part of her, and describe it as if it was a

character (3rd key: translating feelings into a character.) During the next few

sessions we explored this character: We interviewed it, named it ‘the Old

Grumbler’, and wrote the character’s script: “Your life is shallow; you’ll amount to

nothing…”

Although Marta’s agreement to participate in dramatic reality marked a

breakthrough in the therapeutic process, the quality of the dramatic reality that

she created was fragile: She moved out of it very easily, signaling a charge in the

2nd key. In order to improve the quality, I suggested co-creating a story about a

woman living under the dominance of an ‘Old Grumbler’. I initiated the telling by

assembling the material we had been exploring so far, in a fairy-tale fashion. We

advanced the story by alternating the ‘talking stick’ between us (2nd key: altering

the style: from personal to fictional, from performer to narrator). Throughout

several sessions we worked on the story – by means of narration, drama,

creative writing, etc. In each instance, my leading criterion for choosing the form

was to use one that would help to sustain a good enough quality of dramatic

reality.

As this was gradually achieved, the focus of my interventions shifted to

the 4th key: advancing the plot: The woman in the story had tried to break free

from the Old Grumbler several times. Each time she did, there was a cathartic

sense of enthusiasm and hope; however, each time she was defeated again. For

23
instance, at some point she decided to do something good for herself, like

“buying some new clothes.” (This scene was explored in movement: 2nd key:

changing the EPR mode – from projection to embodiment). At first she was very

happy with her new look, but after a while “she realized that she still felt ugly

and fat and nobody loved her.” After a couple of fruitless attempts, I told Marta

that a fairy-tale can go around in circles only for a couple of times, for it is the

nature of stories like this to find a breakthrough (4th key: using the genre’s

attributes to advance the plot). We talked about the difference between stories

and life, and agreed to work on ‘bettering the story’. I took the narrative lead by

saying that “…although the woman felt lost because she had found none who

would say anything good about her, there was actually one being in the

immeasurable universe, who loved her dearly and could speak kindly of her.”

And Marta added: “her Guardian Angel”.

Finding the Guardian Angel (3rd key: introducing necessary characters)

was a major therapeutic breakthrough. Among other things, the exploration of

this character involved finding an appropriate outfit for it, and the creation of a

script. Embodying the Guardian Angel was a strong emotional experience for

Marta, as the Angel expressed a lot of pain, but also tenderness and compassion

towards the woman in the story. He wrote her a letter, from which Marta created

a series of affirmations for herself, which she carried in her purse.

Concurrent with the progress at the level of dramatic reality, there were

some noticeable changes in Marta’s life: She bought new clothes, participated in

24
a series of workshops, started dating with a man, and talking about living on her

own. The therapeutic process went on for a few more months, in which we were

able to address body-related issues, communication patterns, and family issues

at a level of depth that differed significantly from the ineffective ventilation of

feelings that Marta engaged in when she first came in. In Marta’s case, it is clear

that her exposure to the possibilities offered by dramatic reality constituted a

paramount therapeutic force. The use of the 6-Key Model supported my

understanding of her process as it developed, and was a guidance that

accompanied me through it.

Conclusion

The case of Marta exemplifies the way in which drama therapy processes

are inextricably linked to dramatic reality, highlighting the need to observe all the

aspects pertaining to it in order to be attuned to the pulse of the therapy.

Marta’s therapeutic progress was reflected by transformations in her handling of

dramatic reality: Her entrance into dramatic reality marked a shift from helpless,

self-defeating behavior, to openness and interpersonal contact. As her capacity

to inhabit the as if expanded she began to experience her creative potential as a

real strength. The change in the quality/style of dramatic reality (from personal

to fictional story) offered her the aesthetic distance she needed in order explore

new possibilities, and break away from old and unhelpful patterns. My choice of

25
the fairy-tale genre was a therapeutic intervention which aimed at instilling some

hope and ‘magic charm’ in Marta’s narrative – which tended to present life as a

pre-determined and inexorable failure. Furthermore, Marta’s case illustrates that

interventions in the form keys (1st and 2nd keys) may influence the contents that

clients bring into the therapeutic setting, thus supporting the idea that aesthetic

choices may have therapeutic implications.

Drama therapy processes are multi-layered and complex: They require the

therapist to be active and alert at once to several planes of reality; furthermore,

they call for dynamic interventions at the level of form, content, and occurrences

that take place outside of dramatic reality. The 6-Key Model is a practical tool

that functions like a working map which allows the therapist to survey drama

therapy processes and structure the therapeutic work. By presenting an overall

picture of the situation, the model signals at specific keys where therapeutic

interventions would be most effective. Since each key touches on a different

aspect of drama therapy, the model intersects with other drama therapy and

psychotherapy approaches, thus different outlooks and various ways of doing

drama therapy can be incorporated.

Acknowledgements

I should like to thank drama therapist Galila Oren, M.A., for her valuable

comments on the manuscript.

26
References

Barrie, J. M. (1995) {1911}. Peter Pan. Surrey, U.K.: Penguin Popular Classics.

Blatner, A. & Blatner, A (1988). Foundations of psychodrama: History, theory,

and practice. New York: Springer.

Campbell, J. (1972) The hero with a thousand faces. Princeton: Princeton U.P.

Cattanach, A. (1992). Playtherapy and dramatic play with young children who

have been abused. In S. Jennings, (Ed.), Dramatherapy: Theory and

practice 2 (pp.137-149). London: Routledge.

Cox, M. & Theilgaard, A. (1987) Mutative metaphors in psychotherapy. London:

Tavistock.

Cuddon, J. A. (1991) The Penguin dictionary of literary terms and literary theory.

London: Penguin.

Duggan, M. & Grainger, R. (1997). Imagination, identification and catharsis in

theatre and therapy. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Emunah, R. (1994) Acting for real: Drama therapy process, technique, and

performance. New York: Brunner/Mazel.

Gersie, A. & King, N. (1990). Storymaking in education and therapy. London:

Jessica Kingsley.

Gersie, A. (1991). Storymaking in bereavement: Dragons fight in the meadow.

London: Jessica Kingsley.

27
Gersie, A. (1997). Reflections on therapeutic storymaking: The use of stories in

groups. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Jenkyns, M. (1996). The play's the thing: Exploring text in drama and therapy.

London: Routledge.

Jennings, S. (1998). Introduction to dramatherapy: Theatre and healing. London:

Jessica Kingsley.

Jennings, S. (2004). Creative storytelling with children at risk. Oxon, UK:

Speechmark.

Johnson, D. R. (1981) Some diagnostic implications of drama therapy. In G.

Schattner & R. Courtney (Eds.), Drama in therapy, (Vol. II, pp.13-33).

New York: Drama Book Specialists.

Johnson, D. R. (1991). Theory and technique of transformation in drama

therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 18, 285-300.

Johnson, D. R. (2000). Developmental transformations: Towards the body as

presence. In Lewis, P. and Johnson, D.R. (Eds.), Current approaches in

drama therapy (pp.87-110). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Jones, E. (1963). Treatment of the neuroses: Psychotherapy from rest cure to

psychoanalysis. New York: Shocken Books.

Jones, P. (1996). Drama as therapy: Theatre as living. London: Routledge.

Lahad, M. (2000). Creative supervision. London: Jessica Kingsley.

Landy, R. (1993). Persona and performance: The meaning of role in drama,

therapy, and everyday life. New York: The Guilford Press.

28
Landy, R. (1996). A taxonomy of roles: A blueprint for the possibilities of being.

In R. Landy Essays in dramatherapy: The double life (pp.111-136). London:

Jessica Kingsley.

Landy, R. (1997). The case of Sam: Application of the taxonomy of roles to

assessment, treatment and evaluation. In S. Jennings (Ed.), Dramatherapy:

Theory and practice 3 (pp.128-142). London: Routledge.

Landy, R. (2000). Role theory and the role method of drama therapy. In Lewis,

P. and Johnson, D.R. (Eds.), Current approaches in drama therapy (pp.50-

69). Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Moreno, J.L. (1987). In J. Fox (Ed.), The essential Moreno: Writings on

psychodrama, group method, and spontaneity by J.L/ Moreno. New York:

springer.

Pendzik, S. (2003). Six keys for assessment in drama therapy. Arts in

Psychotherapy, 30, 91-99.

Pendzik, S. (2006). On dramatic reality and its therapeutic function in drama

therapy. Arts in Psychotherapy, 33, 271-280.

Pendzik, S. (2008). Dramatic resonances: A technique of intervention in drama

therapy, supervision, and training. Arts in Psychotherapy, 35, 217-223.

Stanislavski, K. (1936). An actor prepares. New York: Theatre Arts.

Wehr, D. (1988) Jung and feminism: Liberating archetypes. London: Routledge.

White, M. & Epston, D. (1990). Narrative means to therapeutic ends. New York:

Norton.

29
Winnicott, D. W. (1971). Playing and reality. London: Tavistock.

Yalom, I. (1975). The theory and practice of group psychotherapy. New York:

Basic Books.

30